• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

No Vote For Women. What Difference Would It Make?


Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,987
Given that men and women vote for political parties and candidates in the same proportion as men, would it make any difference to the policies pursued by governments if only men voted?
 

Camper Van

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
416
Given that men and women vote for political parties and candidates in the same proportion as men, would it make any difference to the policies pursued by governments if only men voted?
Only if it was the women who were dumb enough to vote in FF again in the last election. Sadly there were plenty of dumb men who also did the same.
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,987
Only if it was the women who were dumb enough to vote in FF again in the last election. Sadly there were plenty of dumb men who also did the same.


But given that 50% of the votes each candidate received at the last election were cast by women, why would the result have been any different if men hadn't voted?

Why would it have been any different if women hadn't voted?

Obviously the quotas would have been lower, but the same people would have been elected.
 

fool

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
150
It would make a huge difference. Without giving the vote to all adult citizens we wouldn't have been allowed to join the European Project.
Also politics today would be dominated by the question of giving women the vote.
 

Conor

Moderator
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,206
But given that 50% of the votes each candidate received at the last election were cast by women, why would the result have been any different if men hadn't voted?
Every candidate had an exactly 50/50 split in support? I'm a bit surprised. Where did you hear it?

It may have an influence on who stood or would stand for election. You might find more single issue candidates running for universal suffrage, for example.
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,987
Every candidate had an exactly 50/50 split in support? I'm a bit surprised. Where did you hear it?

It may have an influence on who stood or would stand for election. You might find more single issue candidates running for universal suffrage, for example.

I don't say exactly, but I do remember reading that political parties had the same level of support amongst men and women. If that is the case, statistically if one sex completely abstained we should expect the same result as if both sexes were voting.


Your second point is a misinterpretation of what I wrote. It could make no difference to the candidates or the campaign, if the decision to abstain was spontaneous: i.e. not pre-meditated.


P.S. I see I had not explained my point properly. My fault.
 
Last edited:

fool

Active member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
150
Then you've said absolutely nothing. If you first premise (the one with on evidence) is accepted, and then if you're bizarre hypothesis is added, then yes, the end result would be broadly the same.

But none of that matters in the slightest.
 

Conor

Moderator
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,206
I don't say exactly, but I do remember reading that political parties had the same level of support amongst men and women. If that is the case, statistically if one sex completely abstained we should expect the same result as if both sexes were voting.
It's a lot more credible that parties would, overall, have a roughly even gender balance among supporters (to within a few percentage points, I suppose - I'd be interested to see the background to this). But did you read the same about individual candidates, or geographical spread?

Your second point is a misinterpretation of what I wrote. It could make no difference to the candidates or the campaign, if the decision to abstain was spontaneous: i.e. not pre-meditated.
My apologies for the misinterpretation.
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,987
It would make a huge difference. Without giving the vote to all adult citizens we wouldn't have been allowed to join the European Project.
Also politics today would be dominated by the question of giving women the vote.
When women could not vote in the U.K. the argument of the Suffragettes was that giving the vote to women would somehow result in better policies.

But if women vote in the same way as men, as seems to be the case, what difference could it make if they didn't vote? We are told today that if we had more female public representatives we would somehow have better policies.

I cannot see why, if women's political opinions are the same as men's.
 
Last edited:

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,987
You never said approximately either.....your wording gives the impression that it was an exact split

I apoligise for not making my post clear. I meant there is very little statistical difference in male/female support for parties.

Of course it would be absurd to suggest that each candidate received an exactly equal number of votes from each sex.
 

DeputyEdo

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,462
I apoligise for not making my post clear. I meant there is very little statistical difference in male/female support for parties.

Of course it would be absurd to suggest that each candidate received an exactly equal number of votes from each sex.
ah it's all good.......you should know by now though, pick your words carefully on P.ie :D
 

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,992
It's probable that brown eyed people vote the same way as blue-eyed people but it's not an argument for not letting them vote at all.
 
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
1,757
Instead of the original OP title, change it to:

No vote for men. What a different world we would have! sigh!
 

Odyessus

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
12,987
It's probable that brown eyed people vote the same way as blue-eyed people but it's not an argument for not letting them vote at all.

I am not suggesting we disqualify women from voting; I am just pointing out that they seem to vote the same way as men do. The Suffragette argument that women voters would somehow change politics for the better turned out to be illusory.

The present idea that if we had more female public representatives we would somehow have better politics is, I believe equally illusory.
 

Conor

Moderator
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,206
I am not suggesting we disqualify women from voting; I am just pointing out that they seem to vote the same way as men do. The Suffragette argument that women voters would somehow change politics for the better turned out to be illusory.
I'm sure you realise that the facts as you present them do not support that conclusion at all.
 

Mar Tweedy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
625
The argument for universal suffrage has a long history based on individual rights, ideas about democracy and justice, not about largesse or women voting 'better'.

Yawn. Next thread please.
 
Top