# Rick Mercer's vote rant



## dimsum (14 Apr 2011)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/thanks-a-heap-rick-mercer-the-students-might-actually-vote/article1985368/

I believe that the RMR did a good job with the rant a few weeks ago in firing up the "let's vote!" sentiment to the 18-24 crowd.  However, I'm concerned that it could backfire if it ends up with a whole bunch of young people voting for reasons other than actual party platforms.  But either way, good on Rick to get the student populations going on this.


----------



## wannabe SF member (14 Apr 2011)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/thanks-a-heap-rick-mercer-the-students-might-actually-vote/article1985368/
> 
> I believe that the RMR did a good job with the rant a few weeks ago in firing up the "let's vote!" sentiment to the 18-24 crowd.  However, I'm concerned that it could backfire if it ends up with a whole bunch of young people voting for reasons other than actual party platforms.  But either way, good on Rick to get the student populations going on this.



As long as the student population remains ignorant about political matters in general, I consider it a plus that my peers don't bother to vote.


----------



## ekpiper (14 Apr 2011)

Inky said:
			
		

> As long as the student population remains ignorant about political matters in general, I consider it a plus that my peers don't bother to vote.



Hey man, voting because you want pot to be legal is clearly in the best interests of Canada.


----------



## jwtg (14 Apr 2011)

That's the problem with democracy- power to the people. The informed AND the ignorant. Maybe there should be a VAT- voters aptitude test so only informed people can vote.

Call me elitist, but I fear for the future of this country when my generation finally influences the vote.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> That's the problem with democracy- power to the people.



I believe that de Tocqueville called it the tyranny of the majority....


----------



## Donaill (14 Apr 2011)

As compared to other forms of tyranny that have happened? I still remember a time when a vote could be bought with a bottle of rum. There were also times when a person either got or lost a job based on who they voted for. Kids are not the only ones not voting, many adults aren't as well. Apathy, and frustration are two of the reasons. 
When I was 19, I was better informed about politics than many of the adults in my life, as I also helped in canvasing and at the polling stations. Today, as then, many people still just vote based on how they were raised and not based on any real knowledge of how the system works (or fails to work).


----------



## jwtg (14 Apr 2011)

Now votes will be bought with a joint instead of rum- or at least making joints legal.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> Now votes will be bought with a joint instead of rum- or at least making joints legal.



Or promises to make all of their post-secondary education studying basket weaving free.


----------



## wannabe SF member (14 Apr 2011)

IMHO, the problem nowadays is that a lot of people vote based on punctual promises, "vote for us, we'll make X more affordable" and so on.

If people had a more of a stake in actual good government and the proper running of the country in general, they might choose more judiciously. 

Back in the days, not everyone could vote, only landowners and people that paid taxes above a certain bracket, I.E. people affluent enought to have a vested interest in the governement's ability to aptly handle stately affairs, protect the land and appropriately defend the national interests abroad.


----------



## ballz (14 Apr 2011)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or promises to make all of their post-secondary education studying basket weaving free.



Exactly what I had in mind.. First party past the post would be the first to offer a free BA. Who needs jets anyway?


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Apr 2011)

Donaill said:
			
		

> I still remember a time when a vote could be bought with a bottle of rum.



I can be bought for a bottle of scotch.   :nod:


----------



## jeffb (15 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> Call me elitist, but I fear for the future of this country when my generation finally influences the vote.



I'm sure that has been said about every generation. As people grow up and get a stake in the country by paying taxes, having a job, etc. they tend to start being more concerned about politics. Also, while there may be a general apathy amongst young people, I can tell you from spending 5 years working in politics full-time that there are a good number of very energized young people who are canvassing, putting up signs and even developing policy.


----------



## Donaill (15 Apr 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm sure that has been said about every generation. As people grow up and get a stake in the country by paying taxes, having a job, etc. they tend to start being more concerned about politics. Also, while there may be a general apathy amongst young people, I can tell you from spending 5 years working in politics full-time that there are a good number of very energized young people who are canvassing, putting up signs and even developing policy.



Well said, well said. I wish I had something good to add to that but, in my opinion, you have said a world of truth in a small paragraph.


----------



## jwtg (16 Apr 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> I'm sure that has been said about every generation. As people grow up and get a stake in the country by paying taxes, having a job, etc. they tend to start being more concerned about politics.


Maybe we could raise the voting age to whatever age this happens at then.



> Also, while there may be a general apathy amongst young people, I can tell you from spending 5 years working in politics full-time that there are a good number of very energized young people who are canvassing, putting up signs and even developing policy.


This is certainly encouraging- however, in my experience, this group is the minority.


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> Maybe we could raise the voting age to whatever age this happens at then.



This, IMO is a terrible idea.

For one, we'd be pretty well obligated to raise the age at which you can deploy overseas as well, just on the principal.

More importantly, 18 years old is old enough to be capable of understanding and rationalizing whether or not you care about politics or not. Not all 18 year olds are at school, and not really paying much in taxes and therefore not caring how their taxes are spent or what they are spent on.

There are some 18 year old working full-time, raising a family, and keep themselves well-informed. These include some 18 year olds in the CF that have accepted unlimited liability at any given time.

It's bad enough these people can't legally drink a beer in most provinces. These people should not be robbed of their right to vote just because they have immature or apathetic peers. You will have immature and apathetic peers when you are 40 too. How would you like your vote taken away at 40? The line has to be drawn somewhere.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Apr 2011)

I disagree.  I think most 21 yr olds don't have the maturity level it takes to make these choices let alone 18.  Your statement about raising the age to go overseas is base less as well.
Some 18 yr olds may be mature enough but for the most part most aren't. 



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> This, IMO is a terrible idea.
> 
> For one, we'd be pretty well obligated to raise the age at which you can deploy overseas as well, just on the principal.
> 
> ...


----------



## acooper (16 Apr 2011)

So you think it's fair to send someone overseas when they have no say in the leadership of their country?

Maturity levels DO vary widely, and are also hard to objectively quantify. That's why there needs to be an age where it's legal to vote. Personally, I think that if you're of an age to live on your own, work, pay taxes, etc (so basically at 18), you're old enough to vote.


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2011)

Lone Wolf AT said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think most 21 yr olds don't have the maturity level it takes to make these choices let alone 18.  Your statement about raising the age to go overseas is base less as well.
> Some 18 yr olds may be mature enough but for the most part most aren't.



Garbage. If someone is considered mature enough to make that kind of decision, they are mature enough to vote. How is that baseless?

Same goes with crime. You'd have to raise the age at which you can be tried as an adult, for the same reason.

There is a reason it is called "age of majority." You are telling me that you believe an 18 year old isn't mentally capable to "assume control over their persons, actions, and decisions." That's fine if you think that and so they shouldn't vote, but that also means they aren't capable of understanding the above and so can't be held fully accountable for their crimes, can't enter into a legally binding contract, and can't sign up for unlimitd liability. For you to say they have the mental capacity to do all these things, make these choices and fully understand them, but the not the mental capacity to vote is pure hypocrisy in it's truest form.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I also don't think apathy and maturity are very related, but that's a whole other debate. Apathy in youth could just be a simple sign of how well we have it in Canada that most 18 year olds have the opportunity to pursue whatever it is they want, not so much the case for a lot of our parents when they turned 18. Important to realize that apathy helps measure intensity of desire, without vote-trading, which kind of is having your cake and eating it too.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Apr 2011)

Lone Wolf AT said:
			
		

> I disagree.  I think most 21 yr olds don't have the maturity level it takes to make these choices let alone 18.  Your statement about raising the age to go overseas is base less as well.
> Some 18 yr olds may be mature enough but for the most part most aren't.



I agree with ballz... if you dont have the mental cognizance to vote, than you surely dont have the mental capacity to make life and death decisions while deployed on operations.  Further, if someone doesn't have the wherewithall to know what they want in a government, than they can't really be held responsible for crimes they commit.  Is it that you truly believe that the 18 year olds dont have the "maturity level" to vote, or that their political views sharply contrast your own?  I remember being 18, and being relatively politically well informed, and having people tell me they wanted to vote for the green party because they wanted pot legalized.  At the time I thought it was a lack of real understanding or maturity that led the person to want to put a government in place for such a small thing, but over the next 12 years I realized that no matter what age you are, these people exist.  C'est la vie.


----------



## canada94 (16 Apr 2011)

I believe  being able to vote should be more based on mental ability in said vote, then age. As a 17 year old who has been actively been involved in politics and helping a candidate I see people twice my age that literally know nothing; why should they be able to vote and I can't yet?

I believe comparing "if he is not capable of voting" and "being deployed" are two different things. I believe there is no preparation age for something such a war-zone. That's all I have to add, I don't believe raising the voting age is at all necessary.. mostly because if I go through another election volunteering like this one and not being able to vote I'll crack .

- Mike


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> I believe  being able to vote should be more based on mental ability in said vote, then age. As a 17 year old who has been actively been involved in politics and helping a candidate I see people twice my age that literally know nothing; why should they be able to vote and I can't yet?



Unfortunately there is no way to quantify or agree on "mental ability" so an age will have to do.

This is sort of unrelated but it just made me wonder what the rules are on someone that has certain mental disorders being able to vote. Some of them are clinically/legally insane, and I can't find much on google in the way of Canada's rules, and there is no mention of it here http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part01&lang=e#sec3


----------



## Task (16 Apr 2011)

It could be simplified with taxes. If you pay them you have a stake in the decisions of the country and should get a vote. If you are a student and have a job and pay taxes, you get a vote. If your a student and your mom and dad are paying for your education , the parents get to vote (assuming they pay taxes).

Voting decisions are irrespective of mental maturity. You will vote in your own (perceived)  best interest. If you smoke dope and want that representative in Parliament so be it, expect to have a small voice, if a voice at all.


----------



## jeffb (16 Apr 2011)

So are you implying that the poor should be disenfranchised because they don't pay taxes?


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2011)

Task said:
			
		

> It could be simplified with taxes. If you pay them you have a stake in the decisions of the country and should get a vote. If you are a student and have a job and pay taxes, you get a vote. If your a student and your mom and dad are paying for your education , the parents get to vote (assuming they pay taxes).
> 
> Voting decisions are irrespective of mental maturity. You will vote in your own (perceived)  best interest. If you smoke dope and want that representative in Parliament so be it, expect to have a small voice, if a voice at all.



Yeah I can't support this at all... as an OCdt I make 20,000ish a year. The taxes I pay is very little and when you consider the military pays for my tuition/books, I am collecting more taxes than I pay. 

Where are you going to draw the line on how much taxes you have to pay to get a vote? In fact, you might as well just say "anybody willing to pay $x gets to vote." Or start having weighted votes, so the more taxes you pay the more weight your vote holds.

Only letting certain people vote based on certain criteria doesn't fit the bill of democracy at all :facepalm:. No, we can't let 6 year olds vote, which is why we have an "age of majority" where a person is considered of an adult mind. But beyond having a complete mind (age of majority, legally sane, etc), there can't be a "qualification" to vote, or it's not democratic. No one is allowed to tell someone why they should or shouldn't vote, or what ought to be important or not important to them.

EDIT: And just to add, what a dangerous precedent you would be setting. If you say "you must pay $20k a year in taxes to vote," well guess what, eventually the people that only pay $20k a year, who's priorities and opinions don't line up with those paying $30k a year and up, they'll lose their right to vote, and so on, until the only people voting are those making $500,000 a year. Hmmm, elitist much? Might as well just call up the highest paid CEO in Canada and ask him to be our dictator.


----------



## Task (16 Apr 2011)

I did not mean to imply weighted voting. I mean if you pay taxes you get a vote. There already is a form of weighted voting anyway, lobbying.

"Only letting certain people vote based on certain criteria doesn't fit the bill of democracy at all."
We do that already... You must be Canadian, you must be the age of the majority, you must be mentally capable, must have a fixed address... 

We are still being democratic by letting those who pay for the government have a say in what government it is by instituting tax=vote.

Even those on EI would qualify to vote as the pay taxes too. (Not certain about welfare). The only people I can think of who are limited by this are students who don't pay taxes, maybe welfare recipients?

My point is by paying the Government you have a vested interest in how the Gov spends your money. How is it equal to a student who pays nothing (taxes) has a say in how my money is spent? IMO he/she should not have a vote until they pay taxes. That does not stop their democratic influence though. They can still lobby and demonstrate with only the normal caveats. This allows me to look at their point of view and influence my vote if necessary.


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2011)

Task said:
			
		

> I did not mean to imply weighted voting. I mean if you pay taxes you get a vote. There already is a form of weighted voting anyway, lobbying.
> 
> "Only letting certain people vote based on certain criteria doesn't fit the bill of democracy at all."
> We do that already... You must be Canadian, you must be the age of the majority, you must be mentally capable, must have a fixed address...
> ...



I don't know any students that don't pay some taxes. Most work full-time at least 4 months of the year and then a lot part-time for the other 8 months to make ends meet. Not to mention student loans that they're paying interest on (I don't know the rates but if it's anything above inflation then the government is making a profit off them).

Welfare recipients pay taxes... out of their welfare cheques... So under your proposed idea, it wouldn't make sense to give them a vote. Also, somebody could work at a manufacturing plant for 10-15 years, full-time all the time, then get laid off due to a recession, and run out of EI, and then they would be on welfare and also unable to vote, at no fault of their own. I'm not sure how many people are currently facing this scenario but I would be interested to find out.

While I see where you are coming from, it's a dangerous precedent to set that can only lead to further denial of human rights, that you can take away someone's right to vote based on certain things. I think the requirements we have now are not in the same boat as what you are proposing. Like I said, you would also be able to charge "x" amount to vote, and it wouldn't be very much. If someone can pay 5k in taxes and get a vote, then you might as well be able to buy a vote for $5000, and buy 10 for $50,000, since you have MORE of a vested interest in how the government spends the money...

EDIT: Plus, everybody is paying GST... so where do you draw the line on "how much taxes is enough taxes." Can I forfeit my right to vote in order to avoid paying taxes?


----------



## canada94 (16 Apr 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Unfortunately there is no way to quantify or agree on "mental ability" so an age will have to do.
> 
> This is sort of unrelated but it just made me wonder what the rules are on someone that has certain mental disorders being able to vote. Some of them are clinically/legally insane, and I can't find much on google in the way of Canada's rules, and there is no mention of it here http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part01&lang=e#sec3



Oh and I agree I was saying in a hypothetical sort of manner..

And as far as I can see there is no rules/mandates on clinically insane people etc. Another thing i might add; do to the fact having the right to vote is concreted within the Charter I highly doubt anything to do with it will ever change.

- Mike


----------



## ballz (16 Apr 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> Oh and I agree I was saying in a hypothetical sort of manner..
> 
> And as far as I can see there is no rules/mandates on clinically insane people etc. Another thing i might add; do to the fact having the right to vote is concreted within the Charter I highly doubt anything to do with it will ever change.
> 
> - Mike



Ah yes of course, I think we all realize that. We are also just speaking hypotheticals. The only thing that would likely have any chance at changing would be granting more people the right to vote, not less.


----------



## jeffb (16 Apr 2011)

Task said:
			
		

> We do that already... You must be Canadian, you must be the age of the majority, you must be mentally capable, must have a fixed address...



There is no requirement under the Elections Act to have  fixed address. Elections Canada works closely with shelters precisely to give people who have no fixed address the opportunity to vote. 

There is also a very large group of people who don't directly pay taxes that you are forgetting about- stay at home parents. My wife doesn't work outside the home so she doesn't pay income tax. That being said, everyone pays tax. You pay tax when you fill up your car, when you buy anything (GST/HST), when you buy a pack of smoke or a case of beer.


----------



## Task (16 Apr 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> There is no requirement under the Elections Act to have  fixed address. Elections Canada works closely with shelters precisely to give people who have no fixed address the opportunity to vote.
> 
> There is also a very large group of people who don't directly pay taxes that you are forgetting about- stay at home parents. My wife doesn't work outside the home so she doesn't pay income tax. That being said, everyone pays tax. You pay tax when you fill up your car, when you buy anything (GST/HST), when you buy a pack of smoke or a case of beer.



 I certainly did forget stay at home spouses. When a spouse make make no income, during income tax preparation are they not included on the significant others tax assessment? I recall a long time ago that when my wife and I declared joint Taxes our taxes changed. I am not sure if the same happens if a spouse makes no income.

I searched the Elections Canada site because of the residency requirement. I had remembered a news article in the last election where a homeless man was not allowed to vote, and the ensuing arguments that followed. I was surprised after googling, that there is no restrictions on voting including residency or even mental capacity. You just have to be 18 and registered.

To be qualified registered:
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=loi/fel/cea&document=part01&lang=e#sec3

While I still feel that the use of my taxes should be agreed upon by other tax users, I am not wholly dissatisfied the current system to be honest. I am more dissatisfied and agree with Rick M that not enough people vote.


----------



## kratz (16 Apr 2011)

For Federal elections, residency concerns are not as much an issue, as to ensure you do not vote more than once during an election. If this were a provincial or local election, the need to enforce a residency becomes so much more important.


----------



## canada94 (17 Apr 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Ah yes of course, I think we all realize that. We are also just speaking hypotheticals. The only thing that would likely have any chance at changing would be granting more people the right to vote, not less.



True on the ball.. if a man serving  a life sentence for killing  someone can vote.. 

bahhh  I should stop now before I rant 

-  Mike


----------



## Task (17 Apr 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> True on the ball.. if a man serving  a life sentence for killing  someone can vote..
> 
> bahhh  I should stop now before I rant
> 
> -  Mike



Actually he can't vote:

4. The following persons are not entitled to vote at an election:

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer;


(b) the Assistant Chief Electoral Officer; and


(c) every person who is imprisoned in a correctional institution serving a sentence of two years or more.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Apr 2011)

You need to read down to Part 11. Convicts are not entitled to vote AT an election, which is not the same as IN an election. They are entitled to vote via special ballot.


----------



## JMesh (17 Apr 2011)

A point of clarification: 18 is not the age of majority in all provinces. It is 19 in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Nova Scotia, Nunavut, and the Yukon. In all other provinces it is 18. That said, people in all provinces can place votes in a federal election at age 18.

As a 21 year old, forgive me for any bias. There are many people who are mature enough to cast a well thought ballot before their 18th birthday, and there are those who lack the critical thinking in their 40s. It is written into law that 18 is the age where one can legally cast a ballot in a federal election. I sit in my school's lounge at my university and listen to well thought out and coherent political debate, and many of the people in the school have voiced excellent opinions. The fact is that while we may not pay much in taxes, we have a view on the future of this country and we have our own ideas. The spending of tax money is only one thing our federal government does (albeit a very important one), so to say that one must pay taxes or must pay X amount of taxes to vote is asinine at best. Personally, I find myself very conflicted on who to vote for because there are policies on each side that I agree with. The fact that I know that these policies exist on both sides proves that I have taken the time to think critically, and I know I am far from the only one.

I say keep the age where it is and try to get people of all ages who are eligible to vote to do so, while ensuring that we work to completely inform people on all policies, whether directly relevant to them or not. [slight tangent] In the sake of valid information being the basis for votes, I would love to never see another attack ad [/tangent].


----------



## jwtg (17 Apr 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Only letting certain people vote based on certain criteria doesn't fit the bill of democracy at all :facepalm:.Okay. No, we can't let 6 year olds vote, which is why we have an "age of majority" where a person is considered of an adult mind. But beyond having a complete mind (age of majority, legally sane, etc), there can't be a "qualification" to vote, or it's not democratic.But wait..you just said...I thought 'certain criteria' was undemocratic...now we're saying that there IS a certain criteria- age. No one is allowed to tell someone why they should or shouldn't vote, Except for the age requirement.. or what ought to be important or not important to them.




My point, in illustrating your contradictions of your own ideas, is that SOMEBODY has already decided that only CERTAIN PEOPLE will be allowed to vote.  I guess that is undemocratic, using your logic.  Except that you changed your mind and there are CERTAIN criteria we can use (ie. age) to determine who can vote.  Seems handy that the one requirement you agree with is the one you will allow to exist without undermining democracy.
I believe we should look at the reason for the rule rather than the rule itself.  I would guess that the age of 18 is used because that is the age at which someone is considered to be capable of making informed decisions with regards to who should form the government.
I would contest that- reaching a certain age does not make you capable of that, but rather doing some kind of critical thinking and research about the different political parties makes you capable of that.  Unfortunately we don't have a way of determining who should and shouldn't vote, other than the arbitrary declaration of a minimum age.  Seems rather undemocratic to me.

Maybe we should have a referendum on it- now wouldn't that be democratic!!

EDIT: Punctuation.


----------



## jeffb (17 Apr 2011)

There is a whole other aspect here which I think is being missed. Voting is about more then just picking who the government is going to be. When someone votes they are part of the system of collective organization that we call government. Living in a society requires us to give up personal liberties for the good of society. We decided which of these liberties are to be curtailed, and how, by the passage of laws. Voting, is the way that we give our consent to others to pass those laws that we in turn will have to live by.  For whatever reason we have decided that 18 is the magical age where many of societies laws start to apply to the individual without the consent of someone else. (You can join the CF, you can enter into a contract, the full weight of the criminal code applies to you, you can get married, etc)  Therefore, it only goes hand in hand that you should have a say in who is drafting those laws.  To twist a concept, voting is our renewal of the social contract. 

The story of western democracies has been one of increasing increasing enfranchisement rather then disenfranchising people. To go back to a system whereby the qualification to vote is based on property or monied interests would be a backwards step in my opinion.


----------



## canada94 (17 Apr 2011)

Task said:
			
		

> Actually he can't vote:
> 
> 4. The following persons are not entitled to vote at an election:
> 
> ...



Not anymore.. 

that was the case.. but in 2006 all Criminals in institutions are now allowed to vote.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060112/elxn_prisoners_vote_060111/20060113?s_name=election2006

"Before the decision was made, prisoners serving sentences of two years or more were barred from voting. The court ruling gave all prisoners the right to vote regardless of the length of their sentence."



- Mike



UNLESS: This changed and I am not aware.


----------



## wannabe SF member (18 Apr 2011)

jeffb said:
			
		

> There is a whole other aspect here which I think is being missed. Voting is about more then just picking who the government is going to be. When someone votes they are part of the system of collective organization that we call government. Living in a society requires us to give up personal liberties for the good of society. We decided which of these liberties are to be curtailed, and how, by the passage of laws. Voting, is the way that we give our consent to others to pass those laws that we in turn will have to live by.  For whatever reason we have decided that 18 is the magical age where many of societies laws start to apply to the individual without the consent of someone else. (You can join the CF, you can enter into a contract, the full weight of the criminal code applies to you, you can get married, etc)  Therefore, it only goes hand in hand that you should have a say in who is drafting those laws.  To twist a concept, voting is our renewal of the social contract.
> 
> The story of western democracies has been one of increasing increasing enfranchisement rather then disenfranchising people. To go back to a system whereby the qualification to vote is based on property or monied interests would be a backwards step in my opinion.



Voting is not about making citizens part of the government, actually, the government is defined in opposition to the general citizenry. The government serves the citizen, it's not a joint venture, it's a service provider. The vote is here to give legitimacy to the government so that it may exercise the monopoly of force which is the base it's duties (protecting the realm from threats inside and out and preventing the formation of unfair monopolies).

IMO, right to vote shouldn't be based on some vague assessment of when critical thinking is sufficiently developed in an individual, it should be based on when the individual is going to vote seriously. By that I mean when they have a real stake in how things are ran. Taxes are a good way to determine that but only above a certain bracket, otherwise, people and students especially start voting frivolously (With not much thought about the big pivture, based largely on appearances and personality and not so much on ideology or platform) and are susceptible to demagogy and manipulation by politicians.

BTW, in my world, students because it is (normally) only a transitory state, people are supposed to move on to becoming part of the workforce.

The story of our democracy has lately been about the exponential increase not of enfranchisement but entitlement or more accurately self-entitlement.

My 0.02 cents


----------



## ballz (18 Apr 2011)

jwtg said:
			
		

> My point, in illustrating your contradictions of your own ideas, is that SOMEBODY has already decided that only CERTAIN PEOPLE will be allowed to vote.  I guess that is undemocratic, using your logic.  Except that you changed your mind and there are CERTAIN criteria we can use (ie. age) to determine who can vote.  Seems handy that the one requirement you agree with is the one you will allow to exist without undermining democracy.
> I believe we should look at the reason for the rule rather than the rule itself.  I would guess that the age of 18 is used because that is the age at which someone is considered to be capable of making informed decisions with regards to who should form the government.
> I would contest that- reaching a certain age does not make you capable of that, but rather doing some kind of critical thinking and research about the different political parties makes you capable of that.  Unfortunately we don't have a way of determining who should and shouldn't vote, other than the arbitrary declaration of a minimum age.  Seems rather undemocratic to me.
> 
> ...



I haven't contradicted myself at all, you just conveniently decided not to read / not pay attention to the part where I said "*beyond * having a complete mind." Please don't ignore key parts of my point so you can grasp at straws.

But okay, we'll do it your way and have people write a test on political history and current issues to make sure they've been following along. If a 6 year old passes it, he gets to vote, and then if he steals an extra lollipop on the way out we'll slap the cuffs on him and give him a criminal record. Hey, he passed the test, he must be of a complete mind, therefore can be held criminally responsible for his actions, too. Oh the irony would be too much if he voted for the Tories because he wanted tougher sentences for criminals.

EDIT: So no, I am not advocating an age criteria. There is / should be "of a complete mind" criteria. In our society, age is the criteria for that. Hence, an age for voting.


----------



## Task (18 Apr 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> Not anymore..
> 
> that was the case.. but in 2006 all Criminals in institutions are now allowed to vote.
> 
> ...



Ahh good catch. I stand corrected.


----------

