Cthulhu D

My Statement should only be taken as this: For a beginner: 2S -> Clubs, 3C -> Diamonds, 2NT natural invite vs 2S: Clubs, 2NT: Diamonds, invites via stayman is a wash.

This is fine,I suspect the gains from 2S-> clubs, 2NT-> diamonds enabling super accepts are marginal or non existent.

Are you counting the social democracies as free markets or not? (Friedman does obviously)

Except that the US has higher inequality and more poverty than, say, Finland on a per capita basis. Is there any data amongst the OECD to suggest that this is the case?

You're forgetting that Isaac Newton's quote "If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants" is seen as an indictment of capitalism/endorsement of socalism by the US Republican movement. Just look at the sheer number of hilariously bad political cartoons sledging the 'you didn't build that' remark. The bottom line is that your statement is self evidently true, but it runs contrary to the de jure republican/protestant line that man can pull himself up by his own bootstraps, everything government does is bad, and everything would be better if there was no government. Given the dissonance, they have to reject one position and for some reason that eludes me, they pick yours.

The single best corporate tax evasion scheme is Ikea. Ikea is a charity dedicated to the advancement of furniture design (I'm not joking at all), and is run as a not for profit corporation. The profits are extracted via a licensing fee charged by an off-shore corporation in Bermuda. It is the best thing.

Indeed, that's why I started at 5 previously! That said, very few seats are that safe, except gerrymandered ones. No lower-house seat in Australia has a 2:1 margin, though some are close. I'd note that the 51-49 districts are ripe for a 3rd party candiate to take the odd seat. If you put me in charge of reforming the US electorate system I'd keep the congress as single member electorates and change the senate to proportionally representative with a fixed term aligned to the presidential cycle. I am not sure whether the German model you propose or an Australian style model is superior for the upperhouse, but I lean towards the German system. I agree that no such change will happen.

Yeah you're right, whoops. This is why an odd number of seats is required :)

I'd open hands 0 and 1 constructively at the one level, and I'd open an pre-emptive Ekrens 2H with hands 2 and 3. I doubt I am representative of most players, but at the club everyone would open the hand you had and I suspect quite a few would open the first.

We need to be really careful about terminology here. Instant Run Off voting (or 'single transferable vote') is a form of preference voting (but not the only form) and is not a first past the post system. The decision to use multiple member or single member electorates is also seperate. What does this have to do with proportional representation? If it was 11 single member electorates you would have the same problem. This issue is not related to proportional representation. Legislation is not amenable to these solutions because 'piss off' is a valid position, but it is mandatory that the electorate return a representative. It is possible to directly elect your representative in a multi member constituency, depending on the selection method used. Borda count would be out, but a single transferable vote would satisfy this criteria. Indeed, you are much more likely to have representation. It may be instructive to draw on my personal experience. I am a voter in three electorates, one PR as part of a bicameral house, one PR as part of a single house and one single member. In the single electorate, my current local member in a single member constituency is from a party I do not support on a comfortable margin. Why would she listen to me in the slightest, I am literally never going to vote for her. How can I hold her accountable in any meaningful fashion? 2) Australia has PR and non-PR houses at a state and federal level and strong governments. PR does not lead to stronger governments or visa versa. The two are completely disconnected. If anything, I suspect that public would regard the bicameral houses with PR and non-PR representation as the strongest. 3) Is there any evidence to support this position?

Gay marriage in Australia is a 62% majority in support, no hope of being passed. Drug legalisation - 50 to 36 isn't a slim majority. If I take out the 'don't cares' it comes to 60-40 in favour. That's pretty big. No hope of being passed. I guess you can say this is a slim majority, so lts consider something else. Let's consider your healthcare example. Pre Obamacare, 62%(!) of Americans were in favour of a single payer universal healthcare system(!!). Did that even come close to getting up? Hells no. If 62% in favour is a slim majority, I would love you to identify what a comfortable majority would be, and which laws actually have it. Note that failure to pass these laws doesn't lead to compromise - it just means they don't pass. The de jure and de facto status of parties is essentially irrelevant though - why are their ballot access restrictions to minor parties in the US? Because de facto the parties rule the roost. I do not understand how changing the number and method of election of senates has any impact on their role. This conflation seems unfounded. I would suggest that the role of the senators is to represent the people of the state directly, for what is the state is nothing if not the will of its people. How familiar are you with other countries legislative systems? At least one has exactly the same challenge you had (multiple independent colonies forming a state and whom wanted to protect their rights equally in some sort of.. senate), and manages the objectives of protecting states rights while having 10 senators proportionally elected by each state. Why? It is simple to show the problem. Consider this 11 voter electorate. There are 5 Nationalist voters, 4 Patriot voters and 2 'Third Way' voters. Each bloc has nominated its own candiate. 1) Nationalists prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the 'Third Way' candidate to the Patriot candidate. 2) Patriots prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the 'Third Way' candidate to the Nationalist Candidate. 3) 'Third Way' candidates prefer their candidate to both other candidates, but prefer the Patriot candidate to the Nationalist candidate Who should win the election? The first past the post problem is that the 'Third Way' candidate shouldn't run - he damages the interests of his electors by doing so! This is insane - instant run off voting is clearly better, though still does not return the Condorcet winner. This is hardly a hypothetical either, if Nader had not run and exit polling is representative, the flow of preferences would have been sufficient for Al Gore to win the 2000 presidential election. Is this really the result you desire from democracy, where it is better not to participate in the democratic process? STV/IRV is strictly superior to first past the post against any criteria you care to name.

@Mike777 Your union is imperfect. There is 200 years of experience to draw on to improve it. We hold up American private sector reinvention as 'good' why not reinvent the body politic with all that we know now? Much can be learnt from Europe, Australia, NZ and Canada and much should be left behind. Take the gems, leave the dross. There is no grounds on which first last the post voting should be retained for example. You may dispute whether Borda count or STV is the best replacement, but both are better replacements

There are a number of cases of majority will being blocked c.f gay marriage in Australia. US weed legalization is 50% yes 36% nay, much stronger that abortion rights Also, you misunderstand Belgium - there are only one divisive position - what do we do with Walloon, amd they still do not know. They passed legislation for those 500 days though. But yes Belgium is the argument for two houses.

Edit: optus ate my post will redo later

I know - presidential year elections are very different from midterms as a result because it's impossible to motivate the majority in non presidential years so the CRAZIES from both sides are out in force. In addition the the US has much stronger factional politics so discussing the 'democrats' as a whole is flawed. However, it is a useful shorthand to say that Obama heads up the Democrats, just as I'd say David Cameron heads up the Tories - despite the fact that Sayeeda Warsi and Andrew Feldman are the actual party leaders, and the party is not called the Tories. Indeed, the statement 'David Cameron leads the Tories' is completely factually incorrect, but I doubt most people even know who Sayeeda Warsi is, so indicating that she is the de jure leader of the conservative party is not helpful to any sort of constructive discussion. Similarly, everyone knows what you're talking about when you say David Cameron leads the Tories, or that Julia Gillard and not Jenny McAllister leads the ALP. Sorry, I thought this truth was self evident. Enabling proportional representation (which would obviously require constitutional change), would then lead to the election of minor parties. It is likely that at some time these minor parties would hold the balance of power. Having to form a coalition with others forces you to negotiate and compromise rather than engage in the increasingly partisan bickering in the US. This behavior is easily seen in the European parliaments, such as Germany. I am unclear why giving each state more senators would result in a reduction in representation for that state, though it would make the fundamental inequities in the system more clear. If I have not made it clear before, I disagree with the doctrine of "American Exceptionalism." The US is no more or less exceptional than Germany. The US's inability to organise a functional government is its own fault and not an intrisic property of including the land area of the US in your borders. Transpires that the first election was Geryymandered in the US in 1789. So, that's what, 223 years to get that one fixed? Nice going guys.

You cannot make this stuff up. The problem is that the US discussion never actually moves forward. Gerrymandering has been recognised as a problem since, what, 1880? Outsourcing definition to electoral boundaries to an independent commission and Implementation of a single transferable vote (also known as instant run off voting) would do a lot to reform the US electoral system. Actually it would radically reform it. Ultimately any sort of system here - approval voting (or better yet for the US, Borda Count, the system used for MVP election in MLB) I would further suggest: Implementation of 5, 7 or 9 senators per state and proportional representation (using an STV) for Senate seats. Territories can have a reduced number - I'd suggest 2 but that is prejudiced by my experience. This would enable minor party representation in the US senate(!). Requiring coalition governments ever would change the nature of the US political debate forever. Implementation of mandatory voting - controversial, but freedom comes at a price - your responsibility to society. The main goal is actually to reduce voter disenfranchisement, as with the next suggestion. Moving elections to a weekend. Scrapping the electoral college - this just damages presidential elections. Just the first two changes (STV + scrapping gerrymandering) would change everything forever. The rest is just a cherry on top.

It's just depressing as an outside observer. America can chose between a bad (centre?) right party lead by Obama, or an ur-fascist party lead by Mitt Romney. Your elections are rife with gerrymandering (a practice so discredited even northern Ireland(!) has moved past it). First past the post voting is as inelegant as it is stupid. That's ignoring the fact that election officials is an elected(!) partisan(!!) position, and these people have been caught with their fingers blatantly in the till. Basically American, land of free, home of democracy has A) The worst electoral system in the Western world, bar none. This is an impressive achievement. B) A pretty poor choice. But money is speech and electoral reform doesn't have any money behind it so I guess US citizens don't get to have a real democracy, particularly if they are black. It's a depressing state of affairs. I thought the rallying cry was supposed to be no taxation without representation - so why no senate seats for Washington D.C. Depressing.

So did anyone else see Rush Limbaugh claiming that Batman was a setup for Mitt because the bad guy is 'Bane' and Mitt worked at 'Bain' and they sound the same? Apparently 'liebrals' have been engaged in long term planning on this since 1993. The depressing part is I'm not even joking. This man is a Republican party leadership figure too - amply demonstrated by the fact that any time a GOP memember says he isn't, they issue an apology to say that he, infact, is. It's beautiful. One of the most powerful men in the Republican party is willing to give credence to the idea that there is a multi decade liberal conspiracy to discredit Mitt Romney (hahaha), or is actively lying. It's even more insidious than that. Given that the man is either a liar or stupid, which one of these statements is true: A) The GOP is so debased that it looks to a known liar for intellectual leadership B) The GOP is full of such intellectual dwarfs that a man who believes in aforementioned conspiracy is a 'conservative giant' Not that the democrats are much better, but then again, you don't see the head of the democratic national committee referring to John Steward as a 'progressive force in the nation' but then again maybe you do :ohdear:

Romney is, amusingly, a white Obama from a policy perspective (assuming that his background prior to running for president is what he actually thinks rather than whatever he is saying to get elected). However, the reason Obama is hitting Romney hard about the Bain capital thing is that there is something bad in there. I reckon it's one of these four: 1. Extremely high income. 2. More overseas bank accounts and tax shields than previously indicated. Offshore shell companies? 3. Controversial investments. That Bain invested in aborted foetus disposal systems is already public knowledge. What else is there? 4. A very low tax rate. Your pick as to what. I don't think any of them will end particularly well.

Did you see that the GOP Texas policy platform seriously has that they are against teaching critical thinking in classrooms, because it might cause someone to question authority? I am not joking in any way about that. This is what I absolutely do not understand about US politics. This is a self evidently totally absurd position, but more than one person had to agree with that. Also why is deregulating the pasteurization of milk even a thing? Maybe the doctrine of American exceptionalism that leads to rejecting totally that any European nation can provide a template for healthcare runs to rejecting anything European at all, and Louis was french? It's ridiculous. Tasmania is kinda like a left wing version of Louisiana. Try not to think to hard about that. The problem is that it's not some, it's FORTY PERCENT. Just contemplate that. American has collectively lost its *****, and to be honest Australia isn't that far behind - there is no grasp of rational discourse in public any more. The Obama is a SEKRET MUSLIM question is hardly the most damning on that poll.

There are only three reasons to believe that Fascism is socialist (LOL) is because you are stupid, lying or ill-informed. I think Mike777 is a smart dude, so someone has lied to him. It's intresting - one of the great successes of the American right in recent times has been redefining everything bad from the right is 'leftist' and everything from the left as 'evil.' It is truly brilliant and just shows how good the right's propaganda machine is, so much so that they think Obama is a leftist (hahaha) rather than the centre right leader he is. Heck, 42% of Americans don't believe Obama was born in the united states. Again, either they are stupid, lying or ill-informed. I don't think 42% of Americans are that mentally deficient, so they are lying or ill informed. But it gets better 64% of Republicans buy into this! Why? It's easy - they watch Fox News. Daily watchers of fox news are 50% more likely to believe that Obama was not born in the United states that watchers of other news media, and 200%(!) more likely than the people who are factually best informed about current affairs, NPR viewers. Fox is the #1 source of Televised news in the US now. What the hell is happening to the truth over there guys? How can so many people believe something so stupid? Source: Misinformation and the 2010 Election, A Study of the US Electorate, WorldPublicOpinion.org and Knowledge Networks, December 2010 Incidently, am I the only one who has read Umberto Eco? His 14 points defining Ur-Facism makes interesting reading in the context of the above.

So after the auction (P)-P-(1C) you're never overcalling 1D with AKQx and nothing else outside? Bridgewinners articles from better players than me advocate 4 card overcalls in that exact situation with a worse suit. Ignoring the scoring implications is bad, but there are definitely 'right' times to make 4 card overcalls and everyone should expect it sometimes.

Yeah, nothing wrong with 4 card overcalls etc as long as you're on the same page as whoever you are playing with.

But American spends ~17.5% now! If this demolishes your economy, America is in more dire need of reform and cost controls than anyone else? If you don't like Finnland, try Germany. Booming economy, strong healthcare, and inherited the ex-soviet block east Germany and had to manage that.

So to use a true to life example, my grandmother had a stroke literally 3 weeks ago. She had it at her hairdressers. She attempted to refuse treatment because she was 'fine' despite being in the process of having a stroke as she was delusional, so the paramedics said 'hahah no you are having a stroke' and took her to ER against her will, thus saving her from permanent disability because she got treatment within 10 minutes of the stroke beginning (partly due to luck). As a result she made a full recovery, despite having a stroke at the age of 94(!). Are you saying that the paramedics should have left her at her hairdresser because she attempted to refuse treatment? Despite being obviously irrational? If you seriously believe that there is no point in further discussion. This is why the model is broken. The paramedics CANNOT check your insurance details prior to treatment. Say you left your card at home, do they just let you bleed out? You're seriously okay with that If you present at ER with major trauma (say... gunshot), do you want the ER to confirm you have insurance prior to treating you? What happens if you do have insurance and die in the mean time? Similarly it is unworkable to not to coersively take you when you've obviously suffered head trauma - people who are concussed do not make rational decisions. They cannot not take someone who is obviously not in full command of their mental faculties. Reality is, ERs must treat patients who present with emergency conditions immediately. Nothing else is a workable model. Under this model costs are socialised, just they can be socalised upfront or in your bills. Once you get over this hurdle, it is obvious that you are paying for the dudes motorcycle accident and as a result the guy should be forced to wear a helmet, no question.