No Vote VS Uneducated Vote

[AsksWhy]

3 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

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?

@-TSS- Thanks for your input.

Given the market economy we are in, should people who "don't care" be allowed to sell their vote then? I would be interested in your opinion on this subject as well.

[AsksWhy]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

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.

@Yzermandius19 Agreed. But what impact does a no vote have vs an uneducated one?

[AsksWhy]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

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.

@Dougie93 You are clearly against the Liberals. Is there a party that can put us on the right track then, or are we simply going round and round in circles never actually changing anything?

Edited October 19, 2019 by AsksWhy

[Dougie93]

Just now, AsksWhy said:

You are clearly against the Liberals. Is there a party that can put us on the right track then, or are we simply going round and round in circles never actually changing anything?

I am neither for nor against.  I voted for the Liberals in the last election, Conservatives before that, Reform Party as well.

I am a Monarchist Tory in the classical sense;  no partisan loyalty but to the Queen.

I vote as a duty to Her, my Commander-in-Chief, to uphold the institution of Her Parliamentary Supremacy founded in 1688 by the Dutch Regent William of Orange.

[AsksWhy]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

I am neither for nor against.  I voted for the Liberals in the last election, Conservatives before that, Reform Party as well.

I am a Monarchist Tory in the classical sense;  no partisan loyalty but to the Queen.

I vote as a duty to Her, my Commander-in-Chief, to uphold the institution of Her Parliamentary Supremacy founded in 1688 by the Dutch Regent William of Orange.

@Dougie93 Why so loyal to a woman who I presume has not had a face-to-face with you at your door?

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 Why so loyal to a woman who I presume has not had a face-to-face with you at your door?

I have been face to face with Her, but my loyalty is by solemn oath taken of my own free will to bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen, when I was 17 years of age.

That oath was taken in the name of God himself.   I am a Christian Soldier who aspires to be a man of honor, thus I hold to my solemn oaths unto death as necessary.

The British Crown has never forsaken me, in fact the Queen has fulfilled all Her obligations to me, there has been no breach which would release me from my oath to date.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Dougie93

[AsksWhy]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

I have been face to face with Her, but my loyalty is by solemn oath taken of my own free will to bear true and faithful allegiance to the Queen, when I was 17 years of age.

That oath was taken in the name of God himself.   I am a Christian Soldier who aspires to be a man of honor, thus I hold to my sloemn oaths unto death as necessary.

The British Crown has never forsaken me, in fact the Queen has fulfilled all Her obligations to me, there has been no breach which would release me from my oath to date.

@Dougie93 You are a rare breed Dougie. What are your thoughts on selling votes? What affect does this have on the election process?

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 You are a rare breed Dougie. What are your thoughts on selling votes? What affect does this have on the election process?

Doesn't effect anything, the only effects are by the MP's themselves.  They swear the same oath I did, if they hold to their oaths, all is well, if they do not, all is lost.

[AsksWhy]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Doesn't effect anything, the only effects are by the MP's themselves.  They swear the same oath I did, if they hold to their oaths, all is well, if they do not, all is lost.

@Dougie93 What do you mean by "all is lost" if MP's do not hold to their oaths?

[Dougie93]

Just now, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 What do you mean by "all is lost" if MP's do not hold to their oaths?

Canada is lost, Confederation will crumble for all intents and purposes, the center shall not hold, it will tear itself apart.

[Dougie93]

As I said, this process has already begun, the ruling elites are pitting Quebec against Alberta; the war to destroy Confederation is in progress.

[AsksWhy]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Canada is lost, Confederation will crumble for all intents and purposes, the center shall not hold, it will tear itself apart.

@Dougie93 What changes if the Confederation crumbles? What are the personal consequences if one breaks their oath?

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 What changes if the Confederation crumbles? What are the personal consequences if one breaks their oath?

Not the end of the world, Canada reverts back to its pre-1867 reality, Canada goes back to being the Canada's.

The Provinces become independent Dominions like Australia and New Zealand, Quebec becomes a republic.

There will be upheaval, similar to the Brexit, but ultimately it will sort itself out.

Once the Provinces become Australia's and New Zealand's of their very own, they will get along better than they do now.

The reason they don't get along, is because Canada is a shotgun marriage which never worked.

Once the Dominions have control of their own destiny no longer in fear of having things imposed upon them, they will be able to negotiate terms.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

The United Kingdom shall also end, it's just a matter of time until Scotland cedes from the UK.

Again, not the end of the world, Scotland simply becomes a New Zealand of its very own as well, England carries on as usual.

[Altai]

Education does not make a vote "safe". Educated people have made horrible things in the past and still doing today.  Many people votes not because of it is the logical choice, they vote because they hate the opponent. They will vote 5 for the result of 2x2 if the opponents votes for 4. 

[Dougie93]

Indeed, all these bourgeois fops in Canada have been to university, but since university is simply an accreditation scam and indoctrination camp, it actually churns out the opposite of critical thought.

[AsksWhy]

56 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The United Kingdom shall also end, it's just a matter of time until Scotland cedes from the UK.

Again, not the end of the world, Scotland simply becomes a New Zealand of its very own as well, England carries on as usual.

@Dougie93 So if there is no end to this game we play, then why play at all? One could argue it seems a bit ridiculous, no?

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 So if there is no end to this game we play, then why play at all? One could argue it seems a bit ridiculous, no?

As I said, Democracy is not about solving any problem other than staving off civil war.

Peaceful transfer of power.   That's all it is.  

The public deludes themselves into thinking democracy is some sort of universal tool for solving more complex problems?  They are mistaken.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Dougie93

[AsksWhy]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

As I said, Democracy is not about solving any other problem other than staving off civil war.

Peaceful transfer of power.   That's all it is.  

The public deludes themselves into thinking democracy is some sort of universal tool for solving more complex problems?  They are mistaken.

@Dougie93 "Peaceful transfer of power" to who? In our current paradigm, wealth determines power no? That said, would a change in the distribution of wealth shift power? Can crypto-currencies initiate this shift? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on all of these points.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 "Peaceful transfer of power" to who? In our current paradigm, wealth determines power no? That said, would a change in the distribution of wealth shift power? Can crypto-currencies initiate this shift? I would be interested to hear your thoughts on all of these points.

Peaceful transfer of Parliamentary Supremacy in the context of British Westminster.

I don't think wealth is actually the deciding factor in Canada, it's more about cartels which are propped up by the locals in the ridings.

The milk cartel for example, they're not that rich, but they do control Quebec.

Currency is not really an issue, currency is simply various forms of IOU's, it's not wealth in of itself, merely a vehicle for transfer.

 

[AsksWhy]

1 hour ago, Altai said:

Education does not make a vote "safe". Educated people have made horrible things in the past and still doing today.  Many people votes not because of it is the logical choice, they vote because they hate the opponent. They will vote 5 for the result of 2x2 if the opponents votes for 4. 

@Altai Thank you for your input.

Would you agree that voting one way because you hate the opponent implies that the voter is somewhat educated?

I was hoping to get thoughts on whether one should cast an uneducated vote as opposed to not voting at all.  

[AsksWhy]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Currency is not really an issue, currency is simply various forms of IOU's, it's not wealth in of itself, merely a vehicle for transfer.

@Dougie93 If large holdings of currency does not constitute wealth, then what does exactly? Our market economy seems to contradict that thought, no?

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, AsksWhy said:

@Dougie93 If large holdings of currency does not constitute wealth, then what does exactly? Our market economy seems to contradict that thought, no?

Currency is simply liquidity, but it is not equity in of itself.   So for example I have money, but If I just leave it in the bank and do nothing with it, I don't own anything therein.

This is why when you have money, you invest it in various forms of equity, you have to find places to park your money.

[Dougie93]

Think of it this way, lets say I give you a million dollars, but then you go to Las Vegas and blow it all on gambling, hookers and blow, were you ever actually rich?

[Dougie93]

The reverse is also true, you will find that the wealthy don't actually have that much cash on hand.  There's no need, they have equity.  They own assets which accrue value.

No need for much cash, the banks will extend you credit based on the value of your assets.

Most Canadians live hand to mouth, so they think if they just had more money, that would make them wealthy.

Not actually the case, if they don't invest wisely, if they don't own assets which accrue value, they quickly find themselves poor, even having had the liquidity in hand.