Computer Science Canada People shouldn't be allowed to vote. |
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | People shouldn't be allowed to vote. |
Too many people are allowed to vote. Rather, I should say, too many stupid people are allowed to vote. I'm sick of it. There are a bunch of types of people who voted and really shouldn't have. First, we have the I voted Liberal/Conservative/NDP because I'm a Liberal/Conservative/NDP. Oh. Who'd you vote for? Liberals. No, but I mean, what was the candidate? Oh, I don't know/remember. Great. You're an idiot. These people form the biggest group of people who shouldn't be allowed to vote. Now, only slightly better are the people who are voting against other parties. I voted Conservative because I'm against gay marriage. Oh, great, because our country's $1+ trillion economy relies entirely upon the legality of gay marriage. What do you think of their other policies? Oh, I don't know much about them. I'm so glad that you're helping to decide the leadership of this country based upon such a huge issue. Now we have the people who know who their candidate's name is (these people are suprisingly rare) but can't name any of the other major candidates nor their platforms. Another informed vote right there. Then in a very scary corner there're the "I voted Conservative because I'm a Christian" people. Oh, JUST what I want to hear. That makes me glad to live in a theocracy...oh...wait. It's like this. If you were sick and needed a serious operation, would you get it done by someone with no medical experience who was unable to differentiate between your arms and your legs? EDIT: Let me revise this point. Would you take medical advice from people who fit the afformentioned conditions? I'm not sure about you, but I'd prefer someone with some credentials. Now, I'm not saying that people should require a degree to vote, but some sort of test to show that a person has some level of intellectual capacity would be nice. This is our country, and a huge number of people who are voting don't know anything about the country. Imagine having political campaigns that were geared towards smart people. No more "Well, yes we're going to stop trying to meet Kyoto even though the earth is using 120% of its daily produce...but... GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG! Vote for us or burn in hell for eternity!" I hate stupid people. [/rant] |
|
| Author: | Delos [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: People shouldn't be allowed to vote. |
Martin wrote: ...but some sort of test to show that a person has some level of intellectual capacity would be nice...
That's what the Citizenship Test is supposed to be...not sure if you've ever had the agony of having to write one of those though. 
We had a slogan on campus "Smart People Vote". It irritated me. I would have preferred "Smart People Are Informed. Informed People Vote." But alas, alas...poltical apathy is as widespread as arms (tentacles?) of the media. |
|
| Author: | person [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
on a totally unrelated topic, martin is ur avatar ur face? |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't think it is, if it is that would be. . . Anyways, Martin I thought you'd rather be hungry? Having such rules would indicate that Canadian's take their nationality seriously, and have stringent laws to abide by. You stated earlier that you wouldn't want a strict society like that. . . Oh, unless your just being a human being, and thinking only of yourself and not of others. Other's can live in a strict society. But not me, I'm free, is that it? I think its great that nobody knows whats the deal with politics in this country. After all, why should anyone care? No matter whose in government everything still runs the same, nobody notices the difference really. Government has become something of a ceremonial thing in this country, with so much beauracracy backlogging everything its no wonder a decision can never get made. Until the days of extremism return to Canada, why should anyone care? Actually, I've been thinking of founding my own extremist political party. I want to see criminals who commit heinious crimes murdered visciously. I think that would significantly lower crime rates. -I want to see politicians go to jail for stealing from Canadians. -I want to see politicians earn less. -I want to dissolve the senate. -I want to create a super air force. And dissolve the current armed forces. -I want to tighten Canada's hold on its provinces. No more seperatism. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
no its his ass  i think a better way of wording it would be "martin is that you in the avatar?"
Justin_ wrote: I don't think it is, if it is that would be. . .
finish your sentence... it would be what? |
|
| Author: | person [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: no its his ass i think a better way of wording it would be "martin is that you in the avatar?"
fine... Martin is that you in your avatar? ps: my question makes perfect sense, he can either aswer: No, that is not my face in the avatar, or Yes that is my face in the avater. |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol i noe it makes perfect sense.. but do you ever point at a picture in an album and ask ur parents if thats their face? i doubt martin will kill me for this so i'll spill the scret, yea.. it is him, Justin_ you got a problem with that? |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtf? Andy this isn't the same as pointing into an album and asking your parents if that's their face. I've seen avators of natalie portman, that guy in the pic could be Martin's dog for all we know... |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtf are u talking about.. i was talking about the way person asked whether if that was martin in the picture.. and i'd like you to show me a dog that looks like that. That picture is martin, you got a problem with that? |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I've actually been bringing up this identical point at school debates. It's a view I hold strongly. It doesn't even need to be an intelligence test. Just a thing on current issues to prove you know what the heck is going on, and you're not just voting because you can't stand gays. Things like what the candidate's platforms are (all of them, not just your votee's), what their past performance, if any, has been. I think it was Churchill who said something like "A 5-minute talk with the average voter is all it will take to convince you that democracy is flawed" or something along those lines. It's almost eerie how you've written out my entire argument word-for-word.  |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Yes, that's me in my avatar, as of a few days ago. The other blue and green one was also me - both taken with my iMac (Photo Booth is so much fun). Am I stylish or what? To Hikaru79: I'm glad to know that I'm not totally nuts. Or maybe we're just both nuts. To Justin_: Yes, I'd rather be hungry than have no choices, but I don't see what that has to do with this. We need laws. I think these laws should be as unobtrusive as possible, but we still need them. I think that mandatory voting would be a bad thing. Going back to my doctor example, it's like this: I would be adamantly opposed to forcing someone into becoming a doctor. At the same time, I would also be adamantly opposed to allowing anyone who wants to be a doctor become a doctor without them having to go through school and get the skills and certification required to. Now, perhaps you're misunderstanding what I mean by a test to vote. I'm not thinking of something like the SATs quizzing you on the last 138 years of Canadian politics. Just a simple, 10 minute long politically independent quiz. Name three political candidates in your riding and the party that they are associated with and a few things like that. Done. Pass? You can vote. Fail? Try again next year. No, it wouldn't catch everyone, but it would thin out the masses. |
|
| Author: | person [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:41 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Andy wrote: and i'd like you to show me a dog that looks like that
srry, but i couldnt resist (i know its badly photoshopped picture but this was done like in less than 10min) |
|
| Author: | person [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i guess i should actually have some real input onto this thread lol the only problem with the thing that ur all proposing is that its gonna discourage all the voters from voting, look how little amount of ppl vote in the first place if u stick some standardized test in there, theres gonna be barely any voters left |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
person wrote: if u stick some standardized test in there, theres gonna be barely any voters left I guess the argument is that the ones who are left are the kind of people who you want deciding the fate of the country. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
EDIT: Kind of like how we have driving tests to drive a car. Get rid of those and there would be so many more drivers (until they killed themselves I guess). Quality over quantity. If the number of votes was all that mattered, we'd have mandatory voting like in Australia (where not voting is a $250 or so fine). But my point is that we shouldn't want as many votes as possible - the goal should be as many informed votes as possible. There's a civics class in grade 10 that people have to take, yet still nobody knows about politics. Talk about a useless course. |
|
| Author: | person [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
doesnt that sort of defeat the purpose of a democracy in a way?? its sorta saying "only the select few with the proper knowledge can vote, while the masses r just watching" |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
person wrote: doesnt that sort of defeat the purpose of a democracy in a way??
its sorta saying "only the select few with the proper knowledge can vote, while the masses r just watching" I have no problem with that. If someone wants to vote, it would be easy for them to gain the required knowledge to. The thing is, right now there is no incentive for them to, so they don't. |
|
| Author: | bugzpodder [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 10:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I remember that civics course, or rather that fucked up civics teacher who is nothing but a fucked up politian wannabe. Yes, just like a politician, he promises stuffs so ppl would actually do it, then goes back on his word. what a fag |
|
| Author: | person [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
i remember civics class as this biased teacher that would basically tell us this message in a different way every day: rightwing=evil leftwing=angelic that teacher just made it the worst course possible, and we barely learnt anything about politics |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
person wrote: doesnt that sort of defeat the purpose of a democracy in a way??
its sorta saying "only the select few with the proper knowledge can vote, while the masses r just watching" If "the proper knowledge" is limited to knowing what exactly it is that you're voting for, then I think that is a very fair distinction to make. You shouldn't have the right to vote if you aren't going to be bothered to educate yourself about what you're doing. That's just way too much responsibility to be squandered on their own ignorance and bigotry. |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Tue Jan 24, 2006 11:10 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just did my civics course- ugh.... its alright... Our teacher never discussed his views on any political party or anything, kept it natural. Alright class, not that exciting but good, not sure if I learnt anything new... hmm. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I blive that every cintivent should be able to vote, but i also think that peoleop are drasticlk uneducated about the topics and paltforms of each party. I realy do not know how we could chage that. The debates are broing and unintresting to most peoleop and the questions they choice and the way they debate dose not help much. The adds they run are not helpfull at all. I think it whould be nice if at the debate the cainaits had 10 minuits to talkl only about there own party and can not refure to other partys. As for me i aucatly met the cadiant i was voting for and talked to him, tho he lost by 400 votes (witch is %0.8 of the votes) in my riding in the end. Also my unio had a big debate of all caindates (incuding green and the maroion party) that where runing in the ridings in and around tbay. I think that more schools both uni, collage and highschools should do more potical type things talking about each party and there poicles. (tho converstives ushely do not perstiapte in most school things like the high school fake election, hard to balme tho since the magority are not so firendly to them in the education popualtion). |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:13 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So you would be against a simple test before one could vote? (and if so, why?) |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:22 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well if the world was perfict i whould be for it. But there are alot of issues that it whould bring up. The cost of such a progame whould be one and if u make peoleop pay that you are limiting voting basted on wealth. Even if it was minumal amount whould poor familys pay to vote or keep it for food, ect. Also alot of suport whould have to be provied for peoleop with disbilitys in arocdents with humanrights and it whould have to be provied in every langue. What about peoleop who can not read to write? Poleop do not come out to vote as it is, whould they come out to write an exam? If we are going to get peoleop out and force them to do somthing so they can vote lets make them go to a 1h class on the paltforms of each party and leave out the test. But then again u get some of the issues as above. I think teaching it in high school is a good start but still needs more work. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Like I said though, I didn't think of this as being an exam - just a 10 minute test. Name three candidates and the parties they are associated with. If are illiterate, then no, I don't think you should be able to vote. Would you hire illiterate people to be university professors? Doctors? Police men? My point is that for everything else we set standards for who can participate, so why is voting magically exempt? A conservative guy running for provincial office (John Tory) came to Waterloo to talk. I asked him afterwards "You said that you want to derregulate tuition. Right now, I can barely afford school even with scholarships and co-op. How would you assure that deregulating tuition doesn't turn post secondary education into education for rich people?" He told me that they would have to regulate tuition to do that. Oh. Here's my vote. Not. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:40 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: Like I said though, I didn't think of this as being an exam - just a 10 minute test. Name three candidates and the parties they are associated with.
If are illiterate, then no, I don't think you should be able to vote. Would you hire illiterate people to be university professors? Doctors? Police men? My point is that for everything else we set standards for who can participate, so why is voting magically exempt?. Well you did not address my cost consernes or the disbality one or the langue one. And i think if some one has the ability such as a some one form another conotry and dose not yet read or writen english perficlky but can talk it fine should be able to get the jobs. But in the case of peoleop born here and can not read or writen i sitll think they should get the jobs if they can do them resoably. But why should they not be able to vote? Do they live somewhere where the goverment dose not effect them? Can they not understand the potical system throw means other then reading? Voting is not geting a job, and should be the right of every preson who is in metalily abale to compreahed what it is and is effeced in some way by our goverment. But at the same time i think they should also be informed witch is difrent from taking there right to vote tho. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Disabilities would obviously have to be accomodated. Yes, I think that blind people should still be allowed to vote. And I have no idea about the cost, although I doubt it would be much of an added expense to setting up the polling stations. What I want to say is this: A person should only be able to vote if they can be shown to be intelligent and knowledgable enough to make an educated decision. I still stand by the illiterate people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Why? Look at how the church worked when the mass public was illiterate. The Bible was in Latin. Nobody could read it, and the church used that to their advantage. They could say whatever they wanted, and nobody would be able to call them on it. In fact, they killed people for trying to translate the Bible at first. Knowledge is power. My point? As soon as they're learning by what someone else is saying and without being able to validate what they've heard, they're both 1) voting for someone else, not themselves and 2) making an uninformed choice. And immigrants? One can pick up enough English or French within four years to be fluent, so at worst they miss one election after not having been in the country for very long to begin with. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:10 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
I just think it whould be better to spend moeny education then testing. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:17 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That too. I'm really more worried about the ends than the means for this one. The result that I want is that people start casting educated votes. I just hate how trivial the "BIG" campaign issues were this time around, and how these pretty much blew over the real issues (and that they can get away with it). Economy? Kyoto? NAFTA? Anyone? |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
From what i say this election the only "big" campin issues to most peoleop where "the other partys suck". And i also think that is messed up. I like minority goverments tho but a more equal divions of steats whould have been nice. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:53 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
That too. I liked Canada better when we were the good guys. My logic is that if you make it so that only intelligent people can vote, you will force the political parties to focus on intelligent issues. |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well in alot of ways i whont to agrea with you and hostly i do not think it whould hurt poltics wise. I am just woried about the moraility and the abouse of it infucing topics realting to thous who can not vote. I also liked it better when we where the good guys, maybe i should move to sweeden or norway. |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
As an example of people who shouldn't be allowed to vote: one of the people I know from comfy said he didn't vote, that he was ahppy with the current government though didn't know who/what party it was, and that he thought there had been a change recently. While before we were arguing for people to go vote, we just started to ignore him. I don't think this should be limited to voting though. People who talk about anything they don't understand are bad. Any time you have someone who has some kind of power trying to do something about something he/she is not at all qualified to talk about it always results in problems. As for voting specifically; I think there should be a couple of things done. Number one is definitely a test of some kind to keep morons from being able to vote. Number two is a nice little change to the electoral system, instead of voting for a person you rank your choices. Then a candidate get's 1 point for first choice, 1/2 for second, 1/3 for third, etc. That would mean that to run successfully you'd need to apeal to a broader proportion of voters, instead of the less then 1/2 you need now. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Having special limitations on what people are "qualified" to say is the opposite of free speech. Though, I am usually the first to shrug someone off as a moron when they say something retarded and out of line, it is also true that you can't stop moron's from putting in their info because.. its just a moronic thing to even think of. Don't know about you guys but I'm through talking politics. Get's nobody no where. Everyone has their own views about things and frankly the only thing we are proving to ourselves is this is why the world is the awkward, bumbling, retard: incapable of making a good and decent decision. A.K.A beauracracy. Like I said I'm through with it. One day I'll lead my own political party and take action, I won't sit around and argue with a bunch of kids. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 12:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: Having special limitations on what people are "qualified" to say is the opposite of free speech.
Your liberty of "free speech" ends where my liberty of "non-discrimination" (and other rights) begins. Case for a point - you're not "free" to speak of hate propoganda towards me. Similarly one has a "right to vote", but if it's an uninformed vote where the voter doesn't really know what he/she is doing -- this takes away the value of my "right to vote" because my informed vote is being cancelled out by an uninformed one. This infringes on my "right to vote" as much as you have your "right to vote". Very grey area. Though I think it's clear that some people have a much better idea of how their community and country will be affected by an election result. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The perhaps its time we redefine voting as a privilege of the informed- not a right. I'd totally agree with a 10-question quiz, perhaps on the actual ballot form. Do the whole thing with scantron, even. If the quiz fails, the vote doesn't count. Blind people or the illiterate can take the test by phone in either of the country's official languages. @Martin: Generally the opinions of those on the far left of the political spectrum seem more convincing when their comments don't come across as a bitter, hateful rant against those on the right. The gay marriage debate wasn't even an issue in the campaign except for the Liberals trying desparately to make it one. You're right about voting factors though. The main factors that influence voting (besides actual issues): - #1 Those who always vote for the same party - #2 Peer / Parent / Spouse pressure voting - #3 Voting on the basis of denomination (Catholic = Liberal, Fundamentalist / Charismatic = Conservative, Other Protestant = NDP or other left wing) - #4 Ethnic / racial vote - #5 Gender vote - #6 Photogenic vote (women hardly ever vote for a candidate w/ facial hair). - #7 Age vote (under 35? Don't bother running). RE: The civics course: Most teachers don't choose or want to teach civics. It's a mandatory course, and someone has to teach it; almost never by choice from what I hear. Beyond just the test though, our system is grossly outdated in general. Anyone figure out what the senate does yet? How about the 200+ backbenchers in the Commons whose sole job is banging their desk every time someone important from their party finishes their rhetoric? |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You can't have a test like that, sigh. Just forget about it. It might appeal to some of you but think about your mothers or your grandmothers who I can garantee don't know anything about politics. How do you tell them, sorry you're vote doesn't count. Just doesn't work that way guys... sorry. |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
OK, let's say we start placing limitations on who can vote. You've got some nifty ideas. Now, imagine this... it's not up to you. Someone else decides what the qualifications are. Does it still seem as appealing? Let's say they decide you have to be 24 before you can vote. Who here could vote within the next couple of years? |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Age is a pre-determined characteristic. It's been pointed out that anyone can choose to not be ignorant. Even parents and grandparents. |
|
| Author: | Tony [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: I can garantee don't know anything about politics. How do you tell them, sorry you're vote doesn't count.
I'd tell them "sorry, you don't know anything about politics." You don't know to whom you're giving power or why. Such negligance has federal consequences, so your vote doesn't count for the safety of yourself and everyone else in this country. wtd wrote: Someone else decides what the qualifications are.
I can see this having problems if the current government was to change the qualifications in order to favour their targer demographic. Though as suggested before, we're testing for a reasonable level of understandment of politics and consequences, not any personal preferences. If a 16 year old can demonstrate better understanding of the election than a 24 year old, then the former is more eligable to have a vote counted than the latter. |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Changing the vote procedure would likely fall under constitutional changes / amendments. Therefore, it wouldn't really be up to the governing party (except for initiating the change); all the provinces would have to agree with it. ...unless it's only Quebec; then we'll push it through again, anyway.  |
|
| Author: | wtd [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Tony wrote: wtd wrote: Someone else decides what the qualifications are.
I can see this having problems if the current government was to change the qualifications in order to favour their targer demographic. Though as suggested before, we're testing for a reasonable level of understandment of politics and consequences, not any personal preferences. Yes, you are. But as I mentioned, it might not be up to you. If you were to start this kind of thing, it might very easily get beyond your control, and once beyond your control there'd be very little you could do to get back control. |
|
| Author: | md [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 4:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
One solution to the problem of the negative campains is to allow lawsuits based upon smear campains. For instance the conservatives ran an add that was basically paul martin saying the liberals were not corrupt over and over. Technically the conservatives were not saying the liberals were corrupt, they were just implying it to the level that a 3 year old could peice together. Now if the liberal party could then sue the pants off the conservatives for what is obviously slander then it would have the effect of stopping that kind of add. While litigation isn't the best solution taking money from political parties is a great incentive to get them to clean up their acts. In a non-election related area (well kinda) it would also be nice if there were some way of punishing parties who's members act like 5 year olds in the house of commons. If you ever watch a session on TV you'll know what I mean. It's the biggest farce I've ever seen, complete with name calling! |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 6:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
wtd wrote: OK, let's say we start placing limitations on who can vote.
You've got some nifty ideas. Now, imagine this... it's not up to you. Someone else decides what the qualifications are. Does it still seem as appealing? Let's say they decide you have to be 24 before you can vote. Who here could vote within the next couple of years? But see, age is already an attempt at limiting who can vote, with the theory that older people are more mature in general than their younger counterparts. As for the qualifications, obviously there would have to be some legal checks, but as long as these qualifications were politically independent and non-discriminatory (as in, blind people couldn't be disqualified from voting for being blind) that would be fine with me. Hell, they could even tell you the questions beforehand. It would force people to do a little bit more research and maybe become more informed while doing so. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The very nature of having a "test" to see who is eligible to vote is discriminatory. What if the majority of people don't want to become political savants because they see the futility in doing so in a nation and in a time like Canada in the 21st century. Quite frankly I wish I didn't know a thing about Canadian politics, since knowing a thing or two has just made me decide to vote GREEN. All that your average voter has to know is what a political party can offer them. And this is told to them by the media. If you're suggesting the majority of people do not know anything about the party they are voting for then you are completely wrong. The people who vote, are perfectly eligible to vote. Even if they vote for reasons to which you do not endorse nor believe. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
But the point is that they don't know. Ask people who they voted for, and you'll probably get the name of a political party. Ask them what the person's name was, and you'll get a blank stare. Ask them for the name of another major party's candidate, and you'll probably be met with the same. Point is, those people shouldn't be allowed to vote. Yes, it'd discrimination, but some discrimination is a good thing. Do you think that blind people should be allowed to drive? By not letting them drive, we're discriminating, but I think everyone would agree it's a good thing. What I want are informed people. When I go to the doctor, I like them to know what's wrong with me before they give me medicine. Good call on voting Green.  |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Your kidding yourself. Why do you think because they don't know the exact name of the party leader that they don't know why they might want that party in a position of power? I bet if you said: what party did you vote for, and give me a reason why? They'd have a perfectly good answer for you. One thing further, if a person puts a check beside a persons name in Canada, will that put your life in dire jeapordy? Will a blind person driving? See my point? P.S. Notice how I said: "In Canada", this is because Canadian politics is a joke, and no extremist parties are going to get elected. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_, there's a lot more to politics than whether or not you are going to die. The idea behind civilization is advancement - moving forward, not just protecting your own ass. If you want to move forward, you have to have inspired leaders to guide the masses. Politics in Canada are not a joke - it's your apathy that I want to get rid of. I want to get the people who don't care about politics out of the way so that the people who do care can really make a difference. We have the fourth most traded currency in the world and we are the biggest exporter of lumber in the world. And if you asked people why they voted for the party they did, a lot of them will reply with because I'm a Liberal/Conservative. Whatever that means. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Wed Jan 25, 2006 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Martin wrote: Politics in Canada are not a joke - it's your apathy that I want to get rid of That's a humble thought. It's Canada man, our nation is not for nationalists. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 6:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
$1.3 trillion GDP 5th on the HDI 4th most traded currency in the world. Just under 0.5% of the world population, but approximately 5% of the world's wealth. Tell me when I get to an insignificant number here. Look, I can't make this law. I really wish that people like you wouldn't vote, but that's not going to change any time soon. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
lol. I shouldn't vote because I don't believe Canadians should be nationalists who know everything about every party in Canada before they can vote? Nationalism sucks. Just like religion. It's just another thing people get tied up in and end up killing for. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:46 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | |||
I don't want violent nationalism. There's a big difference between nationalism and total apathy. I said that people should know the names of the people who they are voting for. Kind of like how knowing what various street signs mean should be a prerequisite for driving. It's like this. You post the source for a program you wrote, asking for critique. Two people reply - turingtool43, whose only post has been Quote: lol y dont this work?!?!? and wtd. Whose advice do you take? Fortunately, it's the internet so you can ignore the former's advice. It would suck if you had to take both of them seriously, wouldn't it?
|
|||
| Author: | md [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:46 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: lol. I shouldn't vote because I don't believe Canadians should be nationalists who know everything about every party in Canada before they can vote?
Nationalism sucks. Just like religion. It's just another thing people get tied up in and end up killing for. So... Canadians, who are by definition canadian because they are from a particular nation, shouldn't be nationalistic; and thus not support the very thing that makes them Canadian? Methinks you've got a very mixed up view of the world. Secondly, the general consensus is not that you must know every single minisclue detail about every party in orver to be able to vote. Only that you must at least be able to identify say the top three candiates in your riding, perhaps the party leaders; and a very very braod outline of their platform. 10 multiple choice questions would be more then enough to weed otu people who are two daft to actually know what they are voting for/about. And knowing hte political situation does not make you a "nationalist" (which by definition every canadian who wants Canada to stay soverein is), it simply makes you well informed. As for people getting tied up in nationalism and killing for it, your damn right. Canada is a soverein nation. Ruled through a democratic process by the people who live in Canada. If someone from another country decided to tell me that I could no longer do what we as canadians have decided it is our right to be able to do, or tries to tell me that I as a Canadian Citizen do not have the right to decide (to some degree) what the country I live in is going to be like you're damn right I'd be willing to fight over it. War is bad yes, but the moment someone decides that they should be the controlling influence in Canada, not the citizens of Canada it's war. Full out, we're-gonna-kick-the-living-snot-out-of-you-and-feed-the-remains-to-the-mad-cows war. I'm proud to be a Canadian and I'll be damned to let someone from anywhere else take away my rights. |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: lol. I shouldn't vote because I don't believe Canadians should be nationalists who know everything about every party in Canada before they can vote?
Nationalism sucks. Just like religion. It's just another thing people get tied up in and end up killing for. No, you shouldn't vote because you're a commie  (that's a JOKE, for anyone who wants to overreact)
ok, in all seriousness though, there is a very clear distinction between nationalists and informed voters. True Canadian nationalists are extremely rare, a side effect of the very patchwork nature of our multicultural contemporary nation (which is part of Canada's strength). In fact, the most defined thing about the Canadian identity is nothing like "we own everyone", but rather the simple statement "we are not American". People who aren't informed about politics shouldn't vote, because it causes politicians to begin pandering to the uninformed masses with feel-good (or feel-bad), but ultimately often factually-deficient messages. This gets them votes. To get a true, reflective outcome, everyone should know every party's platform, leader, and why they agree with the party they're voting for, and why they disagree with those they aren't. This is an incredibly unreasonable outcome, but it's the one we should have. Think about it. If everyone in Canada analysed the policies of every party before voting, attack ads about "hidden agendas", and attack ads about "Liberal corruption" and so on would be useles. I think that would be great. On the other hand, I think it's better to have a lot of uninformed people voting than to have a tiny amount of people (all of whom are ifnormed) voting, simply because a small sample size can skew results, especially when the sample is selected from those who are intelligent and affluent enough in the first place to spend the time analysing the available information critically. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 5:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
The real problem with deciding who votes is that the choice is the same as choosing the winner. Each demographic has its own interests and priorities, so in such a system all the parties would have to change to reflect this. Ie if you increase the voting age to 60 think about the changes... if you drop the voting age to 6(although you might get some interesting commercials) you get a similar change. Don't allow people on welfare to vote, don't let people with over a certain income vote etc each change will move the political center. The real problem with democracy is a)it is much easier to convince a person based on his prejudices and biases than by reason and b)it is easier to lose votes than to win them. Hence political debate tends to be at a lower level since to put it bluntly name calling is probably more effective than reasoned arguments and politicians try to support all positions. For example, same sex marriage: if you support it you lose all the votes of the people who don't and vice versa(actually this isn't completely true but its a given that you will lose some votes) but if you manage to appear to support both sides then you don't lose any votes(except for the people who want actual answers and they're frankly in the minority). Finally, most people want stories that sound good instead of reality, so if you promise the moon you'll win more votes then if you only promise what you can deliver. So really the problem is that the ignorant masses are well ignorant and the politicians have merely changed to accomodate this. Its not the systems fault its the fact that the human race isn't up to the standard that is needed for democracy to work as it should, communism fails for the same reason. Ideally a dictatorship is the best way to go, as long as you get the perfect person as a dictator(which is rather hard plus the power tends to go to their heads after a while). Just consider a perfect democracy in which everyone would vote on every issue. You would probably end up with really low taxes and really good services until the country went bankrupt( or really high taxes until all the businesses leave). So you could argue that our system is better than that, because while the manner in which we pick people is flawed at least we have people in power who can make reasonable decisions. So only allowing informed people to vote is a good start, but maybe we should be thinking more along the lines of improving the human race in general... or invent AI and let a computer decide everything and we could get google to program the computer |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Boo-chan wrote: The real problem with deciding who votes is that the choice is the same as choosing the winner. Each demographic has its own interests and priorities, so in such a system all the parties would have to change to reflect this. Ie if you increase the voting age to 60 think about the changes... if you drop the voting age to 6(although you might get some interesting commercials) you get a similar change. Don't allow people on welfare to vote, don't let people with over a certain income vote etc each change will move the political center.
That's a bit of a strawman argument for two reasons. First of all, things like your age or your income are not things you can easily change; being ignorant about who you're voting for IS. Secondly, being on welfare or rich or whatever does NOT affect your ability to make a good decision. Being uninformed DOES. Martin isn't trying to deny any segment of the population the vote. He's just saying it would be a good idea to make them understand what they're doing before they do it. I can name off about fifty people in my city alone who voted Conservative because their church told them to. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
But it is the same if only to a lesser degree. Requiring people to know the platforms of different parties requires them to actually put some effort into the process which is affected by age, ecomic status etcetra. However, what is undisputable is that if you change the voting requirments you will change the results of the vote. I can't say off the top of my head how requiring people to be informed would have influenced the elections results but it would have had an effect. I would suspect that it would have lowered the number of vorters; lowered the Liberal vote and increased the NDP and Conservative vote, but that may just be my biased thinking at work. Another problem with the suggestion is aquiring the information doesn't require you to actually process it... knowing the different parties' platforms doesn't mean you have actually used that information to decide which one you are going to vote for. btw I could name a lot of people who voted Liberal because their union told them to. Lets try to keep this thread away from partisan bias. |
|
| Author: | md [ Fri Jan 27, 2006 6:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
You're right boo-chan, knowing the platforms doesn't nessessarily mean you will use them to vote. Of course, if you don't know then then you can't use the policies to to help inform your vote. People who know the issues and know the policies of the different parties are much more likely to actually use that knowledge to base their vote on, at least somewhat. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Each question a test like that would inhibit a certain demographic from voting. That's precisely the kind of thing that can help a party win an election. Mainly people who vote liberal know very little about politics, but they figure since no one has tried to take away their freedom under liberal rule, the librals are probably pretty okay. Having this test would surely weed out many liberal voters, who just want to see Canada moving in the same direction but have no real clue how the Liberals are doing or if another party could be doing better. That fits your average Canadian, so to speak of a test like that is called: "lunacy" considering that is NOT what our ancestors fought to give us, a conditional vote. . . No, no, they fought to give us a vote whether educated or not, whether intelligent or not, whether politically apathetic or not. I think anyone who supports a vote like that is just a kid who hasn't quite grown up yet, no offense. |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 1:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We have people in our country who like the direction our country is going in because they don't know the direction that our country is going in. That's called being stagnant. Meet the status quo and you're okay. "Yeah, we seem to be doing alright, so why change?" seems to be your logic. Yeah, we are doing alright, but we could be doing a lot better. So why not strive to be the best we can, instead of just sticking with the rest of the sheep? The point of doing a test like that would be to limit who can vote. Hence, you know, test. Your argument is basically saying that we'd lose the people who vote Liberal because "they're a Liberal", or people who vote "Conservative because they're a Conservative". The point of this is to get rid of those votes! And I have no doubt that it would effect certain demographics more than others, but all that would mean would be a shift in party platform. People are more than capable of change, and the whole point of this is change. All of a sudden, we have real politics going on. |
|
| Author: | 1of42 [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: Each question a test like that would inhibit a certain demographic from voting. That's precisely the kind of thing that can help a party win an election. Mainly people who vote liberal know very little about politics, but they figure since no one has tried to take away their freedom under liberal rule, the librals are probably pretty okay. Having this test would surely weed out many liberal voters, who just want to see Canada moving in the same direction but have no real clue how the Liberals are doing or if another party could be doing better. That fits your average Canadian, so to speak of a test like that is called: "lunacy" considering that is NOT what our ancestors fought to give us, a conditional vote. . . No, no, they fought to give us a vote whether educated or not, whether intelligent or not, whether politically apathetic or not.
I think anyone who supports a vote like that is just a kid who hasn't quite grown up yet, no offense. While your point is slightly correct, overall you're wrong. Allow me to expand. While you are correct that tests may exclude some demographics, this can be minimized. For example: A difficult, involved test would cause less lower-income people with little spare time (working 2 jobs or things like that) to just skip it. This would be a contravention of the right to vote. However, your example of people who just vote liberal because (paraphrased) the country hasn't collapsed yet is a bad one. People who just vote because a party is ok without any other knowledge of their or the opposition's policies shouldn't be voting. This is why, in Ancient Greece, the cradle of democracy, only certain people (those who were considered capable, i.e. Greek men only) were allowed to vote. Their requierments were slightly ridiculous, but I think they had the right idea. And Justin_, you calling anyone else a "kid who hasn't quite grown up yet" is more than a little bit rich. No offense. |
|
| Author: | Hikaru79 [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well put, 1of42. Justin, you still haven't seemed to grasp the essence of what Martin is saying. The test shouldn't be rocket science. You don't need a political science degree from Harvard to pass this. Therefore, it has no bearing whatsoever on your 'demographic.' Anyone, regardless of their income, social status, whatever, should be able to grasp the basics of what they're voting for. If they can't, then that's precisely the type of people this plan is meant to weed out! Sorry, but if they don't have the time to inform themselves about what they're doing, then they don't have the right to do it. Their choice affects everyone, not just themselves. As such, it should carry with it a certain measure of responsibility. Boo-chan wrote: btw I could name a lot of people who voted Liberal because their union told them to. Lets try to keep this thread away from partisan bias.
Oh, of course. I was just giving an example; not meant in any way to bash Conservative voters or glorify Liberals. I'm sure it happened that way on all sides of the fence. |
|
| Author: | rizzix [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
What's the point of such a test, if none of the parties are worth the vote? We need more parties, more options. And not dumb clones of the exsisting ones. |
|
| Author: | Boo-chan [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well the theory is that once the general voting public is well informed on issues and starts making intelligent decisions then political parties would be forced to changed how they campaign. Simply put successful politicians are ones that manage to figure out how to appeal to people and unfortunately currently for a large number of people this doesn't include intelligent debate on issues. However, if the demographics change so that intelligent debate is better at convincing the voters than that is the political reality that the political parties will be forced to adapt to. My apoligies, Hikura79 I'm just used to people characterizing the Conservatives as religious fanatics which offends me for a lot of reasons |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well just so you know where I'm coming from, when I knew a little less than I know now, about a year ago, I had conceived this idea of having a little quiz before a vote will count. All in all I thought it was pretty clever, but that was until I grew up a little more. . . If you want the honest truth, the people who should be prohibited from voting are in fact the political animals. The people we get voting, who never fail to vote, are often intimately tied to a certain party and those people are called "the garanteed vote", every party has a certain number of garanteed votes, the real die hards who have something invested in a party. This is everyone's country, so just because someone wants to waste their life being a die hard: or even reading the newspaper every here and there, when they could be spending that time reading to their child, or going out for a walk, or doing something else that they would prefer to do rather than pay attention to a bunch of stickler politicians, well that person probably exceeds the enjoyment of a political animal by ten fold. At the same time that person deserves to vote because this is there country to, and it is unfair to make anyone read newspapers and watch television if they don't enjoy doing that sort of thing. As far as I'm concerned an uninformed vote is as good as any. Just because I'd prefer the less political-power driven animals to stay out of leadership positions. It's like I always say: the world will only be richeous when it is ruled by a woman. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: Well just so you know where I'm coming from, when I knew a little less than I know now, about a year ago, I had conceived this idea of having a little quiz before a vote will count. All in all I thought it was pretty clever, but that was until I grew up a little more. . .
Good for you, growing up is good. However your growing up has nothing to do with the current debate. Justin_ wrote: If you want the honest truth, the people who should be prohibited from voting are in fact the political animals. The people we get voting, who never fail to vote, are often intimately tied to a certain party and those people are called "the garanteed vote", every party has a certain number of garanteed votes, the real die hards who have something invested in a party.
Not so. Certainly there are a number of 'guaranteed votes' for each party, but they tend to be about the same for all the major parties. It is worth pointing out that these people do not nessessarily know the platforms of the other parties. They are arguably less likely then the average person to know the platforms of hte other major parties, but the level of their knoledge cannot be construed from how they vote. Justin_ wrote: This is everyone's country, so just because someone wants to waste their life being a die hard: or even reading the newspaper every here and there, when they could be spending that time reading to their child, or going out for a walk, or doing something else that they would prefer to do rather than pay attention to a bunch of stickler politicians, well that person probably exceeds the enjoyment of a political animal by ten fold.
If you prefer to not be aware of the issues then that is your choice. However when you are already reading the paper every morning (as many canadians do), or reading news on the internet, how much time does it really take to read about the policies and politics of the various parties? What's more there are usually elections only every few years, and the campain period is rather short. The amount of time it takes to inform yourself about the issues surrounding an election is so small compared to hte amount of time you spend doing other activities that there is no way you could justify it by saying "I had better things to do". If missing one walk, one day for every election is too much time lost for you to educate yourself about the issues then I will argue that you are not someone who should be helping to decide where the country goes. Justin_ wrote: At the same time that person deserves to vote because this is there country to, and it is unfair to make anyone read newspapers and watch television if they don't enjoy doing that sort of thing.
Unfair because they don't like to do so? By golly! I don't like working, so is it unfair that I must work to make money so that I can afford food? Life isn't fair, suck it up. Justin_ wrote: As far as I'm concerned an uninformed vote is as good as any. Just because I'd prefer the less political-power driven animals to stay out of leadership positions. So what your saying is that you want un-informed people to vote over informed people for the reason that this will lead to hte people who are most driven by power being in positions of power? I'm not even going to point out why that is stupid, I think it stands on it's own.
Justin_ wrote: It's like I always say: the world will only be richeous when it is ruled by a woman.
Righteous, the word is righteous; as in "right", not "rich". And the world being righteous has absolutely nothing to do with keeping dumb people from voting. |
|
| Author: | Justin_ [ Sat Jan 28, 2006 9:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Oh, am I owned or what? I was only trying to explain to you guys why this country will never allow a "politics quiz" to be enforced nationwide, those passing the quiz being able to vote. It's your priority if you think its a responsible action to take, but it's also your time your wasting, and as I don't have that kind of time on my hands, but many of you seem to, well: good luck then. |
|
| Author: | md [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Justin_ wrote: Oh, am I owned or what? I was only trying to explain to you guys why this country will never allow a "politics quiz" to be enforced nationwide, those passing the quiz being able to vote.
It's your priority if you think its a responsible action to take, but it's also your time your wasting, and as I don't have that kind of time on my hands, but many of you seem to, well: good luck then. Just because it is unlikely to happen is no reason not to think about it. Actually not thinking about it, and not raising the issue is a certain way to make sure that it never happens. If women had never made a fuss about not being able to vote do you really think that men would have all of a sudden given them the vote anyways? |
|
| Author: | Martin [ Sun Jan 29, 2006 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Cornflake wrote: Justin_ wrote: Oh, am I owned or what? I was only trying to explain to you guys why this country will never allow a "politics quiz" to be enforced nationwide, those passing the quiz being able to vote.
It's your priority if you think its a responsible action to take, but it's also your time your wasting, and as I don't have that kind of time on my hands, but many of you seem to, well: good luck then. Just because it is unlikely to happen is no reason not to think about it. Actually not thinking about it, and not raising the issue is a certain way to make sure that it never happens. If women had never made a fuss about not being able to vote do you really think that men would have all of a sudden given them the vote anyways? Women can vote? |
|
| Author: | codemage [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
We absolutely have the right to discriminate against people based on their knowledge. We don't let 10-year olds vote, not because they're in a demographic we don't like, not because they don't count, not because political decisions influence them any less than others - but because we've decided that those under 18 aren't equipped to vote responsibly. The right to vote for all citizens is weighed against my right to have good government which is chosen by the non-ignorant. A great quiz would have to include classic questions like: Who was the best prime minister ever? When was the last time the Leafs won the Stanley cup? In what year will they win it again? (Defend your answer.) The Green party is represented by what colour? etc... |
|
| Author: | Andy [ Tue Jan 31, 2006 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
codemage wrote: The Green party is represented by what colour?
PURPLE |
|