Let's restrict the right to vote

[Smallc]

It means, in my opinion, you cannot make a clear statement of committal.

I shouldn't have to. I don't have enough legal knowledge to make such a determination....the people who made the decision do though. I'll respect what they say.

[jbg]

If you are eking out a living as a stock clerk or something, you don't vote.

You mean that people who show the initiative to take menial work rather than relying on the dole shouldn't vote?

How about giving most people a stake and voice in society so they work to improve it. I think shoving people to the outside is a bad idea, in general. I could see purging people from the rolls who haven't voted in a long time, perhaps, or criminals. But strivers? Hardly.

[Remiel]

While I am not decided on the issue either way, one logical issue with denying prisoners the vote is that, in the hypothetical scenario in which all prisoners vote for those who will be nicer to them, is that committing a crime and then voting to have the penalty lessened is not really that different than voting to have the penalty lessened in preparation for committing a crime. If you just let them keep the vote, you do not have to worry about making a justification for that.

[jbg]

While I am not decided on the issue either way, one logical issue with denying prisoners the vote is that, in the hypothetical scenario in which all prisoners vote for those who will be nicer to them, is that committing a crime and then voting to have the penalty lessened is not really that different than voting to have the penalty lessened in preparation for committing a crime. If you just let them keep the vote, you do not have to worry about making a justification for that.

I would assume that most uncaught criminals don't consider their likely future digs in making voting decisions.

[Pliny]

I shouldn't have to. I don't have enough legal knowledge to make such a determination....the people who made the decision do though. I'll respect what they say.

So if the Conservatives enact any legislation are you going to say the same thing?

Nevermind, I don't think anymore need be said. Have a nice day!

[Pliny]

While I am not decided on the issue either way, one logical issue with denying prisoners the vote is that, in the hypothetical scenario in which all prisoners vote for those who will be nicer to them, is that committing a crime and then voting to have the penalty lessened is not really that different than voting to have the penalty lessened in preparation for committing a crime. If you just let them keep the vote, you do not have to worry about making a justification for that.

A criminal, lacking conscience and having an inability to be responsible for his acts, never considers himself a criminal. So as jbg says, they more than likely don't consider their future digs.

[Remiel]

I would assume that most uncaught criminals don't consider their likely future digs in making voting decisions.

But if caught criminals do consider their future digs, what they are considering is not the conditions of the prison.

A criminal, lacking conscience and having an inability to be responsible for his acts, never considers himself a criminal. So as jbg says, they more than likely don't consider their future digs.

If a criminal does not consider himself a criminal, then why assume that we will vote on the basis of what is good for criminals as opposed to what would be good for non-criminals like himself once he is out?

[Smallc]

So if the Conservatives enact any legislation are you going to say the same thing?

Legislation for what? I don't blindly support or go against something because a certain party presented it.

[jbg]

If a criminal does not consider himself a criminal, then why assume that we will vote on the basis of what is good for criminals as opposed to what would be good for non-criminals like himself once he is out?

At the time he is in he is certainly a "criminal" if duly convicted. And when out he's an ex-convict, not a non-criminal. Crucial difference.

[Pliny]

If a criminal does not consider himself a criminal, then why assume that we will vote on the basis of what is good for criminals as opposed to what would be good for non-criminals like himself once he is out?

A consistency of the criminal mind is that he continually attempts to get something for nothing and if someone else suffers all the better. Keep in mind the adverbial modifier "continually".

He has no concept of the sanctity of person and property.

[Pliny]

Legislation for what? I don't blindly support or go against something because a certain party presented it.

You are making a fool of yourself. You just stated you will blindly support legislation because you "don't have enough legal knowledge to make such a determination....the people who made the decision do though. I'll respect what they say."

Now we are talking about "enacted legislation" so don't attempt to be slippery and say we are talking about "something a certain party presents".

If Liberals enact legislation that grants the criminal suffrage then you don't have enough legal knowledge to make such a determination and the people who made the decision do, so you will respect what they say. This is basically your position.

Are you going to deny your position and not respect what "they" say if a political party, say the NDP or even the Conservatives, divest the criminal of the vote?

So where do you stand? And why don't you just commit yourself to a stand that, "Criminals should have the vote." independent of what any political party determines.

Of course, you can't say that because you would have to be a thinking individual that holds an opinion instead of one of the minions of liberal progressivism.

[Smallc]

Enacting legislation is completely different than interpreting and enforcing it. If you want change, you make legal reforms, you don't go after the people enforcing the laws. I'll judge legislation as it comes forward.

That said, I already state that I think things should remain as they are.

[lictor616]

Okay, it might not, but the logic is there. The more idiots are allowed to vote, the more morons we get in office.

It seems to me, that rather than trying to increase the number of people voting, even possibly forcing people to vote, we should be working to decrease the voting lists. Voting should not be automatic. It should be something you have to work at, something you gain as a respectable, responsible member of society. Maybe then people would appreciate it more and take more care of how they use their powers.

So.

Existing and previous members of the military get to vote. Same goes for the other domestic uniformed services, ie, police, fire, EMTs and paramedics. Land owners get to vote, as does anyone who has graduated from a college or university. Also, if you are a recognized professional in a field which has taken some time and effort to acquire significant skill, ie, master electrician, for example, where your income is over $50,000 (78% of all personal income taxes collected came from Canadians with incomes over $50k. These people make up 23% of the population).

Who doesn't get to vote?

If you pay no tax (8 million supposed taxpayers pay no tax) you do not vote. If the tax you pay is so low that it does not cover even a fraction of what you get from government in services, you do not vote. If you never graduated from high school you do not vote - unless, of course, you qualify under another option. If you are eking out a living as a stock clerk or something, you don't vote.

Final chance.

Of course, in an egalitarian society we ought to allow people with demonstrated abilities and demonstrated determination to have a say. Anyone can vote so long as they work at getting the vote. That could mean doing volunteer work for a few years time, for example, and passing some tests on political knowledge. How many people d you think care enough to bother?

That seems fair and quite reasonable... Actually, given the degeneration of party politics in canada... and the shabby state of the electorate, it might well be essential to maintain checks on voter eligibility to SAVE democracy in canada...

I myself once proposed that welfare dependents and those on any form of government dole be denied the right to vote for 5 years...

Edited September 5, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

Okay, it might not, but the logic is there. The more idiots are allowed to vote, the more morons we get in office.

It seems to me, that rather than trying to increase the number of people voting, even possibly forcing people to vote, we should be working to decrease the voting lists. Voting should not be automatic. It should be something you have to work at, something you gain as a respectable, responsible member of society. Maybe then people would appreciate it more and take more care of how they use their powers.

So.

Existing and previous members of the military get to vote. Same goes for the other domestic uniformed services, ie, police, fire, EMTs and paramedics. Land owners get to vote, as does anyone who has graduated from a college or university. Also, if you are a recognized professional in a field which has taken some time and effort to acquire significant skill, ie, master electrician, for example, where your income is over $50,000 (78% of all personal income taxes collected came from Canadians with incomes over $50k. These people make up 23% of the population).

Who doesn't get to vote?

If you pay no tax (8 million supposed taxpayers pay no tax) you do not vote. If the tax you pay is so low that it does not cover even a fraction of what you get from government in services, you do not vote. If you never graduated from high school you do not vote - unless, of course, you qualify under another option. If you are eking out a living as a stock clerk or something, you don't vote.

Final chance.

Of course, in an egalitarian society we ought to allow people with demonstrated abilities and demonstrated determination to have a say. Anyone can vote so long as they work at getting the vote. That could mean doing volunteer work for a few years time, for example, and passing some tests on political knowledge. How many people d you think care enough to bother?

Makes you think how hugely relevant is H.L. Mencken is today....

"Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage."

"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy. If these villains could be put down, he holds, he would at once become rich, powerful and eminent. Nine politicians out of every ten, of whatever party, live and have their being by promising to perform this putting down. In brief, they are knaves who maintain themselves by preying on the idiotic vanities and pathetic hopes of half-wits."

– H. L. Mencken, _Baltimore Evening Sun_, June 15, 1936

Edited September 5, 2009 by lictor616

[Pliny]

"The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy. If these villains could be put down, he holds, he would at once become rich, powerful and eminent. Nine politicians out of every ten, of whatever party, live and have their being by promising to perform this putting down. In brief, they are knaves who maintain themselves by preying on the idiotic vanities and pathetic hopes of half-wits."

– H. L. Mencken, _Baltimore Evening Sun_, June 15, 1936

Mencken is priceless! Love that quote!

No vote for them!