Majority

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the latter scenario then?
Assuming these projections are correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest component" or something along those lines.

Plurality.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

m***@gmail.com

2018-08-04 13:43:09 UTC

Plurality.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Thanks!

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-04 14:55:37 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the

latter scenario then?
Assuming these projections are correct what term could be used to
categorize whites in the 2nd half of this century other than the clumsy
"single biggest component" or something along those lines.

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of British
people know what it means.

Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

--
athel

Peter Moylan

2018-08-04 15:06:31 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9
percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for
Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and
3.8 percent for multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean
either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single
word for the latter scenario then? Assuming these projections are
correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd
half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest
component" or something along those lines.

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of
British people know what it means.

No; we use it only for American elections. Pretty much all Australian
elections use either a preferential system or an approximation to
proportional representation, so "plurality" is irrelevant.

A term that is often used by election analysts here is "two-party
preferred". This is based on assumptions about how preferences will flow
from votes to the minority parties, to give a net result for the two
major candidates. This analysis falls down when the person elected is
not from one of the two biggest parties.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

I'm not surprised. Australian indigenous voters also don't get mentioned
in the statistics, because their numbers are too low.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-04 15:27:55 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of British
people know what it means.

You seem to use "first past the post" to mean 'plurality'. US elections
are not decided that way, except for some primaries. We have run-offs.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

I just heard 300,000 total (somewhere on the NPR).

Tony Cooper

2018-08-04 15:52:56 UTC

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

"The new statistics project that the nation will become minority
white in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of
the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent
for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial
populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean either

Post by m***@gmail.com
50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of British
people know what it means.

You seem to use "first past the post" to mean 'plurality'. US elections
are not decided that way, except for some primaries. We have run-offs.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

I just heard 300,000 total (somewhere on the NPR).

The 2010 Census showed that the American Indian and Alaska native
population is 2.9 *million*.

https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf

It should be noted, though, that the figure includes:

The American Indian and Alaska Native population includes people
who marked the American Indian or Alaska Native checkbox or
reported entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yupik, or
Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

Arizona, Oklahoma, and California *each* have almost 300,000 or more
Native Americans in the population: 297, 322, and 362 thousand.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

John Varela

2018-08-04 22:00:00 UTC

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 15:52:56 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by m***@gmail.com
50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of British
people know what it means.

You seem to use "first past the post" to mean 'plurality'. US elections
are not decided that way, except for some primaries. We have run-offs.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

I just heard 300,000 total (somewhere on the NPR).

The 2010 Census showed that the American Indian and Alaska native
population is 2.9 *million*.
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf
The American Indian and Alaska Native population includes people
who marked the American Indian or Alaska Native checkbox or
reported entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yupik, or
Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.
Arizona, Oklahoma, and California *each* have almost 300,000 or more
Native Americans in the population: 297, 322, and 362 thousand.

It seems to be ignored that the vast majority of Hispanics from
Mexico, Central America, and points south are American Indians.

--
John Varela

Tak To

2018-08-06 02:40:48 UTC

Post by John Varela
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 15:52:56 UTC, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by m***@gmail.com
50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of British
people know what it means.

You seem to use "first past the post" to mean 'plurality'. US elections
are not decided that way, except for some primaries. We have run-offs.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

I just heard 300,000 total (somewhere on the NPR).

It seems to be ignored that the vast majority of Hispanics from
Mexico, Central America, and points south are American Indians.

Not unless one counts "mestizo" as American Indian.

(From CIA Word Factbook)

Mexico: mestizo (Amerindian-Spanish) 62%, predominantly Amerindian
21%, Amerindian 7%, other 10% (mostly European)

Belize: mestizo 52.9%, Creole 25.9%, Maya 11.3%, Garifuna 6.1%,
East Indian 3.9%, Mennonite 3.6%, white 1.2%, Asian 1%, other 1.2%,
unknown 0.3%

Guatemela: mestizo (mixed Amerindian-Spanish - in local Spanish called
Ladino) and European 60.1%, Maya 39.3% (K'iche 11.3%, Q'eqchi 7.6%,
Kaqchikel 7.4%, Mam 5.5%, other 7.5%), non-Maya, non-mestizo 0.15%
(Xinca (indigenous, non-Maya), Garifuna (mixed West and Central
African, Island Carib, and Arawak)), other 0.5%

Honduras: mestizo (mixed Amerindian and European) 90%, Amerindian 7%,
black 2%, white 1%

El Salvador: mestizo 86.3%, white 12.7%, Amerindian 0.2% (includes
Lenca, Kakawira, Nahua-Pipil), black 0.1%, other 0.6% (2007 est.)

Nicaragua: mestizo (mixed Amerindian and white) 69%, white 17%,
black 9%, Amerindian 5%

Costa Rica: white or mestizo 83.6%, mulato 6.7%, indigenous 2.4%,
black of African descent 1.1%, other 1.1%, none 2.9%, unspecified
2.2% (2011 est.)

Panama: mestizo (mixed Amerindian and white) 65%, Native American 12.3%
(Ngabe 7.6%, Kuna 2.4%, Embera 0.9%, Bugle 0.8%, other 0.4%, unspecified
0.2%), black or African descent 9.2%, mulatto 6.8%, white 6.7%
(2010 est.)

I don't have any information on how each country defines "mestizo".

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ***@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-06 15:01:08 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 08:27:55 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

...

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Looking at the numbers given, I wonder about Native Americans: are
there so few of them that they don't enter into the statistics?

I just heard 300,000 total (somewhere on the NPR).

The 2010 Census showed that the American Indian and Alaska native
population is 2.9 *million*.
https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/c2010br-10.pdf
The American Indian and Alaska Native population includes people
who marked the “American Indian or Alaska Native” checkbox or
reported entries such as Navajo, Blackfeet, Inupiat, Yup’ik, or
Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups.

In other words, it's based on self-identification.

Post by Tony Cooper
Arizona, Oklahoma, and California *each* have almost 300,000 or more
Native Americans in the population: 297, 322, and 362 thousand.

In 2005, the number of people enrolled in federally recognized tribes
was 1,978,099. It might tell you something about the Bureau of Indian
Affairs that that's the most recent number available.

https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions

--
Jerry Friedman

musika

2018-08-06 15:55:48 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
Arizona, Oklahoma, and California *each* have almost 300,000 or more
Native Americans in the population: 297, 322, and 362 thousand.

In 2005, the number of people enrolled in federally recognized tribes
was 1,978,099. It might tell you something about the Bureau of Indian
Affairs that that's the most recent number available.

Perhaps Indians aren't having as many affairs nowadays.

--
Ray
UK

Tony Cooper

2018-08-04 15:33:12 UTC

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 16:55:37 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by m***@gmail.com
50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the

Plurality.

Do you use that word in Australia? It's not used in the UK except in
relation to American elections, I doubt whether a majority of British
people know what it means.

I don't understand why not. It should be imbibed with their mother's
milk by all Brits. After all, all Brits live near a plural...plural
sheep, plural meat pies, and plural chippies.
Oh...wait...proximity only works for nautical terms.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-04 13:01:23 UTC

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority" country
at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities will comprise
a majority of the population.

Janet

2018-08-04 14:54:16 UTC

"The new statistics project that the nation will become ?minority white? in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single word for the latter scenario then?
Assuming these projections are correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest component" or something along those lines.

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority" country
at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities will comprise
a majority of the population.

Isn't that how things used to be in America?

Janet.

John Varela

2018-08-04 21:57:29 UTC

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority" country
at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities will comprise
a majority of the population.

Isn't that how things used to be in America?

In the 17th c., no doubt, at least in N. America. By the time the
USA came into existence, probably not. Recall that at that time the
USA was restricted to the Eastern seaboard, and Amerindian
populations had been decimated by Old World diseases.

--
John Varela

Peter Moylan

2018-08-04 14:56:35 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent
of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1
percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for
multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean
either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single
word for the latter scenario then? Assuming these projections are
correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd
half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest
component" or something along those lines.

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority"
country at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities
will comprise a majority of the population.

A song that I perform has an opening chord that I think of as "E major
minor", because it has notes E G G# B. I recently discovered that this
chord has another name, but I've forgotten it.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter Young

2018-08-04 16:19:52 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent
of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1
percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for
multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean
either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single
word for the latter scenario then? Assuming these projections are
correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd
half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest
component" or something along those lines.

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority"
country at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities
will comprise a majority of the population.

A song that I perform has an opening chord that I think of as "E major
minor", because it has notes E G G# B. I recently discovered that this
chord has another name, but I've forgotten it.

Not that chord, but the simultaneous use of the major and minor thirds is
a "false relation".

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Au)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-06 13:45:25 UTC

Post by Peter Young

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent
of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1
percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for
multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean
either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single
word for the latter scenario then? Assuming these projections are
correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd
half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest
component" or something along those lines.

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority"
country at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities
will comprise a majority of the population.

A song that I perform has an opening chord that I think of as "E major
minor", because it has notes E G G# B. I recently discovered that this
chord has another name, but I've forgotten it.

Not that chord, but the simultaneous use of the major and minor thirds is
a "false relation".

Or "cross relation" in the books I have.

--
Jerry Friedman

Richard Yates

2018-08-06 14:03:29 UTC

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018 07:45:25 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Young

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent
of the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1
percent for blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for
multiracial populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority could mean
either > 50% or the single biggest component. Is there a single
word for the latter scenario then? Assuming these projections are
correct what term could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd
half of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest
component" or something along those lines.

The usual phrase is that the US will become a "majority minority"
country at some point, meaning that the sum total of all minorities
will comprise a majority of the population.

A song that I perform has an opening chord that I think of as "E major
minor", because it has notes E G G# B. I recently discovered that this
chord has another name, but I've forgotten it.

Not that chord, but the simultaneous use of the major and minor thirds is
a "false relation".

Or "cross relation" in the books I have.

It may be that G# is actually an A-flat.

Paul Carmichael

2018-08-04 16:10:50 UTC

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-04 17:53:27 UTC

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-04 17:59:37 UTC

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

It's purely self-identification. I was phoned for a poll just last night
(about various proposals for funding the schools shortfall), and among
the demographic questions at the end were "Do you consider yourself
Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish-speaking?" followed by "Which race do you
consider yourself to be?" (I don't wait to hear the whole list, so I
don't know what assortment of "other" or "mixed" is included these days.)

If any of the Portuguese immigrants in Newark, NJ, or New Bedford, MA,
consider themselves to belong to that category, they're free to say so; similarly the immigrants from Brazil in Newark or elsewhere.

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-05 09:49:33 UTC

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of>

Post by m***@gmail.com
the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

See David K.'s answer. Very few Spanish or Portuguese people were born
south of the border.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's purely self-identification. I was phoned for a poll just last
night(about various proposals for funding the schools shortfall), and
amongthe demographic questions at the end were "Do you consider
yourselfHispanic, Latino, or Spanish-speaking?" followed by "Which race
do youconsider yourself to be?" (I don't wait to hear the whole list,
so Idon't know what assortment of "other" or "mixed" is included these
days.)
If any of the Portuguese immigrants in Newark, NJ, or New Bedford,
MA,consider themselves to belong to that category, they're free to say
so; similarly the immigrants from Brazil in Newark or elsewhere.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-05 12:33:54 UTC

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of>

Post by m***@gmail.com
the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

See David K.'s answer.

Perhaps it's accurate for California, but it isn't legally correct, and
it applies rather vacuously, given the relatively infinitesimal number
of immigrants from other Iberophone parts of the world.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Very few Spanish or Portuguese people were born
south of the border.

What's that got to do with anything?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-05 13:13:12 UTC

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9

percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for
Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>

include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

See David K.'s answer.

Perhaps it's accurate for California, but it isn't legally correct,
andit applies rather vacuously, given the relatively infinitesimal
numberof immigrants from other Iberophone parts of the world.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Very few Spanish or Portuguese people were born> south of the border.

What's that got to do with anything?

It's got to do with David's statement that "Hispanic in US jargon means
anybody from south of the border". That may not be what you mean by it,
but it's what plenty of people in the USA do mean by it.

It's purely self-identification. I was phoned for a poll just last> >
night(about various proposals for funding the schools shortfall), and>

amongthe demographic questions at the end were "Do you consider> >

yourselfHispanic, Latino, or Spanish-speaking?" followed by "Which
race> > do youconsider yourself to be?" (I don't wait to hear the whole
list,> > so Idon't know what assortment of "other" or "mixed" is
included these> > days.)
If any of the Portuguese immigrants in Newark, NJ, or New Bedford,> >
MA,consider themselves to belong to that category, they're free to say>

so; similarly the immigrants from Brazil in Newark or elsewhere.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-05 13:56:14 UTC

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9

percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6 percent for
Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>

include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

See David K.'s answer.

Perhaps it's accurate for California, but it isn't legally correct,
and it applies rather vacuously, given the relatively infinitesimal
number of immigrants from other Iberophone parts of the world.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Very few Spanish or Portuguese people were born> south of the border.

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?

All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-05 13:59:38 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

See David K.'s answer.> > Perhaps it's accurate for California, but it
isn't legally correct,> > and it applies rather vacuously, given the
relatively infinitesimal> > number of immigrants from other Iberophone
parts of the world.
Very few Spanish or Portuguese people were born> south of the border.

What's that got to do with anything?

It's got to do with David's statement that "Hispanic in US jargon
means> anybody from south of the border". That may not be what you mean
by it,> but it's what plenty of people in the USA do mean by it.

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-05 14:09:50 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR, not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).

Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

David Kleinecke

2018-08-05 16:06:43 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR, not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).
Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.

It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

Tak To

2018-08-06 03:14:59 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR, not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).
Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.

Nor are the Jamaicans. There is a sizable Jamaican population
in the US.

Post by David Kleinecke
It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

That seems to be more ignorance than bigotry.

Post by David Kleinecke
Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-06 11:41:25 UTC

Post by Tak To

Post by David Kleinecke
Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.

Nor are the Jamaicans. There is a sizable Jamaican population
in the US.

They would be included among "Other black Caribbeans."

Do I really need to list such significant contributors to the Islands
population as Bajians (Barbados), Trinidadians, and Grenadans?

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-06 14:20:07 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR, not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).
Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.
It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Brazilians are not necessarily considered Hispanic. As far as I can
tell, black Spanish speakers from the Americas, such as some Cubans and
Dominicans, are considered both black and Hispanic.

Post by David Kleinecke
Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

The problem with that is that at least in the U.S., there are a lot of
Native Americans who don't speak their ancestral language.

--
Jerry Friedman

Cheryl

2018-08-06 15:03:04 UTC

On Sunday, August 5, 2018 at 5:49:37 AM UTC-4, Athel

On Saturday, August 4, 2018 at 1:53:30 PM UTC-4, Athel

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become
“minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will
comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR,
not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).
Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.
It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Brazilians are not necessarily considered Hispanic. As far as I can
tell, black Spanish speakers from the Americas, such as some Cubans and
Dominicans, are considered both black and Hispanic.

Post by David Kleinecke
Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

The problem with that is that at least in the U.S., there are a lot of
Native Americans who don't speak their ancestral language.

And you can get into lengthy debates over who is First Nations (Canadian
Native American) and who isn't. They've eliminated the old status rules
that meant that women who "married out" and their children had no
status, but do you still do it by some version of genetics, cultural
identity (and how do you determine that?) or a combination? I suppose
language would come under "culture" but many don't speak their ancestral
languages. Maybe you decide that each band determines on its own who
belongs - but what do you do about the large number of people of Native
ancestry who left their bands behind, several generations ago? Or the
ones who were never part of a band. And the feds have an interest
because they're obliged to provide certain services to
offically-recognized First Nations people. We had a case here recently,
well, I think it's ongoing, in which the Qalipu Mi'kmaq First Nation
applied for recognition - and suddenly 100,000 people applied to be
included. That's almost 20% of the province's entire population. It's
going to take years to settle their membership, what with members of the
same family having gotten different rulings, both the feds and the
Native organizations involved, and the sheer numbers of applications to
review.

--
Cheryl

Don P

2018-08-07 18:17:33 UTC

Post by Cheryl

. . . It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Brazilians are not necessarily considered Hispanic. As far as I can
tell, black Spanish speakers from the Americas, such as some Cubans
and Dominicans, are considered both black and Hispanic.

Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

The problem with that is that at least in the U.S., there are a lot of
Native Americans who don't speak their ancestral language.

This appears normal in smallish immigrant communities. I can cite three
Dutch families in Ottawa that decided to teach their children only
English, and not bother about the parents' mother tongue. At least two
of the monoglot children later resented this, learned Dutch on their own
at age 20+ (and one now is married to a Dutchman and living in
Amsterdam.) But larger communities (e.g. Italian, Ukrainian etc.) seem
likelier to maintain the mother tongue in the second and later generations.

Post by Cheryl
And you can get into lengthy debates over who is First Nations (Canadian
Native American) and who isn't. They've eliminated the old status rules
that meant that women who "married out" and their children had no
status, but do you still do it by some version of genetics, cultural
identity (and how do you determine that?) or a combination?

Canadian parliaments and governments have always avoided such questions,
i.e. leave them to the courts, and the courts act only when someone goes
to law with a specific claim. No single overall pattern (of how Canadian
law defines "aboriginal") has yet emerged. One of the reasons is that
when ethnic organizations cannot agree they tend to split (as the
National Indian Council (1961) split into a National Indian Brotherhood
(limited to treaty/status aboriginals) and a Native Council of Canada
(for Metis and non-treaty aboriginals) from which the Metis seceded in
1983 to create a Metis National Council.) The NCC is now called the
Confederation of Aboriginal Peoples.

Ambiguity and anxiety are not new. When Newfoundland joined Canadian
Confederation in 1950 treaty Indians had no vote in Canada (and were
enfranchised about 1960) so a formal decision was taken to recognize no
aboriginal bands or lands in the new province. This became unpopular
before the end of the century so the Canadian government recognized in
2008 (after disputes between two tiers of government and six candidate
aboriginal bands) a single new band to be called Qalipu Mikmak and
invited people to apply for membership. More than 100,000
Newfoundlanders did so (a fifth of the total population.) The first
membership review 28 June 2018 recognized 18,575 people as band members
and removed another 10,000 earlier registered. There is at present at
least one other Mikmak band that the government does not recognize (as
provided for by the 19th century Indian Act.)

No national law yet defines who is "aboriginal" and thus deserves the
"aboriginal rights" unavailable to other Canadians. (Old treaties govern
no more than half the Canadian aboriginal population. Those treaties
specify particular rights for particular band members, but no law
specifies what constitutional aboriginal rights may be.)

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

Cheryl

2018-08-07 20:43:57 UTC

Post by Don P

Post by Cheryl

. . . It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Brazilians are not necessarily considered Hispanic. As far as I can
tell, black Spanish speakers from the Americas, such as some Cubans
and Dominicans, are considered both black and Hispanic.

Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

The problem with that is that at least in the U.S., there are a lot
of Native Americans who don't speak their ancestral language.

Post by Cheryl
And you can get into lengthy debates over who is First Nations
(Canadian Native American) and who isn't. They've eliminated the old
status rules that meant that women who "married out" and their
children had no status, but do you still do it by some version of
genetics, cultural identity (and how do you determine that?) or a
combination?

Canadian parliaments and governments have always avoided such questions,
i.e. leave them to the courts, and the courts act only when someone goes
to law with a specific claim. No single overall pattern (of how Canadian
law defines "aboriginal") has yet emerged. One of the reasons is that
when ethnic organizations cannot agree they tend to split (as the
National Indian Council (1961) split into a National Indian Brotherhood
(limited to treaty/status aboriginals) and a Native Council of Canada
(for Metis and non-treaty aboriginals) from which the Metis seceded in
1983 to create a Metis National Council.) The NCC is now called the
Confederation of Aboriginal Peoples.
Ambiguity and anxiety are not new. When Newfoundland joined Canadian
Confederation in 1950 treaty Indians had no vote in Canada (and were
enfranchised about 1960) so a formal decision was taken to recognize no
aboriginal bands or lands in the new province. This became unpopular
before the end of the century so the Canadian government recognized in
2008 (after disputes between two tiers of government and six candidate
aboriginal bands) a single new band to be called Qalipu Mikmak and
invited people to apply for membership. More than 100,000
Newfoundlanders did so (a fifth of the total population.) The first
membership review 28 June 2018 recognized 18,575 people as band members
and removed another 10,000 earlier registered. There is at present at
least one other Mikmak band that the government does not recognize (as
provided for by the 19th century Indian Act.)

Not the Conne River one, surely? That's completely official as far as I
know, and the chief is still Mi’sel Joe, one of the original campaigners
for recognition. I heard a brief presentation by him only a few months
back. Mind you, they wouldn't have been covered by the old Indian Act.
Their website says that they got status and their reserve was officially
designated as such under Indian Act in 1987. They claim the community
itself originated a hundred years earlier, and I don't think anyone
seriously disbeliefs this any more.

I wrote in another post about the Qalipu band and their difficulties in
figuring out who belongs and who doesn't, given the vast number of
people who applied.

I don't know of a third, not recognized, Mi’kmaw group, but that doesn't
mean there isn't one.

Post by Don P
No national law yet defines who is "aboriginal" and thus deserves the
"aboriginal rights" unavailable to other Canadians. (Old treaties govern
no more than half the Canadian aboriginal population. Those treaties
specify particular rights for particular band members, but no law
specifies what constitutional aboriginal rights may be.)

Supposedly Joey Smallwood refused to allow the Inuit and Innu to be
given special status because we were all Newfoundlanders and equal, but
Joey was not known for always making entirely truthful statements, and
stories about what he might have said or done are probably even less
reliable. The Mi’kmaw didn't come into the discussion at the time, since
they were then believed to be post-European immigrants to the island.

--
Cheryl

David Kleinecke

2018-08-06 17:37:19 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR, not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).
Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.
It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Brazilians are not necessarily considered Hispanic. As far as I can
tell, black Spanish speakers from the Americas, such as some Cubans and
Dominicans, are considered both black and Hispanic.

Post by David Kleinecke
Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

The problem with that is that at least in the U.S., there are a lot of
Native Americans who don't speak their ancestral language.

Even more south of the border. My point was not linguistic. It
has to do with the "vanishing red man". The Native Americans were
not wiped out. Their race lives on in great prosperity. They did
change their language though.

Yusuf B Gursey

2018-08-07 00:41:10 UTC

On 2018-08-04 16:10:50 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:> >>>>> On 04/08/18

"The new statistics project that the nation will become “minority> >>>>

Post by m***@gmail.com
white” in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise

49.9> >>>>>> percent of>> >>>> >> the population in contrast to 24.6
percent for> >>>>>> Hispanics

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't>>>

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

???

What's that got to do with anything?

Plenty of people in California?
All those black Caribbean people speaking varieties of English are "Hispanic"?

That's something for you to argue about with David and your other co-citizens.

California probably sees far fewer ex-British Caribbean peoples than New
York sees Mexicans (and New York doesn't see all that many Mexicans; our
Hispanics tend also to be from the Caribbean, notably Dominicans [DR, not Dominica] and Puerto Ricans; some Cubans, but they tended toward the
affluent suburbs in New Jersey, since the first (self-)exiles were the
intelligentsia who had little trouble finding academic positions in the
NYC area).
Whereas in Chicago, the Mexican and Puerto Rican communities were about
the same size, but quite distinct.

Haitians are definitely not Hispanics. Other black Caribbeans
are probably not.
It looks to me like the correct statement is "everyone from
south of the border who isn't black." So a black Brazilian is
"black" not Hispanic. Racial bigotry has deep roots.

Many Black Puerto Ricans identify as 'spanic', many have dual identities as both Black and Hispanic. As for Brazilians, many are of mixed race. Racial divisions are not so clear cut as in the (metropolitan) US

Post by David Kleinecke
Since I am a big rooter for Native Americans I'd just drop the
Hispanic idea and go with language spoken.

Tak To

2018-08-06 02:49:43 UTC

Post by Paul Carmichael
[...]
Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

Uh? Wouldn't including people from the Iberian peninsula make
the average "Hispanic" *more* white?

OK, I assume that Paul Carmichael is white. Am I wrong?

Paul Carmichael

2018-08-06 10:15:58 UTC

Post by Tak To

Post by Paul Carmichael
[...]
Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Only because the USA defines "Hispanic" in a weird way that doesn't
include Spanish and Portuguese people.

Uh? Wouldn't including people from the Iberian peninsula make
the average "Hispanic" *more* white?
OK, I assume that Paul Carmichael is white. Am I wrong?

You are not wrong. Scottish descent. There's a place in Scotland called Carmichael, as
there is in California. I've been to both.

And I live in Spain, so the only dark skinned Hispanics that I see, are those with a bit
of Arabic or Gipsy in their blood.

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

David Kleinecke

2018-08-04 18:04:50 UTC

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

Hispanic in US jargon means anybody from south of the border.
I knew a Hispanic who was an Ashkenazi Jew in origin. The
whole thing is kind of ironic because, as you say, many
Hispanics are as European as any "white". I think, but I've
never seen it discussed, the most of rest of Hispanic
ancestry is Native American.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-04 18:56:12 UTC

Most hispanics that I know are as white as me.

The Guatemalans I met or saw in Chicago looked astonishingly like the
people depicted in the Maya glyphs: flat forehead, angled nose, prominent
lips, short/squat stature.

I've mentioned before the fellow I knew who was perfectly trilingual: his
mother spoke only Nahuatl, Spanish was his other home language, and he
presumably acquired English in his earliest schooldays.

J. J. Lodder

2018-08-04 16:54:24 UTC

"The new statistics project that the nation will become "minority white"
in 2045. During that year, whites will comprise 49.9 percent of the
population in contrast to 24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for
blacks, 7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial
populations (see Figure 1)."

And more racist than ever,

JAN

s***@my-deja.com

2018-08-06 16:29:26 UTC

I have never heard the second version.

On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

Post by m***@gmail.com
Is there a single word for the latter scenario then?
Assuming these projections are correct what term
could be used to categorize whites in the 2nd half
of this century other than the clumsy "single biggest component"
or something along those lines. Thanks

You could say "almost half the people"

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-06 17:13:37 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000

That is not the meaning of "majority." A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

US elections (except for some primaries, where the rules aren't set by
the Elections Commissions of the different states) aren't decided by
plurality (BrE: "first past the post"), as A has above, but by simple
majority.

The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the insistence on more
than two parties -- in a legislature seems to be the single most deranging
aspect of government throughout Europe. (The US Senate has, at the moment,
two Independents, who "caucus with" the Democrats for the purpose of
determining which is the majority party and which is the minority party.)

You could say "almost half the people"

A plurality of the people will self-identify as "white," but no such group
will have a majority of the population.

Anders D. Nygaard

2018-08-06 21:24:24 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[...]
The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the insistence on more
than two parties -- in a legislature seems to be the single most deranging
aspect of government throughout Europe.

"Deranging" is a bit strong, I think. In Italy and Belgium, perhaps, but
in Denmark, a majority government is the (rare) exception, but they
seem to manage the business of governing quite well anyway.
Having many parties (and minority governments) is in Denmark seen as
a guarantee against majority dictatorship (forgetting the 49% who "lost"
the last election)
(I might call a number of the governments I have witnessed deranged,
but that would be in a quite different sense)

Post by Peter T. Daniels
(The US Senate has, at the moment,
two Independents, who "caucus with" the Democrats for the purpose of
determining which is the majority party and which is the minority party.)

We don't have these concepts; the closest I can come up with is that
there are a number of standing committees, but they are populated
proportionally by the parties and chairs on the various committees
are likewise distributed by some sort of proportionality.

/Anders, Denmark.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-06 21:38:59 UTC

Is your Executive a tool of the Legislature, i.e. a "Prime Minister" chosen
not by the people but by the party bosses? We look at the troubles Merkel
has been having since the last election and wonder why they put up with it.

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-08-06 21:54:22 UTC

The Prime Minister *is* the party boss. They are elected to be Leader of the
Party (the make-up of the electorate varies between parties). They become
Prime Minister by virtue of the party winning a General Election whilst they
are leading it. There is no appointing.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 02:25:56 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the insistence on more
than two parties -- in a legislature seems to be the single most deranging
aspect of government throughout Europe.

Do you speak now for Denmark?

Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron? Did anyone vote for her
other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own constituency?

Janet

2018-08-07 06:46:09 UTC

Do you speak now for Denmark?
Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron?

The way we told you last time you asked.

Did anyone vote for her

Post by Peter T. Daniels
other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own constituency?

In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

The country elects Members of Parliament. The Party with the most MP's
forms a government. That party's leader becomes the Prime Minister.

Cameron cocked up as PM and resigned. The Conservative party chose May
to replace him as their leader, the new leader became the new PM.

She then called a snap General Election and the UK
re-elected a Conservative govt with her in place as its leader and Prime
Minister.

Janet.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 12:25:15 UTC

Do you speak now for Denmark?
Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron?

The way we told you last time you asked.

It doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

Post by Janet
Did anyone vote for her

Post by Peter T. Daniels
other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own constituency?

In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Post by Janet
The country elects Members of Parliament. The Party with the most MP's
forms a government. That party's leader becomes the Prime Minister.

One of these days, two parties will have exactly the same number of MPs.
Then what will you do?

Post by Janet
Cameron cocked up as PM and resigned. The Conservative party chose May
to replace him as their leader, the new leader became the new PM.

Exactly. The people have no say in the choice of PM.

Post by Janet
She then called a snap General Election and the UK
re-elected a Conservative govt with her in place as its leader and Prime
Minister.

And that is regarded as a big mistake, innit.

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-08-07 13:21:30 UTC

Do you speak now for Denmark?
Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron?

The way we told you last time you asked.

It doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

Post by Janet
Did anyone vote for her

Post by Peter T. Daniels
other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own constituency?

In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

News to me. Candidates offer themselves for election as party leader.
The electorate may be limited in some parties but that's hardly the
same thing as not 'any sort of democratic process'.

Post by Janet
The country elects Members of Parliament. The Party with the most MP's
forms a government. That party's leader becomes the Prime Minister.

One of these days, two parties will have exactly the same number of MPs.
Then what will you do?

The two largest parties will negotiate with the others for coalition or
agreed support and take their case to the Queen. Whichever proves best
able to provide a stable Government will be invited to do so. Exactly the
same process as in any situation where the largest party does not command
an overall majority.

Post by Janet
Cameron cocked up as PM and resigned. The Conservative party chose May
to replace him as their leader, the new leader became the new PM.

Exactly. The people have no say in the choice of PM.

Not so.

Post by Janet
She then called a snap General Election and the UK
re-elected a Conservative govt with her in place as its leader and Prime
Minister.

And that is regarded as a big mistake, innit.

Hindsight is always 20/20!

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 14:13:32 UTC

Do you speak now for Denmark?
Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron?

The way we told you last time you asked.

It doesn't make any more sense now than it did then.

Post by Janet
Did anyone vote for her

Post by Peter T. Daniels
other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own constituency?

In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

News to me. Candidates offer themselves for election as party leader.
The electorate may be limited in some parties but that's hardly the
same thing as not 'any sort of democratic process'.

No. Appointment by an oligarchy is not democracy.

Post by Janet
The country elects Members of Parliament. The Party with the most MP's
forms a government. That party's leader becomes the Prime Minister.

One of these days, two parties will have exactly the same number of MPs.
Then what will you do?

Postulated: There is NO "largest party."

Post by Janet
Cameron cocked up as PM and resigned. The Conservative party chose May
to replace him as their leader, the new leader became the new PM.

Exactly. The people have no say in the choice of PM.

Not so.

So.

Post by Janet
She then called a snap General Election and the UK
re-elected a Conservative govt with her in place as its leader and Prime
Minister.

And that is regarded as a big mistake, innit.

Hindsight is always 20/20!

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-07 15:22:35 UTC

On 2018-08-07 14:25:15 +0200, "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> said:

[ ... ]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

--
athel

Tony Cooper

2018-08-07 15:45:57 UTC

On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:22:35 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

We have, as opposed to the UK, a democratic system in which our leader
is elected by popular majority. That has allowed us to elect a
habitual liar, a racist, a divider, and a leader who is the laughing
stock of the world.

How could you not see that it is a vastly superior system?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-07 16:36:54 UTC

Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 7 Aug 2018 17:22:35 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

We have, as opposed to the UK, a democratic system in which our leader
is

not

Post by Tony Cooper
elected by popular majority. That has allowed us to elect a
habitual liar, a racist, a divider, and a leader who is the laughing
stock of the world.
How could you not see that it is a vastly superior system?

There's that, though.

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 17:30:42 UTC

[no, he did not]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

Sorry, what's happened since 2016?

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-07 17:38:44 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

Sorry, what's happened since 2016?

You missed the election of Donald Trump, and all he has done since? You
surprise me.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 18:09:52 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

Sorry, what's happened since 2016?

You missed the election of Donald Trump, and all he has done since? You
surprise me.

Not since 2016, he wasn't. He was elected in 2016, though not inaugurated until
2017. Maybe that was what you meant.

You said "how the political system has operated." Not "what the moron in the
White House has perpetrated." He has basically sidestepped the political system
entirely, operating by Executive Order. (Sound familiar?)

Athel Cornish-Bowden

2018-08-08 06:16:17 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

Sorry, what's happened since 2016?

You missed the election of Donald Trump, and all he has done since? You
surprise me.

Not since 2016, he wasn't. He was elected in 2016, though not inaugurated until
2017. Maybe that was what you meant.

You're being pedantic. Maybe I should have said "since November 2016",
but in any case Trump was influencing the political system well before
the election.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
You said "how the political system has operated." Not "what the moron in the
White House has perpetrated." He has basically sidestepped the political system
entirely, operating by Executive Order. (Sound familiar?)

Well, you elected the guy. Embarrassing for you, I know, but he's part
of the political system all the same. So are all the members of
Congress: just because they're self-serving and don't do their jobs
doesn't mean that they're not part of the political system.

--
athel

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-08 11:49:21 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
[no, he did not]

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

Sorry, what's happened since 2016?

You missed the election of Donald Trump, and all he has done since? You
surprise me.

Not since 2016, he wasn't. He was elected in 2016, though not inaugurated until
2017. Maybe that was what you meant.

You're being pedantic. Maybe I should have said "since November 2016",
but in any case Trump was influencing the political system well before
the election.

One of Trump's huge campaign complaints was that Obama "governed by
Executive Order," bypassing the Do-Nothing Congress (the label first
awarded by Truman in 1948 to the Republican Congress that refused to
introduce a National Health -style system). His ire fell especially
on DACA -- "amnesty" for those who had been brought "illegally" into
the country as children. It almost immediately proved impossible for
Trump to get anything passed -- mainly because of the idiotic Hastert*
Rule that no matter would be brought to the floor if it wouldn't pass
by a majority of Republican votes. The non-loony Republicans (the few
that may be left) _could_ have gotten some things done if they had been
willing to accept Democratic votes to make it happen. Notoriously, in
a big open meeting with bipartisan leadership he claimed that he would
sign "anything" that Congress worked out regarding immigration and
"Dreamer" status, and two or three days later simply reversed that.

*Denny Hastert was briefly Speaker during Clinton time, until he was
ousted by some sort of relatively minor scandal; IIRC it didn't emerge
until afterward that he had also had sex with some high school boys on
the wrestling team he used to coach.

Peter Moylan

2018-08-08 02:04:02 UTC

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On 2018-08-07 14:25:15 +0200, "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Janet
In UK there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader.

Not via any sort of democratic process.

Given how the political system in your own country (and indeed state,
for that matter) has operated, especially since 2016, I don't think
you're in any position to lecture others about democracy.

In any case, much of this argument seems to me to be based on a
misunderstanding of what "leader" means.

In the UK system -- and similar systems in a number of other countries
-- the Prime Minister is the parliamentary leader of the governing
party. He or she is, however, only a leader in a "first among equals"
sense. The leader has very little freedom to dictate policy. It is the
party that governs, not the party leader. A PM who tries to depart from
party policy will most likely be deposed by his/her own party.

In the US, the president has a great deal more power, including the
power to ignore the party's policies.

An unfortunate development in Australia is that the news media try to
promote a cult of personality, by talking about battles between leaders
and running popularity polls of the "preferred Prime Minister" type.
Even so, voters don't vote for a party leader. They vote for a party's
policies, by means of voting for that party's local candidate.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

CDB

2018-08-07 15:48:40 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the
insistence on more than two parties -- in a legislature
seems to be the single most deranging aspect of government
throughout Europe.

"Deranging" is a bit strong, I think. In Italy and Belgium,
perhaps, but in Denmark, a majority government is the (rare)
exception, but they seem to manage the business of governing
quite well anyway. Having many parties (and minority
governments) is in Denmark seen as a guarantee against
majority dictatorship (forgetting the 49% who "lost" the last
election) (I might call a number of the governments I have
witnessed deranged, but that would be in a quite different
sense)

Post by Peter T. Daniels
(The US Senate has, at the moment, two Independents, who
"caucus with" the Democrats for the purpose of determining
which is the majority party and which is the minority
party.)

We don't have these concepts; the closest I can come up with
is that there are a number of standing committees, but they
are populated proportionally by the parties and chairs on the
various committees are likewise distributed by some sort of
proportionality.

Is your Executive a tool of the Legislature, i.e. a "Prime
Minister" chosen not by the people but by the party bosses? We
look at the troubles Merkel has been having since the last
election and wonder why they put up with it.

The Prime Minister *is* the party boss. They are elected to be
Leader of the Party (the make-up of the electorate varies between
parties). They become Prime Minister by virtue of the party
winning a General Election whilst they are leading it. There is no
appointing.

Do you speak now for Denmark?

Why not? You speak quite often for the USA, a larger, more populous,
and more diverse country.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron? Did anyone vote
for her other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own
constituency?

The plan was that the Conservative caucus would eliminate all but two
candidates (by voting) and that the remaining two would be voted on by
the party membership. Partway through the process, all the candidates
but May had withdrawn, so you could say she was chosen by acclamation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Leadership_election

Myself, I think the leader should be chosen by a vote of caucus members,
as I believe used to be the case in the UK. The Prime Minister is the
Member (usually) who can command the votes of a majority of Members on
questions of confidence (often about money), so the caucus always has
the suicide option of ceasing to support their leader in the House.
Even the threat of it can work wonders.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 17:43:34 UTC

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the
insistence on more than two parties -- in a legislature
seems to be the single most deranging aspect of government
throughout Europe.

"Deranging" is a bit strong, I think. In Italy and Belgium,
perhaps, but in Denmark, a majority government is the (rare)
exception, but they seem to manage the business of governing
quite well anyway. Having many parties (and minority
governments) is in Denmark seen as a guarantee against
majority dictatorship (forgetting the 49% who "lost" the last
election) (I might call a number of the governments I have
witnessed deranged, but that would be in a quite different
sense)

Post by Peter T. Daniels
(The US Senate has, at the moment, two Independents, who
"caucus with" the Democrats for the purpose of determining
which is the majority party and which is the minority
party.)

We don't have these concepts; the closest I can come up with
is that there are a number of standing committees, but they
are populated proportionally by the parties and chairs on the
various committees are likewise distributed by some sort of
proportionality.

Is your Executive a tool of the Legislature, i.e. a "Prime
Minister" chosen not by the people but by the party bosses? We
look at the troubles Merkel has been having since the last
election and wonder why they put up with it.

The Prime Minister *is* the party boss. They are elected to be
Leader of the Party (the make-up of the electorate varies between
parties). They become Prime Minister by virtue of the party
winning a General Election whilst they are leading it. There is no
appointing.

Do you speak now for Denmark?

Why not? You speak quite often for the USA, a larger, more populous,
and more diverse country.

I probably know more about my own country's Constitution than Maddie does
about Denmark's.

Post by CDB

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Closer to home, how did Mrs May succeed Mr Cameron? Did anyone vote
for her other than the few hundred or few thousand in her own
constituency?

Two different, but probably greatly overlapping, oligarchies!

Post by CDB
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theresa_May#Leadership_election
Myself, I think the leader should be chosen by a vote of caucus members,
as I believe used to be the case in the UK. The Prime Minister is the
Member (usually) who can command the votes of a majority of Members on
questions of confidence (often about money), so the caucus always has
the suicide option of ceasing to support their leader in the House.
Even the threat of it can work wonders.

Anders D. Nygaard

2018-08-07 19:29:59 UTC

Is your Executive a tool of the Legislature, i.e. a "Prime Minister" chosen
not by the people but by the party bosses?

We don't have an Executive in the sense of an American president.
What we do have is a government of around 20 ministers, which is headed
by a "statsminister" ("Prime Minister", but lit. "minister of state").

In Denmark there are multiple political parties, each chooses its own
leader by whatever means the party sees fit. The major parties often
have internal elections for this purpose; not unlike the US primaries,
except that only party members are allowed to vote.

The country elects Members of Parliament by a system which approaches
proportional representation. This typically (these days) results in
some 8-10 parties being represented.
Once (only), an independent candidate has been elected to parliament.

After an election (or, rarely, when the PM resigns without calling
a general election) each party is invited to state which person they
propose for PM; the candidate with the most backing then attempts to
negotiate a government. Repeat until succesful. The entire process
ususally takes on the order of a month, but may in complicated cases
take two or three.

Formally, the proposals are made to the monarch, who appoints
a conductor of negotiations, but in practice it is always the new PM.
Proposal of a party leader is expected; others are possible, but
I don't recall any recent instances.
Occasionally, there is a stalemate between two large parties, and
a PM from a third, minor party can result. This happened last in 1968.

Governments will usually be a coalition of several parties, but as
stated previously not often representing a majority; the only formal
requirement is that there is not a majority against, and in practice
that is ensured by some sort of compromise with what we call
"supporting parties". Such parties do not promise to vote with the
government, but only to not vote for a motion of lack of confidence.
Such promises may in principle be broken, but I cannot offhand
remember any such occurrence.

Brief summary: Our election of PM is a result of popular vote via some
indirection, just like the election of President by the Americans.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
We look at the troubles Merkel
has been having since the last election and wonder why they put up with it.

That is the price of having to take minority representation seriously.
The current situation is unusual, at least for Germany.

/Anders, Denmark (with thanks to Madrigal and Janet)

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-08 03:15:13 UTC

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Brief summary: Our election of PM is a result of popular vote via some
indirection, just like the election of President by the Americans.

No, yours (as you described it) is the same as in the UK, and very
different from the US.

Anders D. Nygaard

2018-08-08 20:51:02 UTC

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Brief summary: Our election of PM is a result of popular vote via some
indirection, just like the election of President by the Americans.

No, yours (as you described it) is the same as in the UK, and very
different from the US.

How is the election of an American president not the "result of a
popular vote via some indirection"?
Yes, the details of the indirection are different, but that is
to be expected in different jurisdictions.
To my mind, the British first-past-the-post system is more like
the American winner-takes-whole-state system than it is
like the Danish proportional system, but that is probably just
a matter of perspective, and what we are used to.

Leaders of other countries are chosen in entirely different ways,
e.g. by inheritance or by raw power.

/Anders, Denmark.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-09 02:55:40 UTC

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Brief summary: Our election of PM is a result of popular vote via some
indirection, just like the election of President by the Americans.

No, yours (as you described it) is the same as in the UK, and very
different from the US.

How is the election of an American president not the "result of a
popular vote via some indirection"?

I did not say it isn't.

I said that the UK (and hence the Denmark) system and the US system
are vastly different from each other.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Yes, the details of the indirection are different, but that is
to be expected in different jurisdictions.
To my mind, the British first-past-the-post system is more like
the American winner-takes-whole-state system than it is
like the Danish proportional system, but that is probably just
a matter of perspective, and what we are used to.

No. In the US, the winner is the one who gets more than half the votes.

Two of this week's results are still unsettled because the very slim
margin that (at the moment) favors the Trump candidate is far smaller
than the number of absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.

(One is the actual election of a Congressman to fill out the term of
someone who resigned a few months ago -- and the same two candidates
will fight it out again in November; the other is the Republican candidate
for governor of Kansas, where the miniscule lead at the moment belongs to
the moron behind the "election fraud" commission that fizzled out entirely.
We'd like him to win, because then the Democrat will be a shoo-in -- very
surprising for Kansas.)

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Leaders of other countries are chosen in entirely different ways,
e.g. by inheritance or by raw power.

They have nothing to do with the case.

Anders D. Nygaard

2018-08-09 20:56:47 UTC

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Brief summary: Our election of PM is a result of popular vote via some
indirection, just like the election of President by the Americans.

No, yours (as you described it) is the same as in the UK, and very
different from the US.

How is the election of an American president not the "result of a
popular vote via some indirection"?

I did not say it isn't.

In effect you did, by trimming away what you now say you were commenting.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
I said that the UK (and hence the Denmark) system and the US system
are vastly different from each other.

If you mean having a PM rather than a president, then I agree.
My comment, however, was not directed towards the powers wielded
by the person in question, but towards the manner of election.
See below.

No. In the US, the winner is the one who gets more than half the votes.

It is (to me) still more like the British, in that one person is elected
per state/district/etc, whereas we have no such binary choices in Danish
elections; elections at all levels use some sort of proportional system
(we do get binary choices in referenda, but that is unavoidable).
But, as I said above, we will probably have to agree to disagree on that.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Two of this week's results are still unsettled because the very slim
margin that (at the moment) favors the Trump candidate is far smaller
than the number of absentee and provisional ballots yet to be counted.
(One is the actual election of a Congressman to fill out the term of
someone who resigned a few months ago -- and the same two candidates
will fight it out again in November; the other is the Republican candidate
for governor of Kansas, where the miniscule lead at the moment belongs to
the moron behind the "election fraud" commission that fizzled out entirely.
We'd like him to win, because then the Democrat will be a shoo-in -- very
surprising for Kansas.)

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Leaders of other countries are chosen in entirely different ways,
e.g. by inheritance or by raw power.

They have nothing to do with the case.

They have everything to do with my summary at the top of this post,
which is what you appeared to be commenting on.

/Anders, Denmark.

Peter Moylan

2018-08-07 01:17:05 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the insistence on
more than two parties -- in a legislature seems to be the single
most deranging aspect of government throughout Europe.

That's a point of view that would not fly in Australia. In fact, we
would probably regard it as deranged.

The presence of more than two parties is widely regarded here as a
mechanism to "keep the bastards honest". There is a fear (justified, I
think) that if the minority parties disappeared, and we had only two
parties, the system would rapidly degenerate into government by the rich.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 02:29:05 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
The possibility of not having a majority -- i.e., the insistence on
more than two parties -- in a legislature seems to be the single
most deranging aspect of government throughout Europe.

But from what you yourself regularly report here, it clearly doesn't work.

Post by Peter Moylan
There is a fear (justified, I
think) that if the minority parties disappeared, and we had only two
parties, the system would rapidly degenerate into government by the rich.

That would seem to depend on who finances their campaigns. It's not true
of, for instance, municipal offices in the City of New York, where private
contributions are matched something like 7 to 1 by public funds.

s***@my-deja.com

2018-08-07 15:37:16 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000

That is not the meaning of "majority." A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

There will be no runoff. A has been elected.

The fact that in your neck of the woods things may be different,
is totally irrelevant to the facts stated above.

The election results for a considerable proportion of the 650 or
so Westminster MPs bear this out.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 17:41:15 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000

That is not the meaning of "majority." A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

There will be no runoff. A has been elected.

In your unfortunate system, perhaps. Above, however, no particular system was
specified. Just "in an election."

Post by s***@my-deja.com
The fact that in your neck of the woods things may be different,
is totally irrelevant to the facts stated above.
The election results for a considerable proportion of the 650 or
so Westminster MPs bear this out.

Indeed they do. They guarantee that Parliament is not representative.

Even "proportional voting" (or whatever the Australian system is called) would
be better than "first past the post." The Australian system is being tried in
some mayoral election here shortly -- maybe it's San Francisco, where the
incumbent succeeded upon the death of her predecessor, and now wants to be
elected to a proper term?

Janet

2018-08-07 21:40:46 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000

That is not the meaning of "majority." A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

There will be no runoff. A has been elected.

In your unfortunate system, perhaps. Above, however, no particular system was
specified. Just "in an election."

Indeed they do. They guarantee that Parliament is not representative.
Even "proportional voting" (or whatever the Australian system is called) would
be better than "first past the post." The Australian system is being tried in
some mayoral election here shortly -- maybe it's San Francisco, where the
incumbent succeeded upon the death of her predecessor, and now wants to be
elected to a proper term?

Maybe Westminster will adopt it one day; Britain has a political
system where modernisation is possible.

MEPs have been elected by PR for almost 20 years. Various forms of
proportional voting are also used in Scotland Wales and Northern
Ireland.

Janet.

Will Parsons

2018-08-08 23:29:40 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000

That is not the meaning of "majority." A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

There will be no runoff. A has been elected.

In your unfortunate system, perhaps. Above, however, no particular system was
specified. Just "in an election."

Indeed they do. They guarantee that Parliament is not representative.
Even "proportional voting" (or whatever the Australian system is called) would
be better than "first past the post." The Australian system is being tried in
some mayoral election here shortly -- maybe it's San Francisco, where the
incumbent succeeded upon the death of her predecessor, and now wants to be
elected to a proper term?

Maybe Westminster will adopt it one day; Britain has a political
system where modernisation is possible.

Unlike (I am sad to say) in the US.

Post by Janet
MEPs have been elected by PR for almost 20 years. Various forms of
proportional voting are also used in Scotland Wales and Northern
Ireland.

--
Will

Peter Moylan

2018-08-08 02:28:22 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Even "proportional voting" (or whatever the Australian system is
called) would be better than "first past the post." The Australian
system is being tried in some mayoral election here shortly -- maybe
it's San Francisco, where the incumbent succeeded upon the death of
her predecessor, and now wants to be elected to a proper term?

Australia has two distinct systems, depending on which election it is.
For the lower houses preferential voting is used, where every voter
indicates an order of preference. When the votes are counted, the
candidate with the least number of first preferences is eliminated, and
their second-preference votes are allocated to the other candidates.
This process continues until one candidate has over 50% of the votes.

With N candidates, this is equivalent to having N-1 run-off elections,
except of course that the process is stopped once a clear winner
appears. The difference is that the voters are not called back to the
extra run-off elections, because they have already recorded their
preferences.

The other Australian system, used for Senate elections, is too
complicated to describe in a Usenet post, but its intent is to give some
sort of approximation to proportional representation. This system can
only work if you have multiple people to be elected in each electorate.
In our system the electorate is an entire state, and the voters in that
state are voting for six Senators. (Or twelve, in the case of a double
dissolution.)

I think most of us agree that the Senate system fairly (to some
appproximation) represents the will of each state. That doesn't
necessarily reflect the will of the nation as a whole, though, because
(as in the US, and for the same reasons) small states have the same
number of senators as large states..

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-08 03:20:22 UTC

One objection I heard to trying the system in some polity here is that it
gives those who favor losers far more power than those who favor the most
popular candidates.

Post by Peter Moylan
The other Australian system, used for Senate elections, is too
complicated to describe in a Usenet post, but its intent is to give some
sort of approximation to proportional representation. This system can
only work if you have multiple people to be elected in each electorate.
In our system the electorate is an entire state, and the voters in that
state are voting for six Senators. (Or twelve, in the case of a double
dissolution.)

I think Rob Bannister described it a while ago. How you're required to
put a rank mark by every name on the ballot, even the ones you've never
heard of before?

Post by Peter Moylan
I think most of us agree that the Senate system fairly (to some
appproximation) represents the will of each state. That doesn't
necessarily reflect the will of the nation as a whole, though, because
(as in the US, and for the same reasons) small states have the same
number of senators as large states.

Peter Moylan

2018-08-08 04:52:03 UTC

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Even "proportional voting" (or whatever the Australian system is
called) would be better than "first past the post." The
Australian system is being tried in some mayoral election here
shortly -- maybe it's San Francisco, where the incumbent
succeeded upon the death of her predecessor, and now wants to be
elected to a proper term?

One objection I heard to trying the system in some polity here is
that it gives those who favor losers far more power than those who
favor the most popular candidates.

There's a sense in which that is true. If you vote for the winner then
your preferences don't even get looked at, while if you vote for someone
who is likely to lose you are effectively asked "If that candidate
hadn't been on the ballot, who would you have voted for?" Until now,
though, I've never seen any suggestion that there's something unfair
about those properties.

I guess, for someone who is used to a system where only the two dominant
parties have any chance, it might seem a little fishy to have a system
where a minority candidate will sometimes win.

Here's how I look at it. A first-past-the-post system elects the most
popular candidate. A preferential system, because of the way
eliminations are done, elects the least unpopular candidate. Thus, the
latter system is better suited to a country where politicians are
traditionally untrusted.

Post by Peter Moylan
The other Australian system, used for Senate elections, is too
complicated to describe in a Usenet post, but its intent is to give
some sort of approximation to proportional representation. This
system can only work if you have multiple people to be elected in
each electorate. In our system the electorate is an entire state,
and the voters in that state are voting for six Senators. (Or
twelve, in the case of a double dissolution.)

I think Rob Bannister described it a while ago. How you're required
to put a rank mark by every name on the ballot, even the ones you've
never heard of before?

That can depend on whether it's a federal or a state election, because
each jurisdiction can have its own rules. However, we seem to have
converged on two relaxations of the "mark every box" rule:
1. Sometimes you're told something like "number at least 6 boxes", with
the understanding that you can number as many more as you wish.
2. The option of "above the line" voting means that you vote for
parties rather than for candidates. If you do that -- and I think most
people do -- then the votes are allocated in an order dictated by the
parties' registered tickets.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-08 11:39:41 UTC

Even ["preferential voting"] would be better than "first past the post." The
Australian system is being tried in some mayoral election here
shortly -- maybe it's San Francisco, where the incumbent
succeeded upon the death of her predecessor, and now wants to be
elected to a proper term?

One objection I heard to trying the system in some polity here is
that it gives those who favor losers far more power than those who
favor the most popular candidates.

Maybe you haven't heard that a few weeks ago a 28-year-old woman (from
the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party) defeated in the primary
the fourth-highest-ranking member of the Democratic leadership of the
House of Representatives, who was widely considered the most likely
candidate to succeed Nancy Pelosi as Speaker when the Democrats regain
control. She is virtually assured election in November because there
are essentially no Republicans in her Queens-and-Bronx district.

Post by Peter Moylan
Here's how I look at it. A first-past-the-post system elects the most
popular candidate.

No! That's why there need to be runoffs between the top two.

Post by Peter Moylan
A preferential system, because of the way
eliminations are done, elects the least unpopular candidate. Thus, the
latter system is better suited to a country where politicians are
traditionally untrusted.

Now _there's_ a ringing endorsement for your system!

Post by Peter Moylan
The other Australian system, used for Senate elections, is too
complicated to describe in a Usenet post, but its intent is to give
some sort of approximation to proportional representation. This
system can only work if you have multiple people to be elected in
each electorate. In our system the electorate is an entire state,
and the voters in that state are voting for six Senators. (Or
twelve, in the case of a double dissolution.)

I think Rob Bannister described it a while ago. How you're required
to put a rank mark by every name on the ballot, even the ones you've
never heard of before?

That can depend on whether it's a federal or a state election, because
each jurisdiction can have its own rules. However, we seem to have
1. Sometimes you're told something like "number at least 6 boxes", with
the understanding that you can number as many more as you wish.
2. The option of "above the line" voting means that you vote for
parties rather than for candidates. If you do that -- and I think most
people do -- then the votes are allocated in an order dictated by the
parties' registered tickets.

(I don't know what that means, but it sounds like you're going back to the
UK oligarchy system.)

The Chicago voting machine had a lever (and probably a punch-hole; I only
did one or two elections using punch-cards) at the top for "all of the
candidates of Party X" or "Party Y" or "Party Z." NJ doesn't have that; I
don't remember whether NY did.

Anders D. Nygaard

2018-08-08 20:59:15 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
[...]
I guess, for someone who is used to a system where only the two dominant
parties have any chance, it might seem a little fishy to have a system
where a minority candidate will sometimes win.

No, I hadn't heard about that. You seem to object to a (younger and)
more popular candidate defeating a (more senior and) less popular one.

Why? Isn't that what (primary) elections are for?

/Anders, Denmark.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-09 02:58:29 UTC

No, I hadn't heard about that. You seem to object to a (younger and)
more popular candidate defeating a (more senior and) less popular one.

Where on earth did you get "object" from??????

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Why? Isn't that what (primary) elections are for?

As it happens, almost all of the candidates whom she and Bernie Sanders
stumped for in the weeks since her victory lost to more mainstream Dems.
Only the one in Detroit, where there will be no Republican opponent in
November, comes from her/their wing of the party. One commentator noted
that she might find it a bit awkward in January when she has to work
alongside Congresspeople in her party whom she vigorously campaigned against.

Anders D. Nygaard

2018-08-09 21:06:39 UTC

No, I hadn't heard about that. You seem to object to a (younger and)
more popular candidate defeating a (more senior and) less popular one.

Where on earth did you get "object" from??????

From what you wrote.
But perhaps your intention with the anecdote was different?
Were you attempting to illustrate that a minority candidate will
sometimes win, even in the American system? But she wasn't, was she?

Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Why? Isn't that what (primary) elections are for?

Now you have lost me completely - what relevance does other candidates
in other elections have?

/Anders, Denmark.

Peter Moylan

2018-08-09 02:24:15 UTC

A preferential system, because of the way eliminations are done,
elects the least unpopular candidate. Thus, the latter system is
better suited to a country where politicians are traditionally
untrusted.

Now _there's_ a ringing endorsement for your system!

We're not insular about it. We distrust US politicians even more than we
distrust Australian politicians.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

s***@my-deja.com

2018-08-12 00:43:23 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B ...

That is not the meaning of "majority."

Oh yes it is....

Post by Peter T. Daniels
A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.
There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

It ain't necessarily so...

You confuse a majority with the majority.

Into the little mental box where "electrical faults" can occur without
anybody being guilty and "power cuts" can happen as the result of a
storm there should now be inserted "a majority" - enjoyed by the
candidate with the most votes rather than with most of the votes.
This is BrE.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-12 00:53:04 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B ...

That is not the meaning of "majority."

Oh yes it is....

Post by Peter T. Daniels
A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.
There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

It ain't necessarily so...
You confuse a majority with the majority.

Look at YOUR OWN MESSAGE posted at 8 minutes after the hour. The one before this one.

Post by s***@my-deja.com
Into the little mental box where "electrical faults" can occur without
anybody being guilty and "power cuts" can happen as the result of a
storm there should now be inserted "a majority" - enjoyed by the
candidate with the most votes rather than with most of the votes.
This is BrE.

And, as we noted months ago, AmE doesn't use "electrical faults" for that.

John Varela

2018-08-12 18:19:04 UTC

Post by s***@my-deja.com
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B ...

That is not the meaning of "majority."

Oh yes it is....

No it's not.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.
There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

It ain't necessarily so...
You confuse a majority with the majority.

And you confuse a plurality with a majority.

This is AmE.

OED: Plurality, n, defs 4a & 4b

--
John Varela

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-12 18:44:10 UTC

Post by John Varela

Post by s***@my-deja.com
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B ...

That is not the meaning of "majority."

Oh yes it is....

No it's not.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
A has an advantage of 5,000 over
her nearest opponent, but she has not won the election.
There will be a runoff, probably two weeks later, between A and B.

It ain't necessarily so...
You confuse a majority with the majority.

And you confuse a plurality with a majority.

This is AmE.
OED: Plurality, n, defs 4a & 4b

Varela, of course, isn't aware that I already pointed out that Fowler
recommended reviving the "obsolete" term "plurality." Yet another example
of the peripheral dialect being more conservative than the central dialect.

It's not an American innovation, but a British loss.

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-06 17:18:12 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...

I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

--
Jerry Friedman

charles

2018-08-06 17:25:43 UTC

Post by m***@gmail.com
"The new statistics project that the nation will become
minority white in 2045. During that year, whites will
comprise 49.9 percent of the population in contrast to
24.6 percent for Hispanics, 13.1 percent for blacks,
7.8 percent for Asians, and 3.8 percent for multiracial
populations (see Figure 1)."
I had thought that depending on the context majority
could mean either > 50% or the single biggest component.

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...
I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

But, it is the way UK elections are run.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-08-06 21:20:53 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...
I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-06 23:45:10 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...
I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

--
Jerry Friedman

Peter Moylan

2018-08-07 01:18:19 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...
I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

I would say "margin" rather than "majority".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-08-07 11:28:21 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...
I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

A was elected with a majority of 5000, yes. When the next election comes
any reports of other candidates will say they have to overturn a majority
of 5000. If a candidate does garner over 50% of the vote then they are
said to have an 'absolute majority'.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 12:36:57 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

A was elected with a majority of 5000, yes. When the next election comes
any reports of other candidates will say they have to overturn a majority
of 5000.

What a bizarre distortion of the English language.

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
If a candidate does garner over 50% of the vote then they are
said to have an 'absolute majority'.

And other "winners" have a _relative_ majority?

Fowler has an extremely confused more-than-a-column on the word,
distinguishing what he says are three different meanings, without defining
them, but recommending "reviving" the "obsolete" term "plurality," and
Gowers reprints it with no or with very little change. He does not seem
to know of the "margin" sense alleged above by semir... .

Madrigal Gurneyhalt

2018-08-07 13:27:39 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

A was elected with a majority of 5000, yes. When the next election comes
any reports of other candidates will say they have to overturn a majority
of 5000.

What a bizarre distortion of the English language.

Is it? If so, it's one with a long history!

OED: majority
4. The number by which the votes cast for one party, etc., exceed
those for the next in rank.

1737 London Mag. Sept. 465/2 The House..examined several
Witnesses touching..‘the Demand of a Scrutiny; and the manner
of declaring the Majority, and other Transactions at and after the Election’.

Peter T. Daniels

2018-08-07 17:29:31 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

A was elected with a majority of 5000, yes. When the next election comes
any reports of other candidates will say they have to overturn a majority
of 5000.

What a bizarre distortion of the English language.

Is it? If so, it's one with a long history!
OED: majority
4. The number by which the votes cast for one party, etc., exceed
those for the next in rank.
1737 London Mag. Sept. 465/2 The House..examined several
Witnesses touching..‘the Demand of a Scrutiny; and the manner
of declaring the Majority, and other Transactions at and after the Election’.

How does that quote support that sense? (It's like the OED's definition
of "grapheme." It has nothing to do with any of the quotes offered.)

Even if it did, one aberrant use nearly 300 years ago is hardly relevant
either to Fowler a century ago or to us today.

Peter Young

2018-08-07 15:16:48 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

A was elected with a majority of 5000, yes. When the next election comes
any reports of other candidates will say they have to overturn a majority
of 5000.

What a bizarre distortion of the English language.

No bizarre disruption at all in BrE. Perfectly correct, idiomatic and
understandable.

Peter.

--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Au)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-07 13:34:57 UTC

I have never heard the second version.
On the other hand
If in an election
A gets 40,000 votes
B gets 35,000 votes
C gets 25,000 votes
Then A has a majority of 5,000
but that is a majority over B - not a majority of the votes.

...
I certainly wouldn't say A has any kind of majority, and I don't think
it's very common.

It is in any country that runs elections on the UK model which is
still quite a few despite its ebbing Empire.

What exactly would you say, in semiretired's example? A had a majority
of 5,000 over B?

Thanks. I guess I should have said that meaning of "majority" isn't
common over here.

--
Jerry Friedman

s***@my-deja.com

2018-08-07 16:05:08 UTC

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
A was elected with a majority of 5000, yes. When the next election comes
any reports of other candidates will say they have to overturn a majority
of 5000. If a candidate does garner over 50% of the vote then they are
said to have an 'absolute majority'.

Thanks. I guess I should have said that meaning of "majority" isn't
common over here.

A little background information may help.

Traditionally there were two big parties and one small one.
Except in a few seats, the votes for the small party were
considered to be less relevant to the result and most of the
attention was paid to the "big" battle.

Jerry Friedman

2018-08-09 21:42:55 UTC

Thanks. I guess I should have said that meaning of "majority" isn't
common over here.

A little background information may help.
Traditionally there were two big parties and one small one.
Except in a few seats, the votes for the small party were
considered to be less relevant to the result and most of the
attention was paid to the "big" battle.

That explains why you talk about what you talk about, but not why you
say "majority" instead of "margin" or "difference". However, as
Madrigal said, the usage is some centuries old.

--
Jerry Friedman

s***@my-deja.com

2018-08-12 00:08:10 UTC