No Vote VS Uneducated Vote

[AsksWhy]

Politics do not interest everyone. Meaning, voter knowledge of today's topics will range from fully informed to totally uninformed.

My question is: Does the uninformed vote cause more or less damage than a no vote, and why? Please explain.

I am interested to hear the thoughts of the community.

Thanks!

Edited October 19, 2019 by AsksWhy

[Dougie93]

Democracy is simply a peaceful transfer of power to ultimately avoid a violent insurrection.

In a Westminster Parliament, all you are voting for is someone to represent you.

That doesn't actually give you any say as to policy, but that also means you are not responsible for the policy neither.

All you are doing as to your civic duty is maintaining peace and order by transfer of power through voting.

Thus, it doesn't matter whether you are informed as to the issues, all that matters is that you did your duty to uphold Parliamentary Supremacy.

[Shady]

I would rather that uninformed voters didn’t vote.

[AsksWhy]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Democracy is simply a peaceful transfer of power to ultimately avoid a violent insurrection.

In a Westminster Parliament, all you are voting for is someone to represent you.

That doesn't actually give you any say as to policy, but that also means you are not responsible for the policy neither.

All you are doing as to your civic duty is maintaining peace and order by transfer of power through voting.

Thus, it doesn't matter whether you are informed as to the issues, all that matters is that you did your duty to uphold Parliamentary Supremacy.

@Dougie93

Thank you for your response.

To address a couple of your points:

• If you know nothing about someone, how can you confidently choose that person to represent you?
• At what point does Parliamentary Supremacy begin to implode?

[Dougie93]

Once again, Canada is not a republic.

There is no public rule in a monarchy, even if constitutional monarchy.

Elections in Canada are no actually referendums on policy.

What makes most Canadians uninformed is that they think Canada is somehow a People's Republic run by direct democracy.

The vast majority of Canadians are woefully uninformed about their own history, constitution and laws.

[AsksWhy]

8 minutes ago, Shady said:

I would rather that uninformed voters didn’t vote.

@Shady

Thank you for your response. Would you be willing to elaborate a bit please?

Edited October 19, 2019 by AsksWhy

[Dougie93]

Just now, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93

Thank you for your response.

To address a couple of your points:

• If you know nothing about someone, how can you confidently choose that person to represent you?
• At what point does Parliamentary Supremacy begin to implode?

I have a policy of only voting for candidates who meet with me face to face at my doorstep.  If no one shows up so I can take the measure of them eye to eye, I spoil my ballot.

Parliamentary Supremacy in Canada is imploding, slowly but surely, but that is the doing of politically connected entrenched interests which cannot be voted out.

[Dougie93]

See, the inherent weakness of British Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy is that it is an honour system.

When it was founded in 1688, men were God fearing and dependent on their honor and reputation for their lives.

In this bourgeois day and age, where there are very few men of honor fearing the judgement of God himself, there is no oversight to keep the political class in check.

[AsksWhy]

9 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Once again, Canada is not a republic.

There is no public rule in a monarchy, even if constitutional monarchy.

Elections in Canada are no actually referendums on policy.

What makes most Canadians uninformed is that they think Canada is somehow a People's Republic run by direct democracy.

The vast majority of Canadians are woefully uninformed about their own history, constitution and laws.

@Dougie93 In your opinion, how do we better inform Canadians about their history, constitution and laws? What if these individuals can't be bothered to learn?

Edited October 19, 2019 by AsksWhy

[AsksWhy]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

See, the inherent weakness of British Westminster Parliamentary Supremacy is that it is an honour system.

When it was founded in 1688, men were God fearing and dependent on their honor and reputation for their lives.

In this bourgeois day and age, where there are very few men of honor fearing the judgement of God himself, there is no oversight to keep the political class in check.

@Dougie93 So Canada should break away from the monarch? What are the implications of that?

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 In your opinion, how do we better inform Canadians about their history, constitution and laws? What if these individuals can't be bothered to learn?

Again, Canada is not a republic, it's not even a unified state.  Canada is an aberration.

Canada was the only Confederation of the British Empire.   Reason being its proximity to the revolutionary America.

They did not create a nation in 1867,  Canada is more like the European Union and NATO than it is like a country.

So the issue in Canada is more that none of the component parts take responsibility for the whole.

The solution is devolution.  Free the component parts to make their own choices without the Ottawa central authority.

Once people feel like they actually control their own destiny and are voting for their interest rather than the interests of Ottawa, then they will engage and inform themselves.

Vive le Quebec libre, je me souviens.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 So Canada should break away from the monarch? What are the implications of that?

Canada cannot become a republic, the constitution cannot be modified in this way, you would have to write an entirely new constitution from the ground up.

It would require the consent of all ten provinces which is practically impossible.

[Cannucklehead]

Canada is a constitutional monarchy where the Queens powers are delegated to the elected pm and cabinet, etc.  

[Dougie93]

Canada was not a voluntary union.

Canada was imposed on the colonies here by the British in London.

The British believed that the American would invade again.

The British saw that the Americans had become too powerful to fight head to head.

So they in effect kicked Canada out of the Empire, to avoid having to defend it.

Confederation was the mechanism,  a military and trade alliance; defend yourselves, Canada, we're not coming to save you, good luck and good bye.

[Dougie93]

Canada was already an accident of history by this point.

The British were already abandoning North America to the Americans.

By rights Canada should have been overrun by the three pronged American invasion in 1812.

It was Chief Tecumseh who saved Canada from the Americans.

Particularly his Grand River Mohawks who incited panic in the ranks of the Americans at Queenston Heights.

The Americans outnumbered the defenders ten to one and General Brock was killed in the opening volley.

The Americans however had a deeply ingrained feat of being taken prisoner and tortured to death by Indians.

So when a small force of Mohawks attacked from the flank, the Americans panicked and fled

Many jumping to their death upon the rocks below rather then be taken by the Mohawks.

At which point the British were stuck with it, though they did not have the power projection to defend it indefinitely.

[Cannucklehead]

1812 was because of the Napoleon wars.  Brits were conscripting america sailors so america got upset and tried to take Canada.  After the Brits were done with the french they invaded america and burned Washington.  That is why the presidential mansion is now called the White House.  

After that they combined upper and lower canada, essentially forming one colony instead of two.  The rest is history.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Cannucklehead

[Dougie93]

The British lost interest in North America very quickly after the American Revolution.

After the Treaty of Paris, the British preferred to do business with the Ameicans rather than try to control the continent.

Reason being that Britain was a seapower.   The British Army was too small to hold North America.

The British instead looked to the Jewel in the Crown in India and the Far East.

That was the heart of the British Empire, Canada was an imperial backwater of far less interest, no longer worth fighting the Americans for control of.

[AsksWhy]

@Dougie93 & @Cannucklehead

Sorry for venturing down the rabbit hole. I feel we may have strayed off topic a bit.

To try and reel us back in: Are you both suggesting that we're too entrenched in historical events that voting today has no effect on the future of the country? If so, why do we even bother?

Also, I somewhat get that feeling based on the fact that neither of you voted (above).

Edited October 19, 2019 by AsksWhy

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 & @Cannucklehead

Sorry for venturing down the rabbit hole. I feel we may have strayed off topic a bit.

To try and reel us back in: Are you both suggesting that we're too entrenched in historical events that voting today has no effect on the future of the country? If so, why do we even bother?

The central narrative of the history, why Canada, how Canada, is the issue, Canada is shaped by its historical events.

The fact that you are trying to get off that topic, shows what the problem is. 

Canadians have been cut off from their historical narrative, so they don't know what they are even voting for nor why.

[Dougie93]

What has filled this empty void left by the absence of a central narrative?

The Post National State. 

An Elite Consensus de facto one party state run by the entrenched Liberal Party of Canada for its own benefit and the benefit of associated vested interests

[AsksWhy]

@Dougie93 So lets cut to the chase then. Given that you seem to fall into the "educated" category on matters of politics. How do you feel about people who don't vote vs those uneducated people who do?

[-TSS-]

It is always leftists who are in favour of compulsory voting. They think that the people who don't vote would vote for the left if they voted. I don't think that is a right analysis though. There are always people who simple don't care either way.

Besides, if people were forced to vote there would be a lot of smudged ballot-papers. Would people have to prove somehow that they cast a vote which counts?

 

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 So lets cut to the chase then. Given that you seem to fall into the "educated" category on matters of politics. How do you feel about people who don't vote vs those uneducated people who do?

If you restrict control to an elite, you will get a tyranny of the elite, which is what Canada has become, and why it is going to tear itself apart.

[Yzermandius19]

No one should be forced to vote, or not vote, regardless of how educated or uneducated they happen to be. They should be free to vote, or not vote, at their leisure, without government intervention based on how educated the government views them to be.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

The Liberals themselves, in their desperation to hold on to power in Ottawa, has now become separatist.

The Liberals are now rallying Quebec Nationalists against Alberta.

The death throes have come, Confederation is at an end, it is simply a matter of time.