Are you selling some Jo Jo's psychic voter kits? Maybe you haven't realized that the best of fibbers can fool just about anyone - even you.
Who should be allowed to vote?
- Thread starter ansutherland
- Start date
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:[/QUOTE]
A few years ago when we voted for the single transferable vote (I think that's the name), there was a person at each riding that could explain it if anyone wanted to know. I see no reason why someone couldn't be there to explain the gist of what each person they are voting for is seeking to attain in getting their particular vote. (If a person needs it explained) I think if voting was mandatory, people would take a greater interest in knowing just what they were voting for. It's all too easy to say "I'm not responsible - I never voted". People don't understand that if they don't vote at all, they certainly are responsible because by not voting they have (or probably have) allowed a politician to be voted into power who should not be in power. Right now our system is a little like living in a strata. In a strata you have to vote by proxy (or you should) if you cannot attend a general meeting. It has the exact effect of a non vote. People sign their proxy and let their neighbours vote for them but the neighbour votes the way they themselves want the vote to go. The issues are given out ahead of time in both government and things like strata's. The proxy vote should say a yes or no response rather than letting the neighbour fill in the blanks with their own ideas. The equivalent to voting twice or more in an election. Mandatory personal voting will actually vote in a government with real percentages. Not by default because only a certain percentage of the electorate votes but it still counts because whether it's 40% or 55% or ..... ? of the voters in total that vote, the most votes still count.
A few years ago when we voted for the single transferable vote (I think that's the name), there was a person at each riding that could explain it if anyone wanted to know. I see no reason why someone couldn't be there to explain the gist of what each person they are voting for is seeking to attain in getting their particular vote. (If a person needs it explained) I think if voting was mandatory, people would take a greater interest in knowing just what they were voting for. It's all too easy to say "I'm not responsible - I never voted". People don't understand that if they don't vote at all, they certainly are responsible because by not voting they have (or probably have) allowed a politician to be voted into power who should not be in power. Right now our system is a little like living in a strata. In a strata you have to vote by proxy (or you should) if you cannot attend a general meeting. It has the exact effect of a non vote. People sign their proxy and let their neighbours vote for them but the neighbour votes the way they themselves want the vote to go. The issues are given out ahead of time in both government and things like strata's. The proxy vote should say a yes or no response rather than letting the neighbour fill in the blanks with their own ideas. The equivalent to voting twice or more in an election. Mandatory personal voting will actually vote in a government with real percentages. Not by default because only a certain percentage of the electorate votes but it still counts because whether it's 40% or 55% or ..... ? of the voters in total that vote, the most votes still count.
A few years ago when we voted for the single transferable vote (I think that's the name), there was a person at each riding that could explain it if anyone wanted to know. I see no reason why someone couldn't be there to explain the gist of what each person they are voting for is seeking to attain in getting their particular vote. (If a person needs it explained) I think if voting was mandatory, people would take a greater interest in knowing just what they were voting for. It's all too easy to say "I'm not responsible - I never voted". People don't understand that if they don't vote at all, they certainly are responsible because by not voting they have (or probably have) allowed a politician to be voted into power who should not be in power. Right now our system is a little like living in a strata. In a strata you have to vote by proxy (or you should) if you cannot attend a general meeting. It has the exact effect of a non vote. People sign their proxy and let their neighbours vote for them but the neighbour votes the way they themselves want the vote to go. The issues are given out ahead of time in both government and things like strata's. The proxy vote should say a yes or no response rather than letting the neighbour fill in the blanks with their own ideas. The equivalent to voting twice or more in an election. Mandatory personal voting will actually vote in a government with real percentages. Not by default because only a certain percentage of the electorate votes but it still counts because whether it's 40% or 55% or ..... ? of the voters in total that vote, the most votes still count.[/QUOTE]
I guess on this issue VanIsle we have to agree to disagree. I am a person who is for as many rights and freedoms as possible and part of that would include not having to feel responsible for electing the "right" politician. Also I have no use for laws that aren't going to be enforced. So on election day every cop in the country would be engaged in going to people homes and dragging them down to the polling station by the heels- just can't see that happening. Or a fine would be imposed on them. Of course a lot of them (like denizens of Hastings and Main) aren't going to be able to pay them, so that means they'd have to go to jail. So now we have our over crowded jails filled up with people for not voting. I think we should just accept the fact that some people aren't interest in politics and be thankful, that that is the way it is. That kind of thing might just get us another Mulroney or Trudeau. Is that what you want? :lol::lol:
Leave it as is.... voter turnout is already the craps, and besides, to vote is the right of every Canadian, and it is also their right to choose to act on that right or not.
And if it is done as you suggest, then it will eventually lead to one group being represented, while the other group of our population have no voice at all. Everybody, the educated and the not-so educated, should have the chance to have their voice herd, regardless of how stupid or ignorant they may be.
I agree. Where would you draw the line between who's stupid and who is not and who would it be up to to make that decision? People fought for years to get voting rights, so what sense in trying to remove those rights and by the same token why remove the person's right not to vote?
Agreed.... it almost gives the impression of "If you don't vote my way or see things my way, then you are not as smart as I am, therefore you should not be allowed to vote."
Which as I see it, will only lead to a select few people who are allowed to vote, who all vote for the same thing, deciding things for everybody else..... which as I see it, is indeed Elitist to the core..... It destroys everything is it means to be Democratic and leans more towards a Dictatorship based on a select group of people.
The original poster may feel that's a great way of doing things, and so would a few of today's politicians..... but it will lead to corruption and power hungry morons who think they know what is best for them and their view of how things should be, rather then what is best for the nation, the people and how everybody else may think things should be.
Oh wait.... we already have this type of government :-?
Then address the news papers or how the political information is handled when issued to the public.... Garbage in, Garbage out.... don't blame the public for how the media conducts its reporting.... regulate the reporting so that by law, political reports much be issued in a clear, unbiased and detailed process or the station faces fines.
That'd sure fix a lot of problems with CTV & CBC and their slight of hand political twists on their reports.
While I agree with your above views, it is not your place nor my place to determine if we're more right then other people and it is now our place to disqualify their points of views and their votes just because we disagree with them or think they're flat out idiots.
If you think someone's view or actions are wrong, then challenge them, debate them, question their views, their positions and try and sway their minds to reason.... if the argument doesn't make sense to them, then perhaps the problem lies in your explanation or reasoning to them.
Then again, sometimes the problem lies in the way they think and their hard-line attitudes.... but strong-arming your position in a manner that removes any challengers to your position/view so that you have better chances at winning, simply because you think you're more right, isn't going to solve anything and will most certainly create more problems then it will solve, such as those being forced out from voting/voicing themselves, will not take such actions lying down and conflict will occur.
Because driving a car is dangerous and can directly cause damage, injury and/or death, driving is not a right, it is a privilege.... when you hit 18, you are legally an adult and by law, capable of making your own decisions, thus voting is not a privilege, it is a right for every citizen.
It is a right, directly because you are now an adult able to make your own decisions and hold responsibility for them. If you commit a crime, you are responsible and will be held accountable.... Mommy and Daddy are no longer able to protect you and make decisions for you.... why should someone now suddenly have you become their mommy and daddy again to make decisions for them because you don't think they've grown up enough?
Let's say they make this little test for everybody to take but don't make the test as you think they should, and suddenly you fail the test and can not vote? Who sets the bar for this test?
You?
Me?
How about someone smarter then you, I or anybody else here?
How about the average high school graduate?
Maybe your average College/University grad?
I understand your position and reasons for your position, but the concept is impractical and goes against everything that makes us Canadians in the first place.
Don't punish the ill-informed people, focus attention on the medium that informs those people and set IT straight.
If that means cracking down on the news media and/or cracking down on political parties and their attack ads/fearmongering tactics they continually use in their wrestling soap operas they put on for us in front of the camera, then so be it.
The voter can only do so much based on the tools and information given to them.
Just looking at all the current political parties, all of them have their own views of how society should run, therefore what society is or should be is subjective to the individual being asked.
What you think might be detrimental to your view of society may not be detrimental to my view of society.
Palin in my view is a complete twit and I have no idea how the hell she ever got into politics.... but she's there, and she has supporters. Although she's a blithering idiot, she promises things her supporters want and if the majority of people vote for her in the US because of those promises and if by the remote chance she can meet those promises, then the majority got what they asked for and they & her shaped their society as they wanted it to be.
It might not be what you would want it to be, and I bet it wouldn't be anything I'd want it to be, but it's their country, their society.
In regards to Canada, we each vote for who we feel will shape our society to the way we feel it should be shaped. If the majority vote in favor of your view of how our country should be run, then that's the way she goes and I have no right to jump up and finger point at you saying your vote was detrimental to my view of society, revoke your voting privileges and then force my view to win..... nor should you be able to do the same to me.
If the majority voted based on one political party's ill-informed propaganda, then that party should be held accountable and be forced to correct their information or be fined.... or have their leader removed and replaced.
For example, if Harper jumps on TV and tells the Canadian public that a Coalition is an illegal power grab from the back door, when it is a legitimate action allowed in our form of Democracy & has been used in the past, then he should be held accountable for that misinformation/lie and be forced to go back on TV and correct his mistake.... where'in'by the public would be not only given the right information, but the politician's credibility would plummet in the public as well.
But instead, we have politicians who are allowed to lie, misinform and mislead the Canadian public to benefit their interests..... and very little ever being done to them.
Politicians and their Parties in almost all cases only answer to themselves or their own parties, who in turn pamper and excuse those politicians or just give them a slap on the wrist.... meanwhile the public sits in the background accepting it up the arse and shrugging their shoulders or complaining around the water cooler..... but in a nut shell, we're left in the dark and besides voting, we have no real powers or control over our government, there is no worthwhile accountability and they continually get away with it all.
And people wonder why voter turnout is so dismal and only the confused and sheepish followers of parties vote based on the propaganda their parties dish out to them.
Once again, one should focus on the root of the problem, not the end result of the problem.... otherwise the problem is never really solved.
For your "Inform"-ation:
List of federal political parties in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Just take a look at all of the actual political parties that are registered. Two communist parties are registered, there's a nationalist party and a nationalist-socialist party, heck there's even a Sex Party and the Party Party.
Who knows... someday there might be a Neo Nazi party of Canada on that list. The point being is that there's a pile of crazy parties out there in our government.... one could suddenly take over in popularity and suddenly run the place if the majority wanted them to.
If they do and they legally win majority and the majority do vote for them.... then isn't that Democracy at work?
Hell, I don't like the Conservatives all that much, I despise Harper, but they're leading the government and allowed to cause all sorts of BS and crap..... Because all these people voted them into power and I don't agree with them, I could argue that those people are not as smart as I am and don't see the bigger picture..... so should I suddenly be allowed to disqualify all their votes and strip them of their rights to vote, thus ending up with my own choice leading the government?
No..... because obviously the party I support did not do enough of a good job in swaying voters to their reasoning.... or the other parties might have used biased and ill-informed propaganda to scare voters into voting someone else.
Perhaps voters should be smart enough to see past all the crap and propaganda..... but I can see it being difficult for some when you expect the people in our government and whom you vote for should be telling us the truth about what's all going on.... perhaps a bit naive, but when you think about it.... they shouldn't be allowed to lie or misinform the public and should be held more accountable with their attack ads and twisting of the truth.
But then they wouldn't get into power, they'd lose a bunch of funding, because the public would see them for what they truly are, thus of course most politicians would be against such an action on accountability.
It'd force them to actually do some damn work for once.... some real work.
Sounds like the solution to me.
Last edited:
A country full of technocrats. Interesting.
I don't think it is voters that should be tested, I think it should be pols and gov't itself. As it is we are not very far from a dictatorship and too far from real democracy and it isn't because of the people, it is because of how the system has been set up.
While some kind of testing/licensing/certification is flattering and seems like a good idea at times (like after an election when the party you least favour is victorious), on the whole I'm with the majority of the posters and would say it would make a bad practice. Things like "whats best for the country" tend to be subjective and vary depending on the perspective of the person viewing an issue. For most of our poitical issues, the opinions on "what's best" vary by region, by career, by family status (single vs married/common-law, parents vs not, etc) and a host of other distinguishing factors.
I'm with Van Isle in thinking that voting should be mandatory, but I like the Australian model where one's mandatory vote can be a vote to abstain.
Its debatable as to whether or not it would get more people to take notice of the politics involve (I think it would motivate more people to become more informed) but it would force more people to take notice of the elections and political posturing. They can then choose to support or punish political gamesmanship as suits them.
Another thing this would do is give a more clear indication of the mandate a government is operating under. For example, on these forums (and other places) have been discussions about possible coalition governments and how much right a minority government has to strong-arm its agenda based on the support it has garnered at the polls. If a gov't has won an election with little to no abstinence, that government has more moral authority to govern than one that wins with a higher percentage of abstinence. Right now, the popular vote and election results are more of a "best guess" than anything which leads to the type of BS where we had the opposition parties threatening to launch another election within a couple months of the last election.
I'm with Van Isle in thinking that voting should be mandatory, but I like the Australian model where one's mandatory vote can be a vote to abstain.
Its debatable as to whether or not it would get more people to take notice of the politics involve (I think it would motivate more people to become more informed) but it would force more people to take notice of the elections and political posturing. They can then choose to support or punish political gamesmanship as suits them.
Another thing this would do is give a more clear indication of the mandate a government is operating under. For example, on these forums (and other places) have been discussions about possible coalition governments and how much right a minority government has to strong-arm its agenda based on the support it has garnered at the polls. If a gov't has won an election with little to no abstinence, that government has more moral authority to govern than one that wins with a higher percentage of abstinence. Right now, the popular vote and election results are more of a "best guess" than anything which leads to the type of BS where we had the opposition parties threatening to launch another election within a couple months of the last election.
How do you know Sarah Palin is wrong or dumb.
I think that, but am I right?
Now you are basing this on who you think is unfit to lead.
Given the last election in the US I would conceed based on the failures of Obama that McCain may have been a better choice.
Am I right?
Perhaps.
Do I need a test to determine that?
Not on your life.:roll:
the 'vote' belongs to the citizen, it is 'theirs' to make their own choice, if they choose 'not' to
vote, that is their right, just as it is to vote for whomever they choose.
That single vote cannot be 'meddled' with by anyone, and all of these 'so called' smarter people, also
have their own agendas, and once they can get their hands on someone's else's vote, or their right to
vote, it opens the door for corruption, it belongs to the citizen.
The best a country can do is stress strongly and in a way that attracts some attention, just
how important an election is, and how valuable the vote is, beyond that, it is the citizen's choice.
vote, that is their right, just as it is to vote for whomever they choose.
That single vote cannot be 'meddled' with by anyone, and all of these 'so called' smarter people, also
have their own agendas, and once they can get their hands on someone's else's vote, or their right to
vote, it opens the door for corruption, it belongs to the citizen.
The best a country can do is stress strongly and in a way that attracts some attention, just
how important an election is, and how valuable the vote is, beyond that, it is the citizen's choice.
Quote JLM
I guess on this issue VanIsle we have to agree to disagree. I am a person who is for as many rights and freedoms as possible and part of that would include not having to feel responsible for electing the "right" politician. Also I have no use for laws that aren't going to be enforced. So on election day every cop in the country would be engaged in going to people homes and dragging them down to the polling station by the heels- just can't see that happening. Or a fine would be imposed on them. Of course a lot of them (like denizens of Hastings and Main) aren't going to be able to pay them, so that means they'd have to go to jail. So now we have our over crowded jails filled up with people for not voting. I think we should just accept the fact that some people aren't interest in politics and be thankful, that that is the way it is. That kind of thing might just get us another Mulroney or Trudeau. Is that what you want? :lol::lol:[/QUOTE]
There is not a remote possibility of the police being involved. Nor should they be. Fines would have to be levied. Maybe even the "right to vote" would be removed from anyone who chooses not to exercise the right to vote and some people probably wouldn't care if that happened anyway. Street people are not going to vote either way as they have no "fixed address". I don't believe inmates should have the right to vote.
I guess on this issue VanIsle we have to agree to disagree. I am a person who is for as many rights and freedoms as possible and part of that would include not having to feel responsible for electing the "right" politician. Also I have no use for laws that aren't going to be enforced. So on election day every cop in the country would be engaged in going to people homes and dragging them down to the polling station by the heels- just can't see that happening. Or a fine would be imposed on them. Of course a lot of them (like denizens of Hastings and Main) aren't going to be able to pay them, so that means they'd have to go to jail. So now we have our over crowded jails filled up with people for not voting. I think we should just accept the fact that some people aren't interest in politics and be thankful, that that is the way it is. That kind of thing might just get us another Mulroney or Trudeau. Is that what you want? :lol::lol:[/QUOTE]
There is not a remote possibility of the police being involved. Nor should they be. Fines would have to be levied. Maybe even the "right to vote" would be removed from anyone who chooses not to exercise the right to vote and some people probably wouldn't care if that happened anyway. Street people are not going to vote either way as they have no "fixed address". I don't believe inmates should have the right to vote.
Besides that, not voting is as much a part of freedom of speech as voting is.
Bang on Anna- you've been gobbling those "smart" pills again. :lol::lol:
Besides that, not voting is as much a part of freedom of speech as voting is.
exactly
I believe voting should be mandatory and everyone should have the day off to vote ...
However having said that ..Everything from the Media to Big Biz to Gov (for the large part )is all B.S. anyhow ..So in the end ..Really doesn't matter who "THE PEOPLE(?)" elect..Leaders(and their interest groups) will do what "They" believe is necessary inorder to run the country .....I believe people should always be involved in the issues and voice their opinion whenever they see fit...All the time..
Internet and sites like this have made direct communication so much easier...Perhaps someday in the near future citizens will be given more input on REAL hot botton issues and governments will take a "DIRECT"consensus and act accordingly ..But I don't believe the Goverment or Big Biz in the end really give two squirts about What " The Sheeple/SlaveDrones" have to say ."....Unless of course , it's gonna affect the outcome of "THIER" plans...
After ALL "They're" above all others ....
However having said that ..Everything from the Media to Big Biz to Gov (for the large part )is all B.S. anyhow ..So in the end ..Really doesn't matter who "THE PEOPLE(?)" elect..Leaders(and their interest groups) will do what "They" believe is necessary inorder to run the country .....I believe people should always be involved in the issues and voice their opinion whenever they see fit...All the time..
Internet and sites like this have made direct communication so much easier...Perhaps someday in the near future citizens will be given more input on REAL hot botton issues and governments will take a "DIRECT"consensus and act accordingly ..But I don't believe the Goverment or Big Biz in the end really give two squirts about What " The Sheeple/SlaveDrones" have to say ."....Unless of course , it's gonna affect the outcome of "THIER" plans...
After ALL "They're" above all others ....
Last edited:
I have heard one thing that I can agree with as a possible solution.....if the politician lies, make them appologize and correct the mistake! Other than that, all I hear is "voting is our right" sort of arguments without so much as a single justification for why it should be. I am not saying voting is bad, but why should we arbitrarily choose an age at which one is mature enough to vote? Why not 10 years old? Maybe the Catholic church would like to see everyone vote from the time of conception.
We have a serious problem with our system and no one wants to change a thing. This issue of voter rights seems to be much like the 2nd Amendment in the US. Because the right to bare arms exists and is a constitutional right it should therefore stay that way forever......and why, because it's my constitutional right damn it!
It's time we, and our politicians, who rely so much on the intellectual sluggishness of the average voter, be held to account. How do we do this? As one suggested, make damn sure that no politician gets away with lying. Not a bad idea as long as it can be enforced. I would suggest tightening up the restrictions on who can vote. And this is in no way prejudicial. If you fail to acquire your voting rights the first time, well, there is a solution to that, start reading, not just anything either.
We have a serious problem with our system and no one wants to change a thing. This issue of voter rights seems to be much like the 2nd Amendment in the US. Because the right to bare arms exists and is a constitutional right it should therefore stay that way forever......and why, because it's my constitutional right damn it!
It's time we, and our politicians, who rely so much on the intellectual sluggishness of the average voter, be held to account. How do we do this? As one suggested, make damn sure that no politician gets away with lying. Not a bad idea as long as it can be enforced. I would suggest tightening up the restrictions on who can vote. And this is in no way prejudicial. If you fail to acquire your voting rights the first time, well, there is a solution to that, start reading, not just anything either.