Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

"Do you know what the word proportional means? From the way you talk is seems that you don't."

Perhaps this may help you Piratis. There are several forms of proprtional representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportion ... esentation

And I stated " a form of proportional representation " as that is exactly what it is so please don't insult my intelligence.

The form being propsed is based on a cross-voting principle weighted according to the size of each community. Now I think your problem is that the weighting is 66:33 instead of 80:20 or 75:25

I don't think this is a racist principle. I think its only fair that TC's will have a major say in the who the TC VP is just as it is fair that the GC's have the major say in who the GC President is.

I think you need to think about what is best for Cyprus as a whole, rather than what is best for one community over the other. Our history is a mess and you can't jump from a mess to ideal in one step.

Let's try to apply this weighted cross voting proposal on a possible outcome.

TCs have 3 candidates for presidency. TCs have 150.000(75%) voters and GCs 600.000(25%) voters. TC candidates for presidency r A, B, and C.

A recieved 90.000 votes from TCs and 20.000 votes from GCs.

B recieved 40.000 votes from TCs and 500.000 votes from GCs.

C recieved 20.000 votes from TCs and 80.000 votes from GCs.

Who would win the presidency elections according to the proposed weighted cross voting method? It seems to me that A should win because recieved majority of the votes of TCs. On the other hand it seems that presidency of A is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs... So who should win the presidency?

[Bananiot]

Have you weighted the GC vote? I see, you expect us to do the weighing, that is fine. However, your assumptions are not realistic. No GC candidate ever got 500 000 votes out of possible 600 000, not even Makarios in the first elections in 1960.

[insan]

Have you weighted the GC vote? I see, you expect us to do the weighing, that is fine. However, your assumptions are not realistic. No GC candidate ever got 500 000 votes out of possible 600 000, not even Makarios in the first elections in 1960.

I'm assuming that it's TC turn for presidency and we all vote for 3 TC candidates, Bananiot... or am I missing something?

[insan]

"Do you know what the word proportional means? From the way you talk is seems that you don't."

Perhaps this may help you Piratis. There are several forms of proprtional representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportion ... esentation

And I stated " a form of proportional representation " as that is exactly what it is so please don't insult my intelligence.

The form being propsed is based on a cross-voting principle weighted according to the size of each community. Now I think your problem is that the weighting is 66:33 instead of 80:20 or 75:25

I don't think this is a racist principle. I think its only fair that TC's will have a major say in the who the TC VP is just as it is fair that the GC's have the major say in who the GC President is.

I think you need to think about what is best for Cyprus as a whole, rather than what is best for one community over the other. Our history is a mess and you can't jump from a mess to ideal in one step.

Let's try to apply this weighted cross voting proposal on a possible outcome.

TCs have 3 candidates for presidency. TCs have 150.000(75%) voters and GCs 600.000(25%) voters. TC candidates for presidency r A, B, and C.

A recieved 90.000 votes from TCs and 20.000 votes from GCs.

B recieved 40.000 votes from TCs and 500.000 votes from GCs.

C recieved 20.000 votes from TCs and 80.000 votes from GCs.

Who would win the presidency elections according to the proposed weighted cross voting method? It seems to me that A should win because recieved majority of the votes of TCs. On the other hand it seems that presidency of A is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs... So who should win the presidency?

Ok. I'll try to base the number of voters on percentages.

A recieved 45% out of 75% of TC votes and 6% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total of 51% out of 100%.

B recieved 20% out of 75% of TC votes and 18% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 38% out of 100%.

C recieved 10% out of 75% of TC votes and 1% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 11% of 100%.

As it is seen, despite it is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs A wins TC presidency.

[Get Real!]

Your simplistic questions should be addressed to those that have accepted that the solution we are seeking is bizonal, bicommunal federation with political equality as defined by the relevent resolutions of the UN.

So what? What one party/leader accepted 30 years ago and what will be acceptable later by another governing party/leader are two different things.

I’ve lost count how many times Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot representatives went back on their word so why shouldn’t we?

[Oracle]

I do not know what the crazy woman is doing here but perhaps she can answer her own question by pondering on the reasons we accepted federation when up to 1974 anyone who dared mentioned the dreaded word was sent to hell.

The "crazy woman" is here because you, who is self-certified as sane, have a duty to explain why you condemn a whole nation of GCs to racist denial of their basic human rights and democracy.

What is this "sanity" which you possess that allows you to make statements such as this:

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

The fact is, your Turkish fanaticisms are your "realities" ... It happens sometimes that a sickness of self-loathing overtakes someone, but please keep it to yourself and don't drag my people into a world where they should be condemned because you have chosen to sleep with the enemy.

[insan]

"Do you know what the word proportional means? From the way you talk is seems that you don't."

Perhaps this may help you Piratis. There are several forms of proprtional representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportion ... esentation

And I stated " a form of proportional representation " as that is exactly what it is so please don't insult my intelligence.

The form being propsed is based on a cross-voting principle weighted according to the size of each community. Now I think your problem is that the weighting is 66:33 instead of 80:20 or 75:25

I don't think this is a racist principle. I think its only fair that TC's will have a major say in the who the TC VP is just as it is fair that the GC's have the major say in who the GC President is.

I think you need to think about what is best for Cyprus as a whole, rather than what is best for one community over the other. Our history is a mess and you can't jump from a mess to ideal in one step.

Let's try to apply this weighted cross voting proposal on a possible outcome.

TCs have 3 candidates for presidency. TCs have 150.000(75%) voters and GCs 600.000(25%) voters. TC candidates for presidency r A, B, and C.

A recieved 90.000 votes from TCs and 20.000 votes from GCs.

B recieved 40.000 votes from TCs and 500.000 votes from GCs.

C recieved 20.000 votes from TCs and 80.000 votes from GCs.

Who would win the presidency elections according to the proposed weighted cross voting method? It seems to me that A should win because recieved majority of the votes of TCs. On the other hand it seems that presidency of A is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs... So who should win the presidency?

Ok. I'll try to base the number of voters on percentages.

A recieved 45% out of 75% of TC votes and 6% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total of 51% out of 100%.

B recieved 20% out of 75% of TC votes and 18% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 38% out of 100%.

C recieved 10% out of 75% of TC votes and 1% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 11% of 100%.

As it is seen, despite it is against the will of overwhelming majority of GCs A wins TC presidency.

Another possible outcome might be as follows:

A recieved 40% out of 75% of TC votes and 0% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total of 40% out of 100%. (Assume it's Eroğlu)

B recieved 25% out of 75% of TC votes and 24% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 49% out of 100%.(Assume it's Talat)

C recieved 10% out of 75% of TC votes and 1% votes out of 25% of GC votes. Total 11% of 100%.(Assume it's Çakıcı)

This time, as it is seen; B wins despite A recived 40% out of 75% of TC votes. This would be against the will of majority of TC voters...

[Gregory]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

[Bananiot]

You are amazingly stupid if you really believe what you last wrote GR. You are actually saying that a country of 0.75 million people can go back on its word and shove all the things it agreed to the face of the international community!

[YFred]

"However, in terms of their duties on land I do not think that they would need heavy miltary hardware (tanks,artllery,APC's etc) in order to maintain law and order."

Its not a question of maintaining law and order but a question of protecting the sovereignty of Cyprus. We would not need heavy military hardware but a small, mobile and effective military working under the NATO umbrella.

I take your point. But I pose this then - If the Cyprus problem is solved who do we need to protect our sovereignity against beyond what a police force cannot do?

Personally, I do not see any benefit to Cyprus joining NATO but would rather advocate integration into a future EU force (if we were to retain some form of military force).

Cyprus within EU does not need any military. Just a police force will suffice.

You obviously feel secure within the EU. Why then do you require guarantees?

Gregory, you have a house, why do you insure it? What is the chance it will burn down? I have been paying this insurance for 30 years, should I cancel it?

You will find that 99% of TCs will not vote for peace without a guarantee.

So you feel fine leaving the fate of the entire island to the EU mechanism of security but feel that your small community warrants the direct involvement of a foreign power in the sovereign state of Cyprus.

Your insurance theory is simply a joke since your insurance company happens to be presently squatting in the property.

No, if the RoC and signed a peace agreement anytime in the last 35 years Turkey would have left. It is the absence of the peace agreement that warrants Turkish presence in Cyprus not the fact that they are squatting. Once the peace deal is signed, Turkey will go.

Apparently not true since Talat has repeated that no properties will be handed back to the GC's. So what do you mean by Turkey going? Even with the Annan Plan the majority of GC's were without their property but offered complex compensation instead.

If you mean militarily then under the Annan Plan a contingent was still present on the island and the guarantees mean it could step back under the faintest of civil unrests.

Once again, how do you define Turkey will go?

P.S as for the 30 odd years before the Annan Plan may I remind you who the world recognised as Mr No. (starts with D)

Yfred? Care to explain the old cliche of the Turks leaving once we sign a peace accord

Isn't it obvious, as we only have a ceasfire agreement, they are obliged to stay. The moment the peace agreement is signed, why wouldn't they leave. At worst they will leave 600 behind like pre 74.
It was in the Annan plan which you guys refused.