Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in 
but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV 
was confusing and too complicated.

I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish people 
or for all people.

Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries manage 
OK so are the people wrong or the system?

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Nature Girl - Carl Hiaasen
Villages - John Updike

Wm... wrote:
> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in
> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV
> was confusing and too complicated.
>
> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish people
> or for all people.
>
> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?

No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems simultaneously - 
one system on one ballot paper and a totally different one on the other 
paper.
-- 
John Briggs

In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
John Briggs  said
> Wm... wrote:
>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>
>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>> people or for all people.
>>
>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>
> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
> different one on the other paper.

I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very confusing and 
they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.


-- 
kat
     >^..^<

On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
 wrote:

>In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>John Briggs  said
>> Wm... wrote:
>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>
>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>> people or for all people.
>>>
>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>
>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>> different one on the other paper.
>
>I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very confusing and 
>they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.

Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
to happen, and it did.

Then the automated counting system broke, but that's to be
expected in any government-funded system involving
computers.

Other than that it was perfect.

-- 
John Bean

On Fri, 4 May 2007 03:30:22 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish people 
>or for all people.

The Scots are used to being fucked over by such methods, so if 100,000
couldn't work it out, I fear the rest of the 'UK' would do somewhat
worse.

>Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries manage 
>OK so are the people wrong or the system?

UKV don't promote three different concepts on one single paper.

At 16:51:07 on Fri, 4 May 2007, Mother  wrote in 
:

>The Scots are used to being fucked over by such methods, so if 100,000
>couldn't work it out, I fear the rest of the 'UK' would do somewhat
>worse.

Very true.

>UKV don't promote three different concepts on one single paper.

Indeed, it shows a sad lack of imagination on the part of UKV.  I should 
have thought of it myself during my time serving there.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>  wrote:
>
>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>> John Briggs  said
>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>>>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>>>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>
>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>> different one on the other paper.
>>
>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.
>
> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
> to happen, and it did.

No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the same 
time - and each with different instructions.
-- 
John Briggs

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>> John Briggs  said
>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>>>>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>>>>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>
>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.
>>
>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>> to happen, and it did.
>
>No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the same 
>time - and each with different instructions.

That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
understood what he was describing or even if he understood
himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
voters.

-- 
John Bean

On Fri, 4 May 2007 17:44:12 +0100, Molly Mockford put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>At 16:51:07 on Fri, 4 May 2007, Mother  wrote in 
>:
>
>>The Scots are used to being fucked over by such methods, so if 100,000
>>couldn't work it out, I fear the rest of the 'UK' would do somewhat
>>worse.
>
>Very true.
>
>>UKV don't promote three different concepts on one single paper.
>
>Indeed, it shows a sad lack of imagination on the part of UKV.  I should 
>have thought of it myself during my time serving there.

It is possible to have a multi-part ballot with some parts being
yes/no and others being ranked options. So two different concepts on
one paper is possible (although, in one sense, yes/no is merely a
ranking vote where the only possible ranks are 1 and 2), but as we
don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes then three concepts
on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.

Mark
-- 
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Time is tickin' and we can't go back"

In  on Fri, 04 May
2007 18:24:44 +0100, John Bean  wrote:

>That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
>three polls - with two on one paper.

That's correct.

I suppose one could say it all went off very smoothly, with a
couple of glitches -

* They had problems getting the ballot papers out. Around 20% of
all postal votes didn't arrive.

* They had problems with the vote. The conbination of two entirely
different systems of voting confused many people. Somewhere
between 100/150 thousand votes were rejected as "spoiled". To put
that figure in context, the total population is only just over 5
million.

* They had problems counting the votes. The systems kept breaking
down and the counts in several major counting centres - including
the one in the Capital - had to be suspended.

Expect a full independent judicial enquiry.

They should have called in UKV :)

-- 
DG

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> John Bean wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>>> John Briggs  said
>>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results
>>>>>> coming in but something that struck me was the POV by some
>>>>>> commentators that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>>
>>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.
>>>
>>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>>> to happen, and it did.
>>
>> No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the
>> same time - and each with different instructions.
>
> That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
> three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
> understood what he was describing or even if he understood
> himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
> voters.

No, the Parliamentary election had two votes - one X in each column (one for 
a person, one for a party).  The local government election (on a different 
paper) had STV.
-- 
John Briggs

In news:mSK_h.9423$615.5037@newsfe7-win.ntli.net,
John Briggs  said
> John Bean wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> John Bean wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>>>> John Briggs  said
>>>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results
>>>>>>> coming in but something that struck me was the POV by some
>>>>>>> commentators that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be
>>>>> doing.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>>>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>>>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>>>> to happen, and it did.
>>>
>>> No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the
>>> same time - and each with different instructions.
>>
>> That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
>> three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
>> understood what he was describing or even if he understood
>> himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
>> voters.
>
> No, the Parliamentary election had two votes - one X in each column
> (one for a person, one for a party).  The local government election
> (on a different paper) had STV.

I think it was the parliamentary vote with the two columns that was 
confusing those I saw posting about it.

-- 
kat
     >^..^<

kat wrote:
> In news:mSK_h.9423$615.5037@newsfe7-win.ntli.net,
> John Briggs  said
>> John Bean wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Bean wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>>>>> John Briggs  said
>>>>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results
>>>>>>>> coming in but something that struck me was the POV by some
>>>>>>>> commentators that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other
>>>>>>>> countries manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>>>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be
>>>>>> doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>>>>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>>>>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>>>>> to happen, and it did.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the
>>>> same time - and each with different instructions.
>>>
>>> That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
>>> three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
>>> understood what he was describing or even if he understood
>>> himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
>>> voters.
>>
>> No, the Parliamentary election had two votes - one X in each column
>> (one for a person, one for a party).  The local government election
>> (on a different paper) had STV.
>
> I think it was the parliamentary vote with the two columns that was
> confusing those I saw posting about it.

Might I put forward, as a hypothesis, that they would have been less 
confused, had they not been trying to cope with an STV ballot form *at the 
same time* ?
-- 
John Briggs

Fri, 4 May 2007 18:54:43  
uk.net.news.management Dick Gaughan 

>* They had problems with the vote. The conbination of two entirely
>different systems of voting confused many people. Somewhere
>between 100/150 thousand votes were rejected as "spoiled". To put
>that figure in context, the total population is only just over 5
>million.

It'll be interesting to see what proportion of the "spoiled" ballots are 
put down to protest votes.  One might expect the systems folk and the 
people responsible for disseminating information prior to and at the 
time of the vote to want to deflect attention away from themselves.

>They should have called in UKV :)

Or the ERS.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Nature Girl - Carl Hiaasen
Villages - John Updike

In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
 writes:

> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in 
> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV 
> was confusing and too complicated.

British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.

-- 
Mike Fleming

On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:27:48 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>[..]but as we don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes 
>then three concepts on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.

Never thought of inviting Cummins into UKV, then?

At 16:07:56 on Mon, 7 May 2007, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> 
wrote in :

>In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
> writes:
>
>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in
>> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV
>> was confusing and too complicated.
>
>British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
>system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.

Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
Two Davids) John Cleese, through his company Video Arts, made a superb 
(and very amusing) video for them on the subject of PR - explaining the 
advantages, explaining the practicalities, explaining how many countries 
already used it. I particularly remember something along the lines of 
"Oh, they cope with it just fine in Ireland, do they?  No, I'm sure it's 
still FAR too difficult for us..."

It's the only Party Political Broadcast I've not only enjoyed watching, 
but looked forward to the repeat.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:33:47 +0100, Mother
 wrote:

>On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:27:48 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>[..]but as we don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes 
>>then three concepts on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.
>
>Never thought of inviting Cummins into UKV, then?

Who broke the Teasmade then? Buy a new one, it's safer than
letting Cummins loose with a kettle and a teabag.

Ah, sorry. I now see your question was rhetorical.
-- 
John Bean

Mon, 7 May 2007 16:33:47  
uk.net.news.management Mother 

>On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:27:48 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>[..]but as we don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes
>>then three concepts on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.
>
>Never thought of inviting Cummins into UKV, then?

Shirley that'd be Singularly Transmitted Divinity?  You vote, I decide 
is the message god gave to me, etc.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Nature Girl - Carl Hiaasen
Villages - John Updike

On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 16:07:56 on Mon, 7 May 2007, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> 
>wrote in :
>
>>In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
>> writes:
>>
>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in
>>> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV
>>> was confusing and too complicated.
>>
>>British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
>>system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.
>
>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
>Two Davids)

Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg

On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:45:54 +0100, James Farrar
 wrote:

>On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:

>>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
>>Two Davids)
>
>Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg

Child!  :-)

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 08:52:13 +0100, Paul Harper  wrote:

|!On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:45:54 +0100, James Farrar
|! wrote:
|!
|!>On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
|!> wrote:
|!
|!>>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
|!>>Two Davids)
|!>
|!>Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
|!>http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg
|!
|!Child!  :-)

I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
between the Liberals and the Conservatives.


-- 
Dave Fawthrop <sf hyphenologist.co.uk> 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg 
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any 
address in the UK.  Contact me on the *above* email address.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2007 08:52:13 +0100, Paul Harper  wrote:
>
>|!On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:45:54 +0100, James Farrar
>|! wrote:
>|!
>|!>On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
>|!> wrote:
>|!
>|!>>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
>|!>>Two Davids)
>|!>
>|!>Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
>|!>http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg
>|!
>|!Child!  :-)
>
>I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
>between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
been an old fart.

-- 
John Bean

On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Bean  wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
><invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
>>between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
>
>I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
>been an old fart.

I bet whichever candidate he was helping lost his deposit.
-- 
Molly

On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:07:56 +0100, Mike Fleming
<{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
> writes:
>
>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in 
>> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV 
>> was confusing and too complicated.
>
>British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
>system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.

Voting is simple.

Counting the votes in an STV system can be complicated. It involves
fractions. This causes non-numerate commentators to panic and deride
the system.

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK

In MsgID on Sat, 5 May 2007 00:15:56 +0100,
in uk.net.news.management, 'Wm...' wrote:
 
>>* They had problems with the vote. The conbination of two entirely
>>different systems of voting confused many people. Somewhere
>>between 100/150 thousand votes were rejected as "spoiled". To put
>>that figure in context, the total population is only just over 5
>>million.
>
>It'll be interesting to see what proportion of the "spoiled" ballots are 
>put down to protest votes.  One might expect the systems folk and the 
>people responsible for disseminating information prior to and at the 
>time of the vote to want to deflect attention away from themselves.

By my preception of our current government, and their main competitors, I
could wonder if the PR folk are doing the reverse. 

I see it as quite possible that they'd wish to write off a mass expression
of disgust at our current system and our inability to break away from it
as nothing more than a 'confusing ballot paper'. The main thing against
that POV is the fact that Scotland already *has* proportional
representation, given that being the only (just about possible) route I
can see to us breaking free of the 'different shades of grey' trap we're
in.

Dave J.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:55:11 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Bean  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>><invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
>>>between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
>>
>>I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
>>been an old fart.
>
>I bet whichever candidate he was helping lost his deposit.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party wasn't formed until 1983.

Mother wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:55:11 +0100, Molly Mockford
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Bean  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>>> <invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a
>>>> pact between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
>>> been an old fart.
>>
>> I bet whichever candidate he was helping lost his deposit.
>
> The Official Monster Raving Loony Party wasn't formed until 1983.

Although Screaming Lord Sutch had been contesting elections since 1963.
-- 
John Briggs

Peter Duncanson wrote:

> Counting the votes in an STV system can be complicated. It involves
> fractions. This causes non-numerate commentators to panic and deride
> the system.
> 
Worse. It usually involves *irrational* fractions...Even scarier for them ;)

Cheers,

Barry

Wm... wrote:
> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in
> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV
> was confusing and too complicated.
>
> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish people
> or for all people.
>
> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?

No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems simultaneously - 
one system on one ballot paper and a totally different one on the other 
paper.
-- 
John Briggs

In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
John Briggs  said
> Wm... wrote:
>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>
>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>> people or for all people.
>>
>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>
> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
> different one on the other paper.

I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very confusing and 
they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.


-- 
kat
     >^..^<

On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
 wrote:

>In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>John Briggs  said
>> Wm... wrote:
>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>
>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>> people or for all people.
>>>
>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>
>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>> different one on the other paper.
>
>I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very confusing and 
>they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.

Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
to happen, and it did.

Then the automated counting system broke, but that's to be
expected in any government-funded system involving
computers.

Other than that it was perfect.

-- 
John Bean

On Fri, 4 May 2007 03:30:22 +0100, "Wm..."
 wrote:

>I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish people 
>or for all people.

The Scots are used to being fucked over by such methods, so if 100,000
couldn't work it out, I fear the rest of the 'UK' would do somewhat
worse.

>Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries manage 
>OK so are the people wrong or the system?

UKV don't promote three different concepts on one single paper.

At 16:51:07 on Fri, 4 May 2007, Mother  wrote in 
:

>The Scots are used to being fucked over by such methods, so if 100,000
>couldn't work it out, I fear the rest of the 'UK' would do somewhat
>worse.

Very true.

>UKV don't promote three different concepts on one single paper.

Indeed, it shows a sad lack of imagination on the part of UKV.  I should 
have thought of it myself during my time serving there.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>  wrote:
>
>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>> John Briggs  said
>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>>>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>>>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>
>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>
>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>
>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>> different one on the other paper.
>>
>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.
>
> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
> to happen, and it did.

No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the same 
time - and each with different instructions.
-- 
John Briggs

On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
 wrote:

>John Bean wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>> John Briggs  said
>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming
>>>>> in but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators
>>>>> that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>
>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>
>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.
>>
>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>> to happen, and it did.
>
>No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the same 
>time - and each with different instructions.

That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
understood what he was describing or even if he understood
himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
voters.

-- 
John Bean

On Fri, 4 May 2007 17:44:12 +0100, Molly Mockford put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>At 16:51:07 on Fri, 4 May 2007, Mother  wrote in 
>:
>
>>The Scots are used to being fucked over by such methods, so if 100,000
>>couldn't work it out, I fear the rest of the 'UK' would do somewhat
>>worse.
>
>Very true.
>
>>UKV don't promote three different concepts on one single paper.
>
>Indeed, it shows a sad lack of imagination on the part of UKV.  I should 
>have thought of it myself during my time serving there.

It is possible to have a multi-part ballot with some parts being
yes/no and others being ranked options. So two different concepts on
one paper is possible (although, in one sense, yes/no is merely a
ranking vote where the only possible ranks are 1 and 2), but as we
don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes then three concepts
on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.

Mark
-- 
Visit: http://www.MotorwayServices.info - read and share comments and opinons
"Time is tickin' and we can't go back"

In  on Fri, 04 May
2007 18:24:44 +0100, John Bean  wrote:

>That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
>three polls - with two on one paper.

That's correct.

I suppose one could say it all went off very smoothly, with a
couple of glitches -

* They had problems getting the ballot papers out. Around 20% of
all postal votes didn't arrive.

* They had problems with the vote. The conbination of two entirely
different systems of voting confused many people. Somewhere
between 100/150 thousand votes were rejected as "spoiled". To put
that figure in context, the total population is only just over 5
million.

* They had problems counting the votes. The systems kept breaking
down and the counts in several major counting centres - including
the one in the Capital - had to be suspended.

Expect a full independent judicial enquiry.

They should have called in UKV :)

-- 
DG

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
>  wrote:
>
>> John Bean wrote:
>>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>>> John Briggs  said
>>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results
>>>>>> coming in but something that struck me was the POV by some
>>>>>> commentators that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>>
>>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be doing.
>>>
>>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>>> to happen, and it did.
>>
>> No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the
>> same time - and each with different instructions.
>
> That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
> three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
> understood what he was describing or even if he understood
> himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
> voters.

No, the Parliamentary election had two votes - one X in each column (one for 
a person, one for a party).  The local government election (on a different 
paper) had STV.
-- 
John Briggs

In news:mSK_h.9423$615.5037@newsfe7-win.ntli.net,
John Briggs  said
> John Bean wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> John Bean wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>>>> John Briggs  said
>>>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results
>>>>>>> coming in but something that struck me was the POV by some
>>>>>>> commentators that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other countries
>>>>>>> manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be
>>>>> doing.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>>>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>>>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>>>> to happen, and it did.
>>>
>>> No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the
>>> same time - and each with different instructions.
>>
>> That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
>> three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
>> understood what he was describing or even if he understood
>> himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
>> voters.
>
> No, the Parliamentary election had two votes - one X in each column
> (one for a person, one for a party).  The local government election
> (on a different paper) had STV.

I think it was the parliamentary vote with the two columns that was 
confusing those I saw posting about it.

-- 
kat
     >^..^<

kat wrote:
> In news:mSK_h.9423$615.5037@newsfe7-win.ntli.net,
> John Briggs  said
>> John Bean wrote:
>>> On Fri, 04 May 2007 17:16:44 GMT, "John Briggs"
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> John Bean wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 4 May 2007 16:07:34 +0100, "kat"
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In news:DCG_h.1654$nN5.90@newsfe1-win.ntli.net,
>>>>>> John Briggs  said
>>>>>>> Wm... wrote:
>>>>>>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results
>>>>>>>> coming in but something that struck me was the POV by some
>>>>>>>> commentators that STV was confusing and too complicated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I couldn't quite work out if it was just confusing for scottish
>>>>>>>> people or for all people.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Makes me wonder, we (uk.*) seem to manage OK and other
>>>>>>>> countries manage OK so are the people wrong or the system?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, the problem in Scotland was simply running two systems
>>>>>>> simultaneously - one system on one ballot paper and a totally
>>>>>>> different one on the other paper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have read people complaining that the ballot paper was very
>>>>>> confusing and they weren't entirely sure what they should be
>>>>>> doing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I read that there were two polls with different voting
>>>>> methods - one with "X", the other numerical ranking - but on
>>>>> a single voting paper. It does sound like a problem waiting
>>>>> to happen, and it did.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was two different voting papers, but to be filled in at the
>>>> same time - and each with different instructions.
>>>
>>> That's not so bad then. One radio report said there were
>>> three polls - with two on one paper. I'm not sure I
>>> understood what he was describing or even if he understood
>>> himself... but I did feel some empathy with the confused
>>> voters.
>>
>> No, the Parliamentary election had two votes - one X in each column
>> (one for a person, one for a party).  The local government election
>> (on a different paper) had STV.
>
> I think it was the parliamentary vote with the two columns that was
> confusing those I saw posting about it.

Might I put forward, as a hypothesis, that they would have been less 
confused, had they not been trying to cope with an STV ballot form *at the 
same time* ?
-- 
John Briggs

Fri, 4 May 2007 18:54:43  
uk.net.news.management Dick Gaughan 

>* They had problems with the vote. The conbination of two entirely
>different systems of voting confused many people. Somewhere
>between 100/150 thousand votes were rejected as "spoiled". To put
>that figure in context, the total population is only just over 5
>million.

It'll be interesting to see what proportion of the "spoiled" ballots are 
put down to protest votes.  One might expect the systems folk and the 
people responsible for disseminating information prior to and at the 
time of the vote to want to deflect attention away from themselves.

>They should have called in UKV :)

Or the ERS.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Nature Girl - Carl Hiaasen
Villages - John Updike

In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
 writes:

> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in 
> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV 
> was confusing and too complicated.

British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.

-- 
Mike Fleming

On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:27:48 +0100, Mark Goodge
 wrote:

>[..]but as we don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes 
>then three concepts on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.

Never thought of inviting Cummins into UKV, then?

At 16:07:56 on Mon, 7 May 2007, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> 
wrote in :

>In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
> writes:
>
>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in
>> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV
>> was confusing and too complicated.
>
>British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
>system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.

Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
Two Davids) John Cleese, through his company Video Arts, made a superb 
(and very amusing) video for them on the subject of PR - explaining the 
advantages, explaining the practicalities, explaining how many countries 
already used it. I particularly remember something along the lines of 
"Oh, they cope with it just fine in Ireland, do they?  No, I'm sure it's 
still FAR too difficult for us..."

It's the only Party Political Broadcast I've not only enjoyed watching, 
but looked forward to the repeat.
-- 
Molly
I don't speak for the Committee.  If I ever do, it will be made
specifically clear.
My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not be so for ever.

On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:33:47 +0100, Mother
 wrote:

>On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:27:48 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>[..]but as we don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes 
>>then three concepts on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.
>
>Never thought of inviting Cummins into UKV, then?

Who broke the Teasmade then? Buy a new one, it's safer than
letting Cummins loose with a kettle and a teabag.

Ah, sorry. I now see your question was rhetorical.
-- 
John Bean

Mon, 7 May 2007 16:33:47  
uk.net.news.management Mother 

>On Fri, 04 May 2007 18:27:48 +0100, Mark Goodge
> wrote:
>
>>[..]but as we don't have any other methods for newsgroup votes
>>then three concepts on one ballot paper is currently out of the question.
>
>Never thought of inviting Cummins into UKV, then?

Shirley that'd be Singularly Transmitted Divinity?  You vote, I decide 
is the message god gave to me, etc.

-- 
Wm ... Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
Recently read and recommended:
Nature Girl - Carl Hiaasen
Villages - John Updike

On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>At 16:07:56 on Mon, 7 May 2007, Mike Fleming <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> 
>wrote in :
>
>>In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
>> writes:
>>
>>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in
>>> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV
>>> was confusing and too complicated.
>>
>>British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
>>system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.
>
>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
>Two Davids)

Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg

On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:45:54 +0100, James Farrar
 wrote:

>On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
> wrote:

>>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
>>Two Davids)
>
>Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg

Child!  :-)

Paul.
-- 
.. Bill Maher: "Tulips aren't flowers, they're gay onions"
.. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
.. Is there a moron carrot above?  Have you replied to it?  Are you sure?
.. EMail: Unless invited to, don't; it's likely to be automatically deleted.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 08:52:13 +0100, Paul Harper  wrote:

|!On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:45:54 +0100, James Farrar
|! wrote:
|!
|!>On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
|!> wrote:
|!
|!>>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
|!>>Two Davids)
|!>
|!>Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
|!>http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg
|!
|!Child!  :-)

I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
between the Liberals and the Conservatives.


-- 
Dave Fawthrop <sf hyphenologist.co.uk> 165 *Free* SF ebooks.
165 Sci Fi books on CDROM, from Project Gutenberg 
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page Completely Free to any 
address in the UK.  Contact me on the *above* email address.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
<invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2007 08:52:13 +0100, Paul Harper  wrote:
>
>|!On Tue, 08 May 2007 03:45:54 +0100, James Farrar
>|! wrote:
>|!
>|!>On Mon, 7 May 2007 17:00:34 +0100, Molly Mockford
>|!> wrote:
>|!
>|!>>Way back in the days of the "SDP/Liberal Alliance" (the Nightmare of the 
>|!>>Two Davids)
>|!>
>|!>Ah, yes, the first memory I have of an election campaign:
>|!>http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/pastelec/87alli.jpg
>|!
>|!Child!  :-)
>
>I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
>between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
been an old fart.

-- 
John Bean

On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Bean  wrote:

>On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
><invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
>>between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
>
>I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
>been an old fart.

I bet whichever candidate he was helping lost his deposit.
-- 
Molly

On Mon, 07 May 2007 16:07:56 +0100, Mike Fleming
<{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <ul7agMD+qpOGFwEW@[127.0.0.1]>, "Wm..."
> writes:
>
>> Dunno if anyone else stayed up to watch the election results coming in 
>> but something that struck me was the POV by some commentators that STV 
>> was confusing and too complicated.
>
>British commentators have been referring to "the complicated STV
>system" when talking about Irish elections for decades.

Voting is simple.

Counting the votes in an STV system can be complicated. It involves
fractions. This causes non-numerate commentators to panic and deride
the system.

-- 
Peter Duncanson, UK

In MsgID on Sat, 5 May 2007 00:15:56 +0100,
in uk.net.news.management, 'Wm...' wrote:
 
>>* They had problems with the vote. The conbination of two entirely
>>different systems of voting confused many people. Somewhere
>>between 100/150 thousand votes were rejected as "spoiled". To put
>>that figure in context, the total population is only just over 5
>>million.
>
>It'll be interesting to see what proportion of the "spoiled" ballots are 
>put down to protest votes.  One might expect the systems folk and the 
>people responsible for disseminating information prior to and at the 
>time of the vote to want to deflect attention away from themselves.

By my preception of our current government, and their main competitors, I
could wonder if the PR folk are doing the reverse. 

I see it as quite possible that they'd wish to write off a mass expression
of disgust at our current system and our inability to break away from it
as nothing more than a 'confusing ballot paper'. The main thing against
that POV is the fact that Scotland already *has* proportional
representation, given that being the only (just about possible) route I
can see to us breaking free of the 'different shades of grey' trap we're
in.

Dave J.

On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:55:11 +0100, Molly Mockford
 wrote:

>On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Bean  wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>><invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a pact
>>>between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
>>
>>I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
>>been an old fart.
>
>I bet whichever candidate he was helping lost his deposit.

The Official Monster Raving Loony Party wasn't formed until 1983.

Mother wrote:
> On Tue, 8 May 2007 18:55:11 +0100, Molly Mockford
>  wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 8 May 2007, John Bean  wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 08 May 2007 09:02:45 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
>>> <invalid@hyphenologist.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I remember as a lad helping at an election c1946 when there was a
>>>> pact between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
>>>
>>> I don't believe you. You were never a lad, you've always
>>> been an old fart.
>>
>> I bet whichever candidate he was helping lost his deposit.
>
> The Official Monster Raving Loony Party wasn't formed until 1983.

Although Screaming Lord Sutch had been contesting elections since 1963.
-- 
John Briggs

Peter Duncanson wrote:

> Counting the votes in an STV system can be complicated. It involves
> fractions. This causes non-numerate commentators to panic and deride
> the system.
> 
Worse. It usually involves *irrational* fractions...Even scarier for them ;)

Cheers,

Barry