Who should be allowed to vote?

Argus · June 20, 2004

An idea a lot of people will probably hate: If you are not contributing anything to society you shouldn't be able to vote. An election is basically a vote on how tax money is to be spent. Why should you get a vote if you pay no taxes? If instead you actually consume taxes because you're a prisoner, or because you've been on welfare for ten years, why should you be able to help decide how the money others contribute is going to be spent?

Example. Say I pay $25,000 in taxes every year. My brother who is chain smoking, alcoholic bum on welfare, has never contributed anything. I get one vote. He gets one vote. I will vote for the party I consider will make the most efficient use of my money without waste or theft. He will vote for whoever promises to give him more welfare money, and improve conditions in his public housing unit.

Should I not resent that?

caesar · June 20, 2004

I agree 100 % with not giving prisoners vote. Welfare is another matter. There are people who are on welfare because of legitimate reasons; health problems. If we deny people voting rights because they are on welfare; would low income people (generally young or seniors) be next. I do understand where you are coming from as I do often get irritated by welfare groups demanding more of everything.

Argus · June 20, 2004

I agree 100 % with not giving prisoners vote. Welfare is another matter. There are people who are on welfare because of legitimate reasons; health problems. If we deny people voting rights because they are on welfare; would low income people (generally young or seniors) be next. I do understand where you are coming from as I do often get irritated by welfare groups demanding more of everything.

Look, I am a fairly generous person. I voluntarily have money taken off my pay for the United Way. But if the United Way came to me and started demanding I give them more and calling me greedy if I said no I'd be more than a little ticked off.

Yes, there are legitimate reasons to be on welfare. Although we all know there are a lot of people on welfare for no legitimate reasons. But the fact remains they contribute nothing to the money which is used to run this country. I am not going to let them starve but I still think it is up to me and people like me to decide how the money is spent.

playfullfellow · June 20, 2004

Prisoners should not be allowed to vote, they gave up their rights when they broke the laws of this nation. Why should they have the same electoral rights as law abidding citizens especially when it comes to voting for a party that would instate lower punishments for crimes.

As for welfare recipients, that would be a very sticky territory to wander into. How do you decide who is on welfare legitimately and who is just using the system? Another questions which may be easier to answer is, "how many welfare recipients actually vote so does it really matter". The legitimate users would probably vote, the abusers of the system wouldn't because they are too lazy to get off their butts to do so.

idealisttotheend · June 20, 2004

The reason for the "one person one vote" system of a mature democracy is that such a democracy assumes all people have equal rights under the law. The supposition that the weight of your vote should be equal to the weight of your wallet is an old argument and a bad one.

To say people on welfare are useless, is stupid and samcks of the eugenic policies of certain mid century societies. People on welfare may contribute to society by being good friends, partners and parents. They may do volunteer work, they may be artists or they may be looking for work. In any case they may be better people under the terms of their religion or belief systems than people making lots of money. From a strictly cold hearted economic perspective people on welfare keep wages down which is seen by the 'right' to be good for society.

The market determines which resources go where, it has no say in the worthyness of a given person to vote.

What is the real value of a currency trader who does nothing but trade one currency for another and get 150K for it?

You could argue that the reason some people are on welfare is because the system of laws have failed them and so they must vote to change those laws.

In any case, equal voting rights counter balance the free market, putting pressure on law makers to consider all elements of society not just the elements all ready with money. It is therefore essential and any other system is clearly unconstitutional and morally wrong.

Argus · June 21, 2004

The reason for the "one person one vote" system of a mature democracy is that such a democracy assumes all people have equal rights under the law. The supposition that the weight of your vote should be equal to the weight of your wallet is an old argument and a bad one.

Unfortunately, your "supposition" is nonsense. Everyone knows the courts and law are the province of the wealthy. The only chance the poor have is just that - chance. Occasionally they get lucky.

To say people on welfare are useless, is stupid and samcks of the eugenic policies of certain mid century societies.

Economically they are useless, a drain on society and its wealth.

People on welfare may contribute to society by being good friends, partners and parents. They may do volunteer work, they may be artists or they may be looking for work.

Certainly possible, but in my experience, extremely rare.

From a strictly cold hearted economic perspective people on welfare keep wages down which is seen by the 'right' to be good for society.

What "right" do you speak of? If you are labouring under the belief that everyone who is conservative is a banker you might consider unblinkering your eyes. I, for one, am no fan of things which keep wages artificially low. And in this particular case even that questionable purpose is vastly outweighed by the sheer waste of so many idle, useles shands. Warehousing the poor is one of the dumber ideas our society has developed. Almost anyone is capable of doing some useful work. The training and educational programs for the poor are pathetic and should be enormously expanded.

What is the real value of a currency trader who does nothing but trade one currency for another and get 150K for it?

Precious little, but he does contribute a considerable sum of money towards the state's treasure chest, and so it's only right and proper he have some say in how it's spent.

CanadianPatriot · June 21, 2004

Prisoners should not be allowed to vote, they gave up their rights when they broke the laws of this nation. Why should they have the same electoral rights as law abidding citizens especially when it comes to voting for a party that would instate lower punishments for crimes

I completely agree.

As for the other citizens of Canada, I believe everyone should have the right to vote-- regardless of their economic situation. If we refuse the right of some to vote just because their bank accounts sport a few less zeros we completely undermine what it means to be a democracy.

idealisttotheend · June 21, 2004

Unfortunately, your "supposition" is nonsense. Everyone knows the courts and law are the province of the wealthy. The only chance the poor have is just that - chance. Occasionally they get lucky

The chance the poor have now in the courts is not that bad unless they are up against someone who can hire multiple lawyers etc. Legal aid is there for a reason and the more the poor vote the better their chances in the legal system ought to be.

People on welfare may contribute to society by being good friends, partners and parents. They may do volunteer work, they may be artists or they may be looking for work.
Certainly possible, but in my experience, extremely rare.

I don't mean to disparage your experience but it is not sufficient to decide the rights of an entire group of people. Plus, by agreeing that it is possible you are admitting that some people contribute you admit that some are, in your humble opinion, worthy to vote. Therefore you can't judge someone's worthiness to vote by whether or not they are on welfare.

Warehousing the poor is one of the dumber ideas our society has developed. Almost anyone is capable of doing some useful work. The training and educational programs for the poor are pathetic and should be enormously expanded.

I agree on all three points. The more the poor vote though the greater the educational and training opporunties will be for them.

QUOTE
What is the real value of a currency trader who does nothing but trade one currency for another and get 150K for it?

Precious little, but he does contribute a considerable sum of money towards the state's treasure chest, and so it's only right and proper he have some say in how it's spent.

So if you admit that the currency trader contributes little (and I'm glad you did) to society why should he get more of a vote than someone with Chron's disease or anyone on welfare who does contribute something that might be less tangible than tax dollars? Especially if those tax dollars are due to a system that rewards his version of contributing little over someone else's version of contributing little (or in fact more) to society.

Argus · June 21, 2004

Unfortunately, your "supposition" is nonsense. Everyone knows the courts and law are the province of the wealthy. The only chance the poor have is just that - chance. Occasionally they get lucky

The chance the poor have now in the courts is not that bad unless they are up against someone who can hire multiple lawyers etc. Legal aid is there for a reason and the more the poor vote the better their chances in the legal system ought to be.

Legal aid is there to pretend the poor have equal rights. In reality, legal aid lawyers are enormously overworked, and don't have nearly the resources needed to properly represent their clients. If you go up against a private lawyer, who has the time and resources, you're probably going to lose.

And, of course, only the poorest qualify for legal aid. The middle class get nothing. They are required to find the thousand, or tens of thousands of dollars themselves.

Warehousing the poor is one of the dumber ideas our society has developed. Almost anyone is capable of doing some useful work. The training and educational programs for the poor are pathetic and should be enormously expanded.

I agree on all three points. The more the poor vote though the greater the educational and training opporunties will be for them

Yes, and no. I don't see the poor demanding better skill training and education, frankly. Mostly they seem to be looking for lower taxes - for those that actually pay any - and higher, more generous welfare. I would bring in decent skill traiing and education and require anyone who has been on welfare beyond a given time other than due to physical or mental incapacity take that training.

I'm not sure that would make me too popular with the people on welfare.

So if you admit that the currency trader contributes little (and I'm glad you did) to society why should he get more of a vote than someone with Chron's disease or anyone on welfare who does contribute something that might be less tangible than tax dollars?

Elections are principally about how to spend the money collected from taxpayers. Therefore, it seems fair to me that it should be taxpayers making that decision. Regardless of what someone else might contribute to society, if they contribute no taxes they have no real business deciding where those taxes should go.

idealisttotheend · June 21, 2004

Elections are principally about how to spend the money collected from taxpayers. Therefore, it seems fair to me that it should be taxpayers making that decision. Regardless of what someone else might contribute to society, if they contribute no taxes they have no real business deciding where those taxes should go.

Possibly but elections are also about how much tax to collect and from whom and that decision is made by all of society. Or economic decisions like interest rate levels which could reduce unemployment and affect people on welfare.

In any case, if government has been reduced to simple redistribution of funds and has no role in the maintenance of the nation (which is actually quite possible with NAFTA and to a lesser extent the Charter) we have come to a sad state of affairs vis a vie being a democratic nation where laws are made by the elected representatives of the people. All the people, regarless of their economic situation.

And have you ever considered the slippery slope argument inherent to denying people on welfare the vote? What about people with jobs that pay them so little that they don't really pay any taxes? In fact they say anyone who makes under 30,000 gets more taxpayer funded services than they pay in taxes, so maybe none of them should vote? Where do you stop with this? The easiest and the most morally defensible way is to apply the engineering principle of KISS and give everyone the vote and not try to judge who is worthy of participating in society and who is not.

noelandmero · June 21, 2004

Prisoners should not be allowed to vote, they gave up their rights when they broke the laws of this nation. Why should they have the same electoral rights as law abidding citizens especially when it comes to voting for a party that would instate lower punishments for crimes

First off I agree with htis totally. Here is something intersting to think about. What does everybody feel about the US system were prisoners do not only not get to vote if you have been convicted of a felony you never get to vote again. One part of me says that's fair another part of me says some people do get out of prison and become productive taxpayers should they not have a say in hoe there money is spent. What does everybody else think.

Bionic Antboy · June 21, 2004

What does everybody feel about the US system were prisoners do not only not get to vote if you have been convicted of a felony you never get to vote again. One part of me says that's fair another part of me says some people do get out of prison and become productive taxpayers should they not have a say in hoe there money is spent. What does everybody else think.

How is an ex-con ever going to feel like a full member of society again, if they are forever denied the right to vote?

Just my take on that.

CanadianPatriot · June 22, 2004

Ex-cons who have served their time have paid their debt to society, let them vote. However prisoners should never be allowed to vote while still serving their sentence, nor on parole.

Reverend Blair · June 22, 2004

Why shouldn't prisoners be allowed to vote? They are Canadian citizens. They have issues and thoughts within and without their criminality. Given the number of cases of wrongful conviction that have come up recently there are some serious questions even in regard to their criminality.

Since our prison system is allegedly based on reform instead of punishment, wouldn't encouraging them to become politically aware be a boon towards their reform?

Many are in jail for minor offences...drugs, theft to support drug habits, etc... They could very well have a different, yet valid, perspective on a variety of issues.

My only concern is the presence of such a large special interest group within one riding. I would suggest that they cast ballots in the riding of their last permanent address to avoid skewing the vote in a particular riding.

idealisttotheend · June 22, 2004

I agree with RB and bring up the case of the Alberta farmers who went to jail for illegally selling their wheat to the US without the approval of the CWB. It is still possible in this country to go to jail for your pollitical beliefs so we can't cut off people's voting rights because they are in jail unless we are willing to do it to people like these Alberta farmers who are going to jail for an expressly political purpose in the first place.

August1991 · June 22, 2004

Say I pay $25,000 in taxes every year. My brother who is chain smoking, alcoholic bum on welfare, has never contributed anything. I get one vote. He gets one vote.

This raises such a fascinating question. Consider this: In stead of getting one vote, we get 100. We can then give those 100 votes to various parties as we see fit. 80 to the Liberals, 20 to the NDP. Or, 40 to the Greens, 40 to the NDP and 20 to the Conservatives.

IOW, we could express, in part, the relative degree of feelings we have for different political parties.

Since our prison system is allegedly based on reform instead of punishment, wouldn't encouraging them to become politically aware be a boon towards their reform?

Our prison system must be based on punishment. Reliance on people's better nature is unlikely to lead to civil society. The Tories believe denying voting rights to prisoners should be part of the punishment. But is this really punishment?

takeanumber · June 22, 2004

One Person

One Vote

Regards,

Takeanumber.

playfullfellow · June 22, 2004

I agree with RB and bring up the case of the Alberta farmers who went to jail for illegally selling their wheat to the US without the approval of the CWB. It is still possible in this country to go to jail for your pollitical beliefs so we can't cut off people's voting rights because they are in jail unless we are willing to do it to people like these Alberta farmers who are going to jail for an expressly political purpose in the first place.

I know a couple of these farmers personally and have known them for years. Been neighbours to them too. They are very law abidding citizens but even so, they broke the law. They are fighting a political fight yes but they also broke a law and went to jail. They paid their fines after a few days and went home. They made their point. Did it help, not diddly squat. They had the choice of showing their displeasure with the wheat board through votes. This does not mean I support the wheat board. All trade boards should be done away with and we should have a free market. But anyways, if you break a law, you stand a chance of going to jail, if you go to jail, you should not get to vote. How in all reality can a convicted murderer or rapist be shown good faith to pick a government when they can't even live under the very basic rules of our laws?

Reverend Blair · June 22, 2004

That brings up a whole other issue. If somebody has been forced to choose jail because they could not pay a fine, why would they not be allowed to vote when, if they could have paid the fine, they would be allowed to vote?

That is an especially big problem when it comes to Aboringials. They are already politically under-represented. They are already less likely to vote. Many live in poverty and go to jail because they lack the funds to pay fines. Now you are suggesting that they be kept from expressing a basic right because of a lack of money.

bobocop · June 22, 2004

Many live in poverty and go to jail because they lack the funds to pay fines. Now you are suggesting that they be kept from expressing a basic right because of a lack of money.

They would not be denied a basis right due to a lack of money, it would be denied as a result of an offense committed and received a fine as a result. If you wish to vote, don't committ the offense.

Bionic Antboy · June 22, 2004

Many live in poverty and go to jail because they lack the funds to pay fines. Now you are suggesting that they be kept from expressing a basic right because of a lack of money.

They would not be denied a basis right due to a lack of money, it would be denied as a result of an offense committed and received a fine as a result. If you wish to vote, don't committ the offense.

So you're saying that the person who CAN avoid prison by paying the fine should be denied the right to vote as well?

That's a really slippery slope. Where does it stop? If someone who can't pay a fine is denied the right to vote, can we then deny the right to someone who CAN pay the fine for an identical offense?

The ONLY difference is their economic status.

Should we then deny the right to vote to ANYONE who has had to pay a fine? And do we deny them the right to vote only once, or for the rest of their lives?

There are some heavy ethical implications here...

bobocop · June 22, 2004

So you're saying that the person who CAN avoid prison by paying the fine should be denied the right to vote as well?

No, what I am saying is that if you are a law abidding citizen, you have no concerns regarding your eligibility to vote. Sorry but I don't believe that monsters such as Clifford Olsen should have a say in what happens in this country. No slippery slope, you are a criminal in jail, you don't vote. No have lost that right until you have served your sentence. Abide the law like the vast majority of citizens do, you vote.

Bionic Antboy · June 22, 2004

So you're saying that the person who CAN avoid prison by paying the fine should be denied the right to vote as well?

No, what I am saying is that if you are a law abidding citizen, you have no concerns regarding your eligibility to vote. Sorry but I don't believe that monsters such as Clifford Olsen should have a say in what happens in this country. No slippery slope, you are a criminal in jail, you don't vote. No have lost that right until you have served your sentence. Abide the law like the vast majority of citizens do, you vote.

The discussion wasn't about extreme cases, it was for minor offenses. Let's try it this way...

Person A and person B recieve an identical fine for the same offense. Person A pays the fine. Person B can not afford it, so opts for a stint in jail.

Should both A and B be denied the vote because of their offense?

or

Should only B be denied the vote because they opt for prison (not being able to pay the fine)?

or

Should they both be able to vote?

Which way, and why?

falling leaf · June 22, 2004

caesar

I agree 100 % with not giving prisoners vote. Welfare is another matter. There are people who are on welfare because of legitimate reasons; health problems. If we deny people voting rights because they are on welfare; would low income people (generally young or seniors) be next. I do understand where you are coming from as I do often get irritated by welfare groups demanding more of everything.

I agree with you here!

CanadaRocks · June 22, 2004

I really love when we discuss idea's in this forum rather than political candidates. The former at least offers some hope in my opinion.

As much as I resent rapists, murderer's, pedophiles, and certain other groups having any say, and to some degree fear what input they may have, all Canadians should have the right to vote period.

Elections are NOT merely about where tax monies go. Elections are about the attitudes which will prevail regarding all aspects of life in Canada.

Once we begin removing the right of one group of Canadians to vote, we open pandora's box. With enough money, and power, the rich could easily begin finding and promoting *reasons* for any group that does not hold their interests not to vote.

Once we have said prisoners cannot vote, and welfare persons cannot vote, what is to say that next we do not say people who are not fully cognizant of all pertainent issues cannot vote? After all the average Canadian is not, as these forums are so fond of saying, capable of understanding all the issues, as even at the best of times we do not, or can not (security reasons) possess all the information.

What this line of thinking will eventually lead to, is that only those who possess all the information, should have the right to vote and this, would be a very select group indeed. When we say goodbye to allowing all Canadians to vote, we are saying goodbye to democracy, and hello to elitist tyranny.

Something else to consider. If your right to have a say in how your life is managed is removed, then what recourse is left to you if the situation is unbearable? That recourse, as history is shown, is hopelessness, and hopelessness is where chaos and lawlessness live.

There is a reason that slavery was abolished. There is a reason that as puny and inneffective as voting is, it remains a right of all People under the law. Take away the last vestige of control and hope a Person has, and you won't need to look at history, it will come to your door and bite you in the ass.