Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

There is a furore in GC society as a result of this proposition. Al the rejectionists have protested in unison against Christofias (Papadopoulos junior, Kolokasides of DIKO, Angelides of DIKO, Koutsou and Sillouris of Evroko, the Greens and of course the remnants of EOKA B).

Very interesting was the reaction of Averof, DISI deputy leader, who instinctively spoke against the proposal, only for Nikos Anastasiades to step in a declare that he does not represent the official party position.

[Get Real!]

Journalist Makarios Droushiotis, darling of many TC posters, today came out in favor of the cross voting system proposed by President Christofias.

Not surprised, MD is one of the people that Downer and Co have approached and greased to support the Turkish thesis on Cyprus.

As they did to Şener Levent, perhaps. In stereotyping minds of almost all GCs there always has been many "traitors" supporting/conspiring the thesis of "enemy".

You seem to underestimate the foreign "think tanks"...

[Bananiot]

Let's put the record straight, while we are at it. Makarios Droushiotis is the darling of all peace loving Cypriots, be they GC or TC. Bigots, fascists and fanatics of all sorts prefer him to be some foreign agent working day and night for the destruction of Cyprus.

[Piratis]

No Bananiot, Makarios Drousiotis is the darling of those people who want peace to come by us surrendering 1/3rd of Cyprus to be officially Turkified. This includes all TCs and a tiny minority of GCs.

Don't forget that you belong only to a small minority of extremist GCs, who like similar extremist minorities in the past collaborate with foreign Imperialists and try to impose your will on Cyprus by force. The majority of Cypriots are decent people who want peace to come via the liberation of the illegally occupied part of Cyprus and restoration of democracy and human rights.

You are the fascist because you support things like ethnic cleansing, human rights violations and the discrimination of Cypriot citizens based on their race.

People that reject your criminals demands, and insist on human rights, democracy and equality of all citizens without racist discrimination are the decent people that you and your Imperialist friends hate.

Calling people names without justifying your accusations is pointless. On the other hand I have just explained to you exactly why you are indeed a fascist.

[Bananiot]

Be careful Piratis. It was you that reacted to the first post I made in this forum calling me a traitor. Thus, by your definition you are a grand fascist.

[wyoming cowboy]

its stupid, what qualifies one to be tc or gc. what if there is a zebra cypriot greek and tc parent, one man one vote end of story.

It sounds complicated when described. But it goes like this: 100% of TC voters vote for the GC president, there is no weighting of their vote.

100% of GCs vote for the TC Vice President, but their vote is negatively weighted to bring it to the level of 25 per cent of the total vote. Thus the TCs always have the upper hand when voting for the TC Vice President. Presumably the GC vote then gets divvied up according to vote percentage to the candidates.

It seems that it does not give any side an upper hand but equal footing.

[Kifeas]

It sounds complicated when described. But it goes like this: 100% of TC voters vote for the GC president, there is no weighting of their vote.

100% of GCs vote for the TC Vice President, but their vote is negatively weighted to bring it to the level of 25 per cent of the total vote. Thus the TCs always have the upper hand when voting for the TC Vice President. Presumably the GC vote then gets divvied up according to vote percentage to the candidates.

In each case the vote of the "other" community does not exceed 25 per cent of the total votes, ie equality and cross communal political participation. It also makes the rotating presidency palatable to the majority.

First of all, the 25% downscaling is only indicative. The real percentage will be the one that equals the percentage of the TC community as part of the whole, and it might as well be less than that. Only if all the settlers who are given "citizenship" by the "TRNC" are allowed to stay in Cyprus as citizens, the TC community will become the 25%; and if none of them stays, the TCs may only count for 12-13% of the total.

Now, even though any TC percentage, be it 20%, 15% or even 10%, will be enough to determine the outcome of the GC elections, since throughout the RoC history all presidential elections were decided on a mere 1%-3% difference; in the case of the TC VP elections, such is not the case. Even if 20% of the electorate comes from the GCs, it is always possible that it will not determine the outcome, even if all of it shifts towards one single candidate. It is always possible that as much as 75% of the TCs (including settlers) will vote for a nationalist candidate (in a second round,) upon instructions from Turkey, and we had many examples in the past in which TC leftist parties (most probable allies of GC voters) did not receive more than 25% in presidential elections.

A system in which both the GC president and the TC vice-president (essentially co-presidents) would receive a minimum percentage (say 35% or 40%) from each of both GC and TC electorates, separately, would have been much better in ensuring that extremists with nationalist agendas are ruled out from winning the presidency on behalf of either community.

Nevertheless, it is always better that the 1960 system in which each community was electing its own co-president separately. What I do not understand, nor digest, is why Christofias proposed a rotation presidency on the basis of 4:2 (66% : 33%,) instead of a 4:1 or at best 3:1 (80:20 or 75:25,) which are more representative to the actual demographics of the two communities. Is it a case in which, whenever it suits the TCs they are only the 20% of the total, and therefore the GC electorate should be downscaled to reflect their numerical output; and when it doesn't suit them (rotating presidency ratio,) they are not the 20% only, but something much more than that?

[zan]

It sounds complicated when described. But it goes like this: 100% of TC voters vote for the GC president, there is no weighting of their vote.

100% of GCs vote for the TC Vice President, but their vote is negatively weighted to bring it to the level of 25 per cent of the total vote. Thus the TCs always have the upper hand when voting for the TC Vice President. Presumably the GC vote then gets divvied up according to vote percentage to the candidates.

In each case the vote of the "other" community does not exceed 25 per cent of the total votes, ie equality and cross communal political participation. It also makes the rotating presidency palatable to the majority.

First of all, the 25% downscaling is only indicative. The real percentage will be the one that equals the percentage of the TC community as part of the whole, and it might as well be less than that. Only if all the settlers who are given "citizenship" by the "TRNC" are allowed to stay in Cyprus as citizens, the TC community will become the 25%; and if none of them stays, the TCs may only count for 12-13% of the total.

Now, even though any TC percentage, be it 20%, 15% or even 10%, will be enough to determine the outcome of the GC elections, since throughout the RoC history all presidential elections were decided on a mere 1%-3% difference; in the case of the TC VP elections, such is not the case. Even if 20% of the electorate comes from the GCs, it is always possible that it will not determine the outcome, even if all of it shifts towards one single candidate. It is always possible that as much as 75% of the TCs (including settlers) will vote for a nationalist candidate (in a second round,) upon instructions from Turkey, and we had many examples in the past in which TC leftist parties (most probable allies of GC voters) did not receive more than 25% in presidential elections.

A system in which both the GC president and the TC vice-president (essentially co-presidents) would receive a minimum percentage (say 35% or 40%) from each of both GC and TC electorates, separately, would have been much better in ensuring that extremists with nationalist agendas are ruled out from winning the presidency on behalf of either community.

Nevertheless, it is always better that the 1960 system in which each community was electing its own co-president separately. What I do not understand, nor digest, is why Christofias proposed a rotation presidency on the basis of 4:2 (66% : 33%,) instead of a 4:1 or at best 3:1 (80:20 or 75:25,) which are more representative to the actual demographics of the two communities. Is it a case in which, whenever it suits the TCs they are only the 20% of the total, and therefore the GC electorate should be downscaled to reflect their numerical output; and when it doesn't suit them (rotating presidency ratio,) they are not the 20% only, but something much more than that?

Could it be that they are working on political equality and not numerical advatage?? Two different sums!

[Bananiot]

May be the give and take part of this process has started and yes, for a meaningful and potentially productive last act, both leaders must bear in mind that political equality is the order of the day and the only realistic prospective for a sucessful conclusion.

The one man one vote call is a sure prescription for disaster since it does not take into account the realities in Cyprus.

[Kifeas]

It sounds complicated when described. But it goes like this: 100% of TC voters vote for the GC president, there is no weighting of their vote.

100% of GCs vote for the TC Vice President, but their vote is negatively weighted to bring it to the level of 25 per cent of the total vote. Thus the TCs always have the upper hand when voting for the TC Vice President. Presumably the GC vote then gets divvied up according to vote percentage to the candidates.

In each case the vote of the "other" community does not exceed 25 per cent of the total votes, ie equality and cross communal political participation. It also makes the rotating presidency palatable to the majority.

First of all, the 25% downscaling is only indicative. The real percentage will be the one that equals the percentage of the TC community as part of the whole, and it might as well be less than that. Only if all the settlers who are given "citizenship" by the "TRNC" are allowed to stay in Cyprus as citizens, the TC community will become the 25%; and if none of them stays, the TCs may only count for 12-13% of the total.

Now, even though any TC percentage, be it 20%, 15% or even 10%, will be enough to determine the outcome of the GC elections, since throughout the RoC history all presidential elections were decided on a mere 1%-3% difference; in the case of the TC VP elections, such is not the case. Even if 20% of the electorate comes from the GCs, it is always possible that it will not determine the outcome, even if all of it shifts towards one single candidate. It is always possible that as much as 75% of the TCs (including settlers) will vote for a nationalist candidate (in a second round,) upon instructions from Turkey, and we had many examples in the past in which TC leftist parties (most probable allies of GC voters) did not receive more than 25% in presidential elections.

A system in which both the GC president and the TC vice-president (essentially co-presidents) would receive a minimum percentage (say 35% or 40%) from each of both GC and TC electorates, separately, would have been much better in ensuring that extremists with nationalist agendas are ruled out from winning the presidency on behalf of either community.

Nevertheless, it is always better that the 1960 system in which each community was electing its own co-president separately. What I do not understand, nor digest, is why Christofias proposed a rotation presidency on the basis of 4:2 (66% : 33%,) instead of a 4:1 or at best 3:1 (80:20 or 75:25,) which are more representative to the actual demographics of the two communities. Is it a case in which, whenever it suits the TCs they are only the 20% of the total, and therefore the GC electorate should be downscaled to reflect their numerical output; and when it doesn't suit them (rotating presidency ratio,) they are not the 20% only, but something much more than that?

Could it be that they are working on political equality and not numerical advatage?? Two different sums!

Zan, I do not understand your question, neither do I see any relationship with what I have posted above.