tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-42474359207219964552024-03-14T22:14:50.407+13:00What Not To Discuss At PartiesPolitics, religion, and all the other stuff that's too interesting for small talkAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00210715697458835588noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4247435920721996455.post-77738033241216403642014-09-23T15:23:00.002+12:002014-09-24T09:46:29.783+12:00The Left would be no better off if everyone had votedLast Saturday, 20 September 2014, New Zealand held a General Election to decide who would be our government for the next three years.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We vote using the Mixed-Member Proportional (MMP) system, which ensures that every party gets a proportion of the 121 seats in parliament roughly equal to its share of the vote - and sometimes, a seat or two will get added to make the proportions closer. There's rarely a majority for any one party, and usually a few parties have to work together to get a majority of Parliament to vote for any changes.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
For the last six years, the Government has been led by the National party. They're on the right-wing side of our fence, though their policies are probably about level with the Democrats in America. (I'm not going to quibble about who's actually "left" or "right" and who's more "centrist"; this is the spectrum as seen by the majority of New Zealanders.)</div>
<div>
<br />
There were nine main parties in this election:<br />
<ul>
<li>National (the main right-wing party)</li>
<li>ACT (right)</li>
<li>Conservatives (right, but have never been in Parliament, and were a bit too loony for the other right-wing parties to publicly support)</li>
<li>United Future (one centrist <strike>sycophant</strike> swing member who has historically allied himself with whomever happens to be in charge)</li>
<li>The Maori Party (probably left wing, but will team up with the Government to ensure their interests are served, which I feel is fair enough)</li>
<li>Internet Mana (an alliance of Mana, a left-wing party in Opposition last term, and the Internet Party, a newly formed party not exactly on the left but definitely anti-National)</li>
<li>New Zealand First (has swung mostly to the left in recent decades)</li>
<li>The Greens (left)</li>
<li>Labour (the main left-wing party)</li>
</ul>
<div>
And six that were officially listed, but were too small for a mainstream campaign:</div>
<ul>
<li>Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party</li>
<li>Ban 1080</li>
<li>Democrats for Social Credit</li>
<li>The Civilian Party (satirical)</li>
<li>NZ Independent Coalition</li>
<li>Focus New Zealand</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
National won this election as well. They have enough seats to govern alone, but will probably team up with ACT, United Future, and the Maori party.</div>
<div>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqkNYSPqCh0XeNgTWLIAjQeZwdgf22PKQLhyphenhypheneC4YG9v6JsazLwW2pICDd7Y9DeZJhvaf26OfczEpcoXL3fdwg7tDSortWKLx8FsnPIUUCEDudsHG1e13lNu8n87vbSQJRv_s7L2Y3X3ik/s1600/Actual.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqkNYSPqCh0XeNgTWLIAjQeZwdgf22PKQLhyphenhypheneC4YG9v6JsazLwW2pICDd7Y9DeZJhvaf26OfczEpcoXL3fdwg7tDSortWKLx8FsnPIUUCEDudsHG1e13lNu8n87vbSQJRv_s7L2Y3X3ik/s1600/Actual.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Actual proportion of seats in Parliament</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The thing is that out of 3 096 247 registered voters, 2 102 671 votes have been counted (at this stage, special votes are still pending, but they aren't likely to add very much more). This equates to 67.91% and is one of our lowest turnouts ever, despite a massive "get out and vote" campaign by the people who run the elections.<br />
<br />
So the Left is a bit unhappy about the results, and says things might have been different if everyone had voted, which is a compelling argument, since 1 010 464 people voted for National, and 993 576 people didn't vote at all. It's a nice thought: what if they'd all voted for Labour...<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjhoYIY4h2JV9WTNKGeAe_Niw0nbcSeF0uwxKheZPah7fD-qt10qaCez45F3ZkYx6O_Gc4thjIeVTVAIjiPAOn9yXK_FkP4kPuWooVcGvOFgu2ErT-ojhxHI69FICNeHR8qbl2srlxomc/s1600/AllLabour.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjhoYIY4h2JV9WTNKGeAe_Niw0nbcSeF0uwxKheZPah7fD-qt10qaCez45F3ZkYx6O_Gc4thjIeVTVAIjiPAOn9yXK_FkP4kPuWooVcGvOFgu2ErT-ojhxHI69FICNeHR8qbl2srlxomc/s1600/AllLabour.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if all non-voters had voted for Labour</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
... or at least <i>someone </i>on our side?<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-hECtldb9DlnksfHKD0zJzRjFH2wQkfICWFhmQZenlDzBrprvsglL6b9vrTX6EAOWMzmGuCuQKgxzT3KUDzpmjtV8ADnChYoGhi6Qnk1sEXq3Z9ldUByZnWYJpoFmNewv-BZvnTEh1lY/s1600/AllLeft.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-hECtldb9DlnksfHKD0zJzRjFH2wQkfICWFhmQZenlDzBrprvsglL6b9vrTX6EAOWMzmGuCuQKgxzT3KUDzpmjtV8ADnChYoGhi6Qnk1sEXq3Z9ldUByZnWYJpoFmNewv-BZvnTEh1lY/s1600/AllLeft.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></div>
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if all non-voters had voted for major left-wing parties<br />
(Labour, Green, NZ First, Internet Mana, and Maori)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But here's the thing. For the most part, non-voters don't vote because in their minds, the effort it will take is greater than the difference it will make. (This may mean they are "undecided", "apathetic", "pointedly abstaining" or "it was raining on the day"; given the opportunities and logistical help available, very few people would have been <i>willing but unable</i> to vote.) If they were forced to vote, they would probably vote at random, and if that were the case, each of the fifteen parties on the official list would have received about one-fifteenth of the non-votes. This would make the proportions a little more even; small parties would get bigger, and big parties smaller.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXc8lhleGglg7AE7xrL9zrw-bQIi9qSUiIYVRb_O15OkysRx89nEqdvDYSTnh3RdsrU-WAnerz0S1tWze8HrHG0N6_tDXC396zM_hyphenhyphenQNVcX1SlaGuaGmuPsqY38Tj4ae8uZCOjo5P1lHM/s1600/Random.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXc8lhleGglg7AE7xrL9zrw-bQIi9qSUiIYVRb_O15OkysRx89nEqdvDYSTnh3RdsrU-WAnerz0S1tWze8HrHG0N6_tDXC396zM_hyphenhyphenQNVcX1SlaGuaGmuPsqY38Tj4ae8uZCOjo5P1lHM/s1600/Random.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if all non-voters had voted completely at random</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Voters on the Left like to say that this isn't likely, because "National supporters are more likely to vote" (that is to say, they'll generally see it as more important than other parties' supporters do, so other factors - such as difficult schedules or unpleasant weather - will not stop them as easily).<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDHB-DtKQvmga572Awh3X_WWfmoGRzfSDE2I0wWEFa7LPsUNk5AWe_YrssiCoqDHyD_HbK7Kx0pLjY5-zFMBuXXFRb5OkVMyQZLpffQkbJnGBDjzHxcgfC1X2byAQiqz1TlMPgZ2tJZnE/s1600/NotNational.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDHB-DtKQvmga572Awh3X_WWfmoGRzfSDE2I0wWEFa7LPsUNk5AWe_YrssiCoqDHyD_HbK7Kx0pLjY5-zFMBuXXFRb5OkVMyQZLpffQkbJnGBDjzHxcgfC1X2byAQiqz1TlMPgZ2tJZnE/s1600/NotNational.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if all non-voters had voted for anyone except National</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Wait, where did the Conservatives suddenly come from? Well, under MMP, everyone gets two votes: an electorate vote and a party vote. The party vote is what determines the approximate proportion of seats in Parliament. But to avoid very small parties holding the Government to ransom, a party must have either 5% of the party vote, or one electorate seat, to get in. The Conservatives won no electorates, but they did get 4.1% of the party vote; with one-fifteenth of the non-votes, they end up with 4.9%, and with one-fourteenth, 5.1%.<br />
<br />
I've also heard that "Labour supporters are the slackest voters" (from a Labour supporter, as it happens). Maybe they would have got a bigger share.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqrniOL85NvqopCFxx7eANlh02M7EobRtEfLAFTephmfUipsRJjiJrLE1ODmYLmP-Y7O1jlBwowTLCadNTPr5pDaPGURhunj0QcLtLUvhTHstA5zGVP4xjmMHJuBy6iF7F1LZL-6WtUwc/s1600/MoreForLabour.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqrniOL85NvqopCFxx7eANlh02M7EobRtEfLAFTephmfUipsRJjiJrLE1ODmYLmP-Y7O1jlBwowTLCadNTPr5pDaPGURhunj0QcLtLUvhTHstA5zGVP4xjmMHJuBy6iF7F1LZL-6WtUwc/s1600/MoreForLabour.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if twice as many non-voters had voted for Labour as any other party</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But maybe that's not restricted to Labour supporters; maybe all the Left really are a bunch of layabouts, as the Right likes to say (or <i>do </i>they? I've mostly heard that sentiment put in the mouths of the Right <i>by</i> the Left).<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWB4FCKwStDNvQ_LKNUwW6UrbHmElME4Obbru-fHGq1pyyFbqEoe2NOMyjqJqv79HLPPiCGxT4XXWzwo7DNwoLOaGXA4ZLJDGcIm3QQVtSKWGWrJ4roVrKk0jLIIdPAIzlVajRx8XehpA/s1600/MoreForLeft.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWB4FCKwStDNvQ_LKNUwW6UrbHmElME4Obbru-fHGq1pyyFbqEoe2NOMyjqJqv79HLPPiCGxT4XXWzwo7DNwoLOaGXA4ZLJDGcIm3QQVtSKWGWrJ4roVrKk0jLIIdPAIzlVajRx8XehpA/s1600/MoreForLeft.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if major left-wing parties received twice as many non-votes as other parties</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
That <i>almost</i> seems like a feasible win for the Left - but I think "twice as many" might be on the generous side; I wouldn't expect the split to be that pronounced. If the weight drops to 1.5 (three left non-votes to every two right), each of those parties loses a seat, and the balance of power swings back to the right again. (And remember, this is still if <i>everyone</i> votes.)<br />
<br />
Non-voters would quite likely not vote completely at random, though, but for someone they'd at least heard of before. Here, the six parties not shown on the charts actually get no extra votes, and the nine parties that <i>are </i>here get one-ninth each.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVXvgU3XEKifM-KlfrOYExjhb3Llx6KIgumJqAaMWH1bHcR7de9iXtJObfCJdXk4JgjRspxlrsMwAMZ2CHn7-9KfzHqxquqjU6aK6O3csWaz4CksYoWMeIJ6dCiea2Ki8v2MAO_jkufkI/s1600/Campaigned.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVXvgU3XEKifM-KlfrOYExjhb3Llx6KIgumJqAaMWH1bHcR7de9iXtJObfCJdXk4JgjRspxlrsMwAMZ2CHn7-9KfzHqxquqjU6aK6O3csWaz4CksYoWMeIJ6dCiea2Ki8v2MAO_jkufkI/s1600/Campaigned.png" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Proportion of seats if non-voters had voted for a party with a mainstream campaign</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
So in almost every feasible case of "everyone votes", the Right still wins - mostly depending on who the swing parties choose to ally themselves with, and with National always being the biggest single party, they certainly <i>look </i>the most stable.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">NB. I have taken the number of votes from the official list, but applied my own calculations to them, so the number of seats may differ very slightly. Probably not by more than 1, though.</span></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00210715697458835588noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4247435920721996455.post-71741495030092409982014-04-28T12:25:00.000+12:002014-04-28T12:25:19.148+12:00About the Author<h2>
Introduction</h2>
My name is Patrick. I intend to use this blog as a platform to air my more complicated thought processes on a number of topics, including politics, religion, science, feminism, and - as the title describes - all the things that are generally considered too profound to discuss at parties.<br />
… although most of the parties I've been to are full of people that are more interested in those sorts of things than in small talk.<br />
I find it easier to express myself in writing than in spoken discussions, because I have more time to think.<br />
Many of the things I will want to talk about will be controversial, and I want to be as objective as possible. Obviously I won't entirely succeed, since I can only write from a specific context, but I'll do my best.<br />
<h3>
Disclosure of potential privileges</h3>
I'm well aware of the concept of privilege, so I want to make sure that my readers are aware of my context and can pull me up if they feel my privileges are stopping me from discussing a topic objectively. I am:<br />
<ul>
<li>white</li>
<li>English-speaking</li>
<li>Western</li>
<li>a born citizen of my country</li>
<li>male</li>
<li>cis</li>
<li>heterosexual (possibly <a href="http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/demisexual" title="Sexually attracted to people only after a strong emotional bond has been formed.">demisexual</a> as well)</li>
<li>married</li>
<li>well-off</li>
<li>Christian</li>
<li>young</li>
<li>academic</li>
<li>able-bodied</li>
<li>neurotypical</li>
</ul>
<h3>
Disclosure of potential biases</h3>
Another thing I want to try to be aware of is confirmation and disconfirmation biases: where I overemphasise stuff I agree with and overlook stuff I disagree with. I suppose I'm much less likely to be able to identify these before they come up, but here are a few things I agree with, and might be biased towards:<br />
<ul>
<li>Centre-left politics</li>
<li>Environmentalism</li>
<li>Moderate christianity</li>
<li>Feminism</li>
<li><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_parenting">Attachment parenting</a></li>
</ul>
And against, in some cases because of personal history:<br />
<ul>
<li>Fundamentalism</li>
<li>Atheism</li>
<li>Conservatism</li>
<li>Pop culture</li>
<li>Hippies</li>
</ul>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00210715697458835588noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4247435920721996455.post-81365914057685032282014-03-28T00:13:00.002+13:002014-03-28T00:13:59.280+13:00I know the purpose of life<h3>And it's really, really simple</h3>
<p>And I'm not the first one to figure this out, either, but hey. It bears repeating.</p>
<p>All life strives to do just one thing. Every action taken, every joule of energy stored or spent by any living thing - be it virus, tree, mushroom, or cow - is done so solely in the hope of nothing more than this:</p>
<p><em>Continuing to live.</em></p>
<p>That's it. That's why you're here. Hey, look! You're already doing it!</p>
<p>Now that you know that, you're free to go pursue whatever goals you want. Go on. And quit worrying about whether you're fulfilling your purpose in life by doing so, because the answer to that will always be "yes".</p>
<img src="http://nowitmakessense.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/3531244_700b_v1.jpg" />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00210715697458835588noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4247435920721996455.post-19626593406386764562014-03-18T10:57:00.002+13:002014-03-18T13:44:42.141+13:00Commandment 3<a href="http://www.coffeewithjesus.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-pkP-jIBWF-4/UyBp4L4eL_I/AAAAAAAAIKQ/h8GTOB2LOho/s1600/coffeewithjesus716.jpg" /></a>
<blockquote>
Thou shalt not take the name of the L<small>ORD</small> in vain.<br>
— Exodus 20:7 (KJV)
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Let God be true, but every man a liar.<br>
— Romans 3:4 (KJV)<br>
[For the record, "every man" includes those who wrote the Bible.]
</blockquote>
<p>Oh my God, we have been getting the Third Commandment badly wrong. Jesus Christ. Et cetera.</p>
<p>Back in 2000 – around about the time I became disillusioned with fundamentalism – I was at a youth group meeting, and someone sarcastically said this in the middle of a conversation: "Yeah, 'cause I want my name being used as a <em>swear word</em>." It got me thinking…</p>
<p>It suddenly occurred to me just how weird it would be if someone were to use my name as a swear word, and exactly how I'd feel about it. (Just imagine: someone, in surprise or annoyance, yelling out "Patrick!") I wouldn't be upset, not even remotely. I think the most accurate word to use would be 'bemused'.</p>
<p>So if I, a mere 17-year-old human at the time, wouldn't be upset by that, how petty would it be for God to get upset over it? And God's not petty. No… we must have been interpreting it wrong, including everyone who ever taught my Sunday School classes – and anyone who ever taught theirs, etc – so what else <em>could</em> it mean? </p>
<p>Some translations say 'misuse' instead of 'take in vain'. (If you're a KJV-only <strike>nut</strike> enthusiast and don't accept other translations, well, that's still what it means.) That still makes sense, but it doesn't change the overall interpretation. It's the 'name of the L<small>ORD</small>' part that needs to be re-examined.</p>
<p>When we used to play Cops and Robbers about ten years earlier, we would always shout "stop in the name of the law!" … or there were all those fantasy shows and movies that said things "in the name of the King!" … what did 'name' mean in those cases?</p>
<p>… <em>Authority.</em></p>
<p>"Do not misuse God's authority." That sounds <em>far</em> more important.</p>
<p>
And if that's the case, you wouldn't believe the sheer numbers of people who are guilty of breaking this particular commandment. Here's a short list, just off the top of my head, of people who use religion to oppress, exploit, or mislead:
<ul>
<li>Perpetrators of 'holy' wars, including the Crusades (I would include jihadists here too, but I think Islam split from Judaism before Moses wrote the commandments)</li>
<li>People who use religion as propaganda (I believe the Nazis did, but they weren't alone in that)</li>
<li>Republicans – sorry, Tea Partiers – who use religion to oppress women and non-straight people</li>
<li>Religious leaders who get rich off the (often near-forced) donations of their (usually poor) congregations</li>
<li>Westboro Baptist (seriously, what is wrong with these people's heads?)</li>
</ul>
and on and on and on…
</p>
<p>Of course, this idea has the potential to undermine untold power structures, so it's not likely to be a message well received by the people who are actually doing it. But now that you know, you can recognise the pattern for yourself and try to stay away from those people.</p>
<p>I'll leave you with this:</p>
<blockquote>
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.<br>
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?<br>
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.<br>
— Matthew 7:21-23 (KJV)
</blockquote>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00210715697458835588noreply@blogger.com1