HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:44:32 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia

ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:
>The illegallity of multiple voting I'm refering to is having 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc
>preferances - meaning if your first vote is for someone who isn't one of the
>leading candidates you get to another vote, and then another until you have 
>voted for one of the leading candidates.

No.  Preferential voting ensures that the candidate elected is the one with
a majority (>50%) of votes.  If that is not achieved in a primary vote,
preferences are distributed.

It is useful to think of it as multiples ballots.  If no one wins
(that is, obtain >50% of votes) in the first election, the candidate
who got least votes is eliminated from the ballot, and another
election is held with the remaining candidates.  As many elections as
necessary are held until someone wins an absolute majority.
Everybody gets exactly one vote every time.  In some countries, some
variant of this is actually carried out; so they have numerous polls
before a winner is decided.  What preferential voting does is combine
all these elections into one election.  You're saying, if my first
choice was eliminated and another election was held without him, this
is who I'm going to vote for.

Of course, the analogy is not exact, as you cannot change your vote
from ballot to ballot unless your choice was eliminated.  But it is
misleading to view it as giving some people multiple votes.

--
	Daniel Lam
	Melbourne, Australia

In my opinion, the opinions expressed here are my personal opinions.
From: pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au (Ms D Alexander)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:06:05 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Monash University, Australia.

Lee Naish (lee@munta.cs.mu.oz.au) of the Proportional Representation Soc.
wrote that these would have been the results of the Vic election, had the
Hare Clark PS system been used:
> 
>> 	Lib	Nat	ALP	Other
>> 	40	9	36	3
>> 
>> That is, the coalition would still have won but the Liberals would not
>> have had a majority by themselves.  The ALP would not have been so
>> severely routed, thus being a more effective opposition.  The parliament
>> would also have had some members of smaller parties or independents.

Then Drew Finegan commented:
>
>if you used the same system for the federal election labor would not even be in
>power. And if you look back they probably wouldn't have won any of the recent
>elections.

Lee, if you're reading this, can you comment, as I'm not entirely sure that
Drew is familiar with the system you're advocating?
>
>I find the current system of voting illegal because it affectively allows some
>voters to vote more than once.
>
Drew, presumably you find it unfair, rather than illegal.  The problem of the
disproportionate sizes of electorates does indeed mean that some peoples' votes
turn out to carry more weight than others.  All electoral systems have their
advantages and drawbacks.  I'd certainly like to hear more about Hare Clark PR

Dey


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dey Alexander                   | EUPHORIA BBS (+61-3-569-1572)      | 
| pol253b@monu1.cc.monash.edu.au  | Melbourne's BEST message board!!!  | 
| ayla@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au      | FidoNet 3:632/352                  | 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: harsant@headplant.trl.OZ.AU (Dave Harsant)
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Organization: Telecom Research Labs, Melbourne Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 06:11:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.163432.83@actew.oz.au> ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:
>
>I find the current system of voting illegal because it affectively allows some
>voters to vote more than once.

No it doesn't, it gives you the ability to indicate your preferred choice of
representation, from the most desirable to the least desirable.  I am NOT
voting more than once, I am indicationg my preference.

--
Dave Harsant,
Telecom Australia Research Laboratories  |  d.harsant@trl.oz.au
From: brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
Subject: 24 Hour Bus Lane (was Re: Sydney Harbour Tunnel Update...)
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:56:00 GMT

in article <1992Oct13.043047.11571@physiol.su.OZ.AU>, john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin) says:
> [re 24 hour bus lane on Bridge and Freeway]
> Yeah.  Too bad the damn buses don't run 24 hours.

If I'm not mistaken, both the Nightride services to the North Shore, and the
150 Wynyard - Manly service operate overnight and use the bus lane.

-- 
Brendan Jones  | ACSnet:  brendan@otc.otca.oz.au               | This space
R&D Contractor |   UUCP:  {uunet,mcvax}!otc.otca.oz.au!brendan | for lease
Network Access |  Phone:  (02)287-3128    Fax:  (02)287-3299   | pending new
|||| OTC ||    |  Snail:  GPO Box 7000 Sydney 2001, AUSTRALIA  | .sig
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: fraser@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fraser Wilson)
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:00:24 GMT

ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:

>I find the current system of voting illegal because it affectively allows some
>voters to vote more than once.

Er... immoral?  Unethical?  But surely not illegal.

Fraser.
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: nick@cs.uwa.oz.au (Nick Lewins)
Subject: Re: Information on cards for Craig Shergold
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Distribution: world,aus
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:11:03 GMT

In <1992Oct9.085742.164745@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> plt@cd.dsto.gov.au (Peter Trudinger) writes:
>If someone has a copy of this article, or information on where to find
>a definitive refutation of this story, would you post it to me please?

How about a search of ftp sites via archie:

| parma:~ 1>archie shergold
| 01 Host quartz.rutgers.edu
| 
|     Location: /pub/folklore/shergold.Z
|             File -rw-r--r-- 00034787 1992 Jan 24 00:00:00 GMT shergold.Z
| 
| 02 Host ra.msstate.edu
| 
|     Location: /pub/docs/words-l/Misc/shergold.truth
|             File -rw-r--r-- 00004699 1992 Jun 18 01:19:00 GMT shergold.truth

It looks like the second one is what you want.

Nick.
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: glenn@cs.uwa.oz.au (Glenn Huxtable)
Subject: Re: Information on cards for Craig Shergold
Organization: Dept. Computer Science, University of Western Australia.
Distribution: world,aus
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:15:08 GMT

In <1992Oct9.085742.164745@dstos3.dsto.gov.au> plt@cd.dsto.gov.au (Peter Trudinger) writes:

>Someone I know has recently "discovered" a story about a young boy who has 
>cancer, and who is trying to collect as many business cards as he can ...
>...
>If someone has a copy of this article, or information on where to find
>a definitive refutation of this story, would you post it to me please?

I have sent Peter a copy of Spaf's excellent commentary on the craig shergold
story. If anyone else would like a copy - mail me (no point posting it here).

It's a must for giving to anyone who believes they are doing good by 
propagating this myth.

glenn
-- 
Email  - glenn@cs.uwa.edu.au	  ,-_|\ 			 glenn huxtable
phone  - +61 9 380 2878 	 /     \ 	       dept of computer science
fax    - +61 9 380 1089   	 *_,-._/	university of western australia
                                      v
Xref: sparky aus.followup:305 aus.news:154
From: ph@cs.uow.edu.au (Phillip Herring)
Newsgroups: aus.followup,aus.news
Subject: Re: New Newsgroups. How?
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:53:52 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Dept of Computer Science, Wollongong University, Australia

stuarta@syd.dms.CSIRO.AU (Stuart Andrews, really Geoffrey Breach) writes:

>Can I have some tips on creation of new newsgroups please (at an aus. level)
>Stuff like how/who to actually do it, moderation etc...
>Thanx in adv

There isn't an official protocol for newsgroup creation in aus. Some 
folks out there (usually referred to as 'control freaks') might want you 
to start a mailing list first, wait until traffic there gets to a 
reasonable level, then start some sort of discussion on the net, 
followed by a vote, followed by the actual creation if the vote passes.

My attitude to these people is simple: fuck 'em. Just go ahead 
and create the group. The technical details can be had from your
local news administrator. If they won't play ball, e-mail me and
I'll explain how it's done. Tain't hard.

Newsgroup moderation is generally not warranted in the aus hierarchy 
at this stage.

I have to add this, however: I think that you may want to avoid
your newsgroup creation turning into an egregious fiasco. To this
end, some discussion regarding the newsgroup name and purpose
(conducted in aus.general/followup and maybe aus.news) may be appropriate. 
Other people may have useful contributions to make. (You are, of course,
free to ignore them if you wish. That's up to you.)

Let me just finish this with a quote from the Pope of the aus
hierarchy, K. Robert Elz:

"There are no rules."

Have fun.
-- 

-- Phil.
==========================================================================
        These opinions (c) 1992 Phil Herring (ph@cs.uow.edu.au)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Subject: Re: Information on cards for Craig Shergold
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Distribution: world,aus
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:09:38 GMT

It was in Column 8 in the Sydney Morning Herald one day this week (I
can't remember which day exactly).  As far as I recall, the article said
that it was now in the Guinness Book of Records.
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill)
Subject: Re: keating - our hero!
Organization: Telecom Australia Research Laboratories, Melbourne, Australia
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:47:05 GMT

In article <u855271.718520905@franklin> u855271@franklin.cc.utas.edu.au (Peter
Didlick) writes:
>ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:
>
>>Keating announced yesterday in parliament that the recession finished months
ago
>>and his labour party saved Australia.
>>
>>       [Emotive chest beating stuff removed to save bandwidth :)]
>>       [If you want to read this interesting diatribe then read the original]
>>
>
>I believe that the statement that the recession was over is correct.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of definition.  According to the
official definition as you go on to say, the recession is over.

>Unfortunately that does not mean that the EFFECTS of the recession have
>passed.  I understand that the actual definition of a recession is two
>quarters of negative growth (of GDP).  Therefore as soon as there is a
>quarter where GDP has positive growth then the recession is over.

This brings up the issue of the appropriateness of the technical definition of
recession.  It takes no account of the fact that the population is increasing
so we can all be getting poorer individually while GDP increases because there
are more of us.  It also takes no account of the fact that a few of us are
getting richer while more of us are becoming poorer (unemployed).  It begs the
question what is the purpose of the definition?

I think the definition should be changed in the direction of something that
matters more to most people, such as employment.  For example, a recession
exists if employment (the number of people working) is less than it was at any
previous time.

This is what's happenning now, i.e. employment went down in the last month and
it is either the lowest it has been since the peak in June 1990 or very close
to the lowest.

From an employment point of view, we are still in the bottom of recession.

Before anyone starts talking about UNemployment being a lagging indicator, I'll
remind everyone that while UNemployment is a lagging indictor, EMployment is
not.  Unemployment is a lagging indicactor because of population growth.

>I also believe that there is a technical definition for a depression also.
>Can anyone confirm that this is four quarters of negative growth?
>
>*Stuff about the ALP saving Australia ignored because of political hype*
>
>Onyazall.
>
>Pete.

Chris O'Neill
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: bill@citr.uq.oz.au (Bill Segall)
Subject: Why you shouldn't buy Nestle (Not an urban legend!)
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:20:05 GMT

In <1992Oct8.230648.19597@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au
(Alan Moss) writes:

>I will not comment on Nestles, other than to say they are a high profile
>milk products supplier, and my family does not buy their products if it
>can be avoided.

I will. Nestles senior executives are a bunch of extremely nasty
completely immoral bunch of filth who think that the bottom line profit for
their company is worth more than death to the consumers of their product
not to mention the effects of brain-damage caused by malnutrition. These
people cannot plead ignorance. A consumer-led boycott led them to change
their practice in the 70s and a code-of-ethics was forced upon them by the
UN.

Nestles are violating this code and are killing and maiming people
as a result.

Buying nestles products can always be avoided. It took five years for me to
resume buying Nestles products last time. This time I will give it a
decade. Realistically the only way to stop these scum is hurt their
profits. Boycott the filth! If you don't, you are part of the problem.

True *and* in the public interest. Go ahead make my day.

Bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Centre for Information Technology Research | email: bill@citr.uq.oz.au
  University of Queensland, 4072             | phone: +61 7 365 4321
  Queensland, Australia                      | fax:   +61 7 365 4399
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (Alan Moss)
Subject: Re: Why you shouldn't buy Nestle (Is this an urban legend?)
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:06:48 GMT

kerry@citr.uq.oz.au (Kerry Raymond) writes:

>The infant-formula-in-developing countries was a big issue in the 1970s
>and perhaps earlier (for many of the reasons given at length in all of
>those articles). Nestles was definitely regarded as one of the major
>culprits (rightly or wrongly, I don't know) and was boycotted back at
>that time.

>From memory, the World Health Organization (or similar) developed a
>code of practice for promoting infant formula in those countries
>to which Nestles and a number of other companies agreed to abide by.

>Is this Nestles story really happening in the 1990s or are we dealing
>with an urban legend on the rebound?

There is a code of practice on the marketing of infant formulas.
The ABC ran a documentary on it about 2 years ago.
Despite the code of practice these formulas are still being aggressively
marketed to people who do not have the resources to follow the hygiene
requirements and who may not be able to afford to keep buying the formula
once breast milk has dried up. The disease and misery caused by this
marketing is astounding. 
I will not comment on Nestles, other than to say they are a high profile
milk products supplier, and my family does not buy their products if it
can be avoided.
From: suter@fawlty8.eng.monash.edu.au (Mr D. Suter)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:59:12 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Monash University

In article <1992Oct8.091039.85@actew.oz.au> ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:
>preferances - meaning if your first vote is for someone who isn't one of the
>leading candidates you get to another vote, and then another until you have 
>voted for one of the leading candidates.
>
>each person should only get ONE vote and if you decide to waste your vote on a
>loser then stiff shit! The winner should be the one with most votes after
>everyone has voted ONCE.
Even though I'm not entirely in favour of preferential voting I think
what you attack IS one of it's strengths. It avoids your vote being
diluted just because there may be a large no. of candidates that have
similar appeal/policies. E.G. if there are 3 parties that take a middle
of the road stance and one party that is extreme right/left then
the middle of the road parties may get about 25% of the primary vote each be but
clearly prefered by all of those 75% to the other party which also got 25%
There are, however a number of minor irritations. The first is
that I can see no justification for insisting that you number ALL
candidates (not that you even number consecutively). I guess the
rules are to stop people doing rahxDeally wierd things like numbering
more than one candidate with the same number. In a similar vein,
I don't see the need for the "main parties" to even worry about
directing their preferences (in many electorates Labor and Liberal
candidates will never be knocked out early enough for it to
even matter. I was incensed at the stupidity of the "how to vote"
cards in my electorate (Bundoora) - the libs suggested I put
the Natural Law party second! Now I can understand the 
idea that they think Labor is the main threat but I balked
at voting anything but last for a bunch of loonies who
claim thei~rr theories are well supported by scientific
tests - that must be pretty close to fraud and mis-representation/false
advertising.

-- 
David Suter - Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, Vic. 3168, Australia
ph 565 5682 Fax 565 3454
From: jhb@maths.su.oz.au (John Brownie)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Date: 8 Oct 92 02:58:39 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney

ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:

>each person should only get ONE vote and if you decide to waste your vote on a
>loser then stiff shit! The winner should be the one with most votes after
>everyone has voted ONCE.

In other words, first past the post.  They have that in Papua New
Guinea.  It has led to some pretty weird states.  In the 1987 national
election, there was one electorate with 45 candidates.  The successful
candidate had less than 8% of the vote!
--
John Brownie
School of Mathematics and Statistics   |    Wycliffe Bible Translators
University of Sydney NSW 2006          |    Graham Rd
Internet: jhb@maths.su.oz.au           |    Kangaroo Ground Vic 3097 AUSTRALIA
Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: gnb@duke.bby.com.au (Gregory N. Bond)
Subject: Re: keating - our hero!
Organization: Burdett, Buckeridge & Young, Melbourne, Australia
	<1992Oct9.024705.27798@trl.oz.au>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:52:30 GMT


Chris> Unemployment is a lagging indicactor because of population growth.

I don't think this is strictly correct.  

Unemployment is a lagging indicator for a number of reasons:

- Sacking staff is _expensive_ (redundancy pmts etc) as well as bad
  for staff morale (setting aside looking after your workforce) and
  most businesses will avoid it if at all possible.  So what happens
  is a pool of under-utilized staff builds up.  Then, when the rest of
  the economy picks up, businesses have extra staff resources
  available to handle the extra work without employing extra staff
  numbers.  So it takes a fair bit of growth in the economy before
  demand for new jobs increases.

- Businesses tend to hang on and hang on, only to go bust some way
  into the upturn, increasing the unemployed pool during a putative
  recovery.  (I.e. just because a recovery has started, it doesn't
  mean no more failures, as the damage from the down years may still
  be fatal in the medium term.)

- The participation rate (basically %age of people of employable age
  actually activly looking for full-time work) is the main driver of
  the unemployment rate.  As the economy slows down, lots of people
  give up looking for work and either go back to school, get part time
  jobs or give up and do something else.  This tends to reduce the
  unemployment level on the way down.  On the way up, people note that
  things are looking better and start looking for work again.  In
  particular, people working part-time tend to start looking for
  full-time work.  This keeps the unemployment rate higher during a
  recovery. (In fact, I was listening to AM the other morning and one
  economist estimated that the percentage of people unemployed, or
  under-employed, or given up altogether, who would work full time if
  there was a job available, at about 17% of the labour force.)

- There is only so much extra schooling a person can do, and with
  limited Uni places, a person who decided to do 5th form/HSC/Tafe
  (rather than get a job) at the start of a recession has only a
  couple of years before re-entering the labour market.  So you get a
  "burst" of delayed unemployed a year or two after the downturn
  starts.

- People tend to delay retirement during bad times, so the total size
  of the labour force grows more quickly than in good times.  

- Population growth in Australia is actually quite small, and the
  growth in the labour force is even smaller; such things are swamped
  by changes in the participation rate.

Greg.
--
Gregory Bond <gnb@bby.com.au> Burdett Buckeridge & Young Ltd Melbourne Australia
``USL has never sold long distance.  You're going after the wrong men in black 
  hats.  (Or, in the case of Plan 9, black space suits)'' - Tom Limoncelli

Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: john@physiol.su.OZ.AU (John Mackin)
Subject: Re: Sydney Harbour Tunnel Update #19 (Q3 92) (FINAL)
Organization: Department of Physiology, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:30:47 GMT

In article <6543@otc.otca.oz> brendan@otc.otca.oz (Brendan Jones) writes:

>The new lanemarking was also required for the installation of a 24 hour bus
>lane on the freeway and Harbour bridge, occupying Lane 7 of the Cahill
>Expressway.  The bus lane became operational after the tunnel opening.

Yeah.  Too bad the damn buses don't run 24 hours.

Ah hell, who cares.  Soon no one will be able to afford bus afre anyway.

OK,
John.
From: ejd@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Erick Delios)
Newsgroups: aus.followup
Subject: test
Keywords: comp.
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:17:09 GMT
Distribution: aus
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia

test

Newsgroups: aus.followup
From: lee@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Lee Naish)
Subject: Re: New Victorian Premier/result using PR
Organization: Department of Computer Sci, University of Melbourne
Distribution: aus
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 01:49:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.091039.85@actew.oz.au> ina_pearce@actew.oz.au writes:
>The illegallity of multiple voting I'm refering to is having 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc
>preferances

Preferential voting is not multiple voting.  Saying that preferential
voting is illegal is plain silly.  Preferential voting allows for (but
doesn't guarantee) much more representative electoral systems.  Fully
optional preferential voting allows you to indicate only one preference
if you so desire.

	lee
Newsgroups: aus.followup