We all know that there is a set age at which one can vote in Canada. It seems odd to me thought that this is the only criteria. What other criteria, if any, would you include thus enabling someone to vote? I would encourage a licensing program whereby you have to show a basic knowledge of history, politics, science, and economics in order to vote.
Who should be allowed to vote?
- Thread starter ansutherland
- Start date
I would agree, most probably would. The qualifications to do many important jobs is enormous, yet to run the country, nothing is required.
No one will ever please everybody. The job requires making decisions that will be unpopular with many people, so only someone who couldn't care less what people think would want such a thankless job. Thus we get egotistical morons who think their opinions are the only opinions worth consideration - everybody else be damned (Gordo and Harpo come to mind)
I don't think we'd want to take the lid off that can of worms. I agree that for voting to be effective, only informed people SHOULD vote, having one brain and 10 followers voting for the same thing/person doesn't prove much. As soon as you deny one person the right to vote because of arbitrary criteria you are going to have a Donnybrook like WW3 on your hands. :lol::lol::lol:
It's not arbitrary criteria though. Arbitrary criteria would be making people prove they can say the alphabet backwards. A testable knowledge of the subjects that best exemplify political policy and culture is not arbitrary in the least.
I don't think it's a question of who should be allowed to vote. I think voting should be mandatory.
Thankless! We thank them daily as they reach into their bank accounts to receive the pay they have not earned and later to receive the pensions they did not earn. They are all there for the power and the money.
I think Government should dole out their bureaucratic bungling on folks who don't bother to get their names stroked from the list.
Ooooh that might just be a second can of worms, just to find a non partisan person to make up the test might be a problem. Probably best just to leave it alone. :smile:
VanIsle- Why would you want someone who has no interest in politics, no knowledge of politics or how government works and further more doesn't care to be forced to vote? What possible good would that accomplish? :smile:
Age and citizenship should be the only two requirements.
Setting up a bureaucracy to test people on basic knowledge is costly and elitist.
How about we just do a better job of teaching kids in schools.
Besides, I would suggest the people who do actually vote have that basic knowledge anyways and the ones who do not vote never cared enough to inform themselves.
If we have bad leadership perhaps it's not our fault but the lack of decent choices. Seems to me that most politicians aren't in it for the service to the public but instead in it for themselves and the celebrity of it....I turn your attention to the collossal waste in Toronto this weekend as an example.
A billion dollars that could have transformed Toronto transit system and gotten mentally ill people off the streets into treatment. Instead, we get to watch all these egos on parade at our expense when this could have been done via video conference call.:roll:
Setting up a bureaucracy to test people on basic knowledge is costly and elitist.
How about we just do a better job of teaching kids in schools.
Besides, I would suggest the people who do actually vote have that basic knowledge anyways and the ones who do not vote never cared enough to inform themselves.
If we have bad leadership perhaps it's not our fault but the lack of decent choices. Seems to me that most politicians aren't in it for the service to the public but instead in it for themselves and the celebrity of it....I turn your attention to the collossal waste in Toronto this weekend as an example.
A billion dollars that could have transformed Toronto transit system and gotten mentally ill people off the streets into treatment. Instead, we get to watch all these egos on parade at our expense when this could have been done via video conference call.:roll:
There is somewhat more to it depending on the level of government.
You must be a Canadian citizen to vote federally and in most provinces you must reside in that province for a period of time to vote there. You do not have to be a citizen of a municipality to vote there, only a property owner.
On the contrary, most that vote have no idea what is going on. That would imply then that he who wins must have been the best available choice. Thats is of course if you are assuming that the electorate is rational, which I would posit they are not.
How many people vote based on an inherited like or disdain for whom they vote? Most I would wager. The vary fact that issues such as gay marriage, global warming, and evolution can sway and electorate proves that point that many have not shown themselves responsible enough to vote. Is that eletist? Perhaps.
As for the test, why does it have to be biased? Facts do exist, do they not? Is evolution the best available explanation? Is anthropogenic global warming the best available theory? Do price controls work to the benefit of a market economy? The only bias in these questions is that of truth, substance, and reality.
How many people vote based on an inherited like or disdain for whom they vote? Most I would wager. The vary fact that issues such as gay marriage, global warming, and evolution can sway and electorate proves that point that many have not shown themselves responsible enough to vote. Is that eletist? Perhaps.
As for the test, why does it have to be biased? Facts do exist, do they not? Is evolution the best available explanation? Is anthropogenic global warming the best available theory? Do price controls work to the benefit of a market economy? The only bias in these questions is that of truth, substance, and reality.
Why make voter turn-out any lower than it already is? My guess is you're aware nobody likes to be tested.
That's true, no one likes to be tested. This is kinda the whole problem. We have a society of people all professing the infallibility of their antiquated and ill-conceived notions and politicians who pander to them. The problem is not with the politicians either, it's with those who vote. Because of how our system is structured, there is a heavy incentive to lie. If they do not lie, they will not be elected, simple as that.
Milton Friedman said, a democracy needs to provide great incentive for the wrong people to do the right thing in order for it to properly function.
Milton Friedman said, a democracy needs to provide great incentive for the wrong people to do the right thing in order for it to properly function.
It's more a problem in they who DON'T vote. Among voters, you have the swing and the ones who'd vote for a fence post if it wore their choice of colours. Among they who don't vote you have the disillusioned, and the folks who just don't give a damn.
This implies though that we should get the best available candidate when more people vote. The miracle of aggregation does not apply to voting like it does for Who Wants to be a Millionare? Far too many vote with far to little knowledge.
It is possibly true that the more politically engaged you are, the more likely it is you'll vote, but that in no way qualifies you as a knowledgable voter. It just makes you motivated.
What is the best candidate? If you elect a pacifist who gets appointed as Minister of Defense is that it? ...or a banker as Minister of Environment? What knowledge does the voter need?