Should you be able to vote at 16

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Was is not it you who said you would like to see criteria applied (i.e the "a minimum number of tax returns" comment)?

I still do, nothing I’ve said subsequently contradicts that. I’m simply pointing out that your position is inconsistent.

Yuo made the comment that you would like to see voting restricted/weighted to certain groups. I can only assume you would like a situation to exist where people outside these groups, don't get to vote.

Like people under 18 years of age? That’s a group last time I checked. You seem happy to pick your groups, call it common sense then get indignant when anyone else does the same. Tad hypocritical, don’t you think?

However, I feel everyone (again, to clarify everyone over the agreed age) has a right to vote, irregardless of status in society, education, political beliefs etc. That is why I chose their example. I don't like them, others don't like them and would probably like to see the vote taken away from them, but I still feel they have a right to vote.

So you would clarify that everyone that meets your criteria has a vote but you should not judge people’s right to vote by any other critera (other than your own, of course)..?

Clear as crystal :rolleyes:

So I can't comment, huh?

You can comment, but you didn’t - you responded to a point that was not directed at you in the first place - I referenced a comment by bonkey and then you responded by saying that you’d never made the comment. Why? What was your point of letting me know that you didn’t say something that bonkey said? We weren’t even discussing arbitrary age limits.

BuffyBot

I’m simply pointing out that your position is inconsistent.

I don't feel that it is. My position is that everyone over the agreed age should be allowed vote.

Like people under 18 years of age?

Do you feel that children should be allowed vote? I think age and social grouping/politcal alliegence are two very different thingsm, and aren't really comparable.

So you would clarify that everyone that meets your criteria has a vote but you should not judge people’s right to vote by any other critera

Not even sure I quite comprehend the purpose of your question, but anyway. I wouldn't judge people right to vote on any criteria except that of an agreed age limit.

What was your point of letting me know that you didn’t say something that bonkey said?

Fine - quite willing to admit I may have misinterpreted what you said - but perhaps you should look at your own phrasing in the post I was replying to, you might see why it so

Anyway, I can't really say much more because I'm only repeating myself. The thread is spiralling way off topic now and I don't really think that will help anyone.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by BuffyBot
Not even sure I quite comprehend the purpose of your question, but anyway. I wouldn't judge people right to vote on any criteria except that of an agreed age limit.

The point is that you concede that criteria may be used to judge someone’s voting rights, yet simultaneously you earlier say:

taking the vote away from people because of their lifestyle or for whatever reason is certainly non-democratic

So you are in effect saying your criteria are all right, while anyone else’s criteria are not. You would have the moral (or rational) high ground if you either rejected any criteria or accepted (even the possibility) that other criteria may be used, but you don’t.

Surely you must accept that your reasoning here is at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical.

Fine - quite willing to admit I may have misinterpreted what you said - but perhaps you should look at your own phrasing in the post I was replying to, you might see why it so

What’s wrong with my phrasing I was responding to shotamoose (I even mark the point where I begin to quote him) and reference bonkey by name. If it being in the same post as my response to you confused you, I apologise.

Anyway, I can't really say much more because I'm only repeating myself. The thread is spiralling way off topic now and I don't really think that will help anyone.

Sure :rolleyes:

Big Ears

Originally posted by Big Ears
How about having a politics test before u are egible to vote . If you know nothing about national and local politics you shouldnt be voting anyway .

This thread has gotten a little side tracked , but i would still like to know what people think of the above idea .

bonkey

Originally posted by Big Ears
This thread has gotten a little side tracked , but i would still like to know what people think of the above idea .

It makes literacy, language competency, exam-taking-ability, and a number of other issues pre-requisites for obtaining a vote.

Personally, I'm against anything which limits who is allowed vote, other than an age-limit, which - as I have pointed out previously - is an absolute requirement anyway, in that there must be an age-limit set at some age.

OK...thats not entirely true. We could dsipense with the age-limit in favour of a meritocratic system, whereby you get the vote when you show you deserve it....but I just don't go for that.

To me, its tantamount to creating a disenfranchised sub-class who neither have a political say, nor are cared about by those who have a political say (cause they're the people who'd have taken the vote away from this "sub-class").

jc

Gurgle

Originally posted by Big Ears:
How about having a politics test before u are egible to vote . If you know nothing about national and local politics you shouldnt be voting anyway .

Elitist!

Even if you know nothing about politics, you should still be able to vote for someone who will represent your interests.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Gurgle
Even if you know nothing about politics, you should still be able to vote for someone who will represent your interests.

If you don’t know anything about politics, it’s quite likely that you won’t know who actually will represent your interests. Or does that really matter?

I spent time at an election recount many years ago and observed that one of the most common voting patterns was not based upon personality, policy or party, but alphabetical order. What appeared to be the single most common ballot was the one that in part or in full would begin with a first preference at the top and work its way down accordingly. And these were the ones that bothered voting.

Did they know who actually represented their interests?

Gurgle

Originally posted by The Corinthian:
If you don’t know anything about politics, it’s quite likely that you won’t know who actually will represent your interests.

Exactly.
Democracy's catch 22.
Convince your voters that:
1. You will look after their interests
2. You know what their interests are better than they do

And you're voted in, without any issues on the agenda. All you have to do is fluff around for 5 years looking busy & taking credit for anything good that happens, then you'll probably even get in again.

Originally posted by The Corinthian:
What appeared to be the single most common ballot was the one that in part or in full would begin with a first preference at the top and work its way down accordingly. And these were the ones that bothered voting.

OMFG!
Actually worse than I thought.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Gurgle
Democracy's catch 22.
Convince your voters that:
1. You will look after their interests
2. You know what their interests are better than they do

How is this a catch 22?

OMFG!
Actually worse than I thought.

Given your last two conflicting posts, you seem undecided on whether democracy is a good idea or not.

Gurgle

Originally posted by The Corinthian
How is this a catch 22?

As in theres no way to win.

You are entitled to use your vote but you have to vote for a person(party), you can't vote for an issue. (Unless its a referendum of course)
The people who want your vote don't want to know what you think on the issues, they want to convince you that they will do what is in your best interests. They don't want to know what you think is in your best interests.

Originally posted by The Corinthian:
Given your last two conflicting posts, you seem undecided on whether democracy is a good idea or not.

I'm not unsure, I believe democracy is an excellent idea, and I hope to live long enough to see it in practise someday.

Wheres the conflict in my previous posts ?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Gurgle
As in theres no way to win.

You are entitled to use your vote but you have to vote for a person(party), you can't vote for an issue. (Unless its a referendum of course)
The people who want your vote don't want to know what you think on the issues, they want to convince you that they will do what is in your best interests. They don't want to know what you think is in your best interests.

That wasn’t exactly clear in your previous post.

I'm not unsure, I believe democracy is an excellent idea, and I hope to live long enough to see it in practise someday.

Wheres the conflict in my previous posts ?

One post seemed to defend democracy and the second deride it.

Of course it all depends on what you define as democracy. The democracy of ancient Greece would hardly be considered democratic by many for example, but it still was, technically, a democracy.

Gurgle

Which is more democratic:

Option 1:
Every 5 years or so, 166 people are voted into the Dail, representatives from lots of parties and independants. From the day they start there, top priority is to ensure that they get back in at the end of the 5 year term. That means appearing to do their best at running the country. Second priority for the most honest of them is to try to run the country as best they can.

Option 2:
166 People are employed in permanent positions as TDs, each to his own local area. One can be sacked (impeached ?) if he breaks the rules more or less at any time(same as in most jobs). Otherwise, the job is his until retirement.
Every 5 years or so, a public vote is called on a list of topics; Road tax or toll bridges, smoking or not in pubs, more money to schools or to health, buses or trains, increase or decrease the dole, universities funded by fees or directly by government, should we help 'liberate' the arab world.
Then the government takes the majority position on each item.

The Corinthian

Or even Option 3:
Every Sunday we have a national referendum to vote on the week’s legislation. Debates for and against are televised the night before. The legislation is then exacted.

I reckon option 3 is the most ‘democratic’, followed by option 2 then option 1.

Here’s another question – which option is actually realistic?

Hint: Reverse the order.

Gurgle

Originally posted by The Corinthian:
Every Sunday we have a national referendum to vote on the week’s legislation. Debates for and against are televised the night before. The legislation is then exacted.

Yes, that would obviously be the democraticist (yea, new word) option.
It would have been pretty practical too if they hadn't dumped €52 million worth of electronic voting machines in the bog of Allen last week.

( Point taken btw
I didn't claim to have worked out all the details. )

de5p0i1er

If your old enough to be taxed on your earnings then shouldn't you be given a say in who runs the country.