Should the Right to vote be limited?

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
59,752
There should be no return to 19th century style property qualifications, as sought by some Remoaners after Brexit on YouTube
 


Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,993
I think I'm right in saying that into the 1980's one couldn't go to university without two honours in the LC. That would be a good criterion, keep the less well educated and those who didn't sit the LC due to jurisdictional imperatives out.
 

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
So this is an actual conversation we're having?.....goody.
Why not just shoot the poors and the lefties and be done with it :|
 

PBP voter

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 18, 2015
Messages
9,467
It is limited. People under 18 cant vote.

Ireland isnt a full democracy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeny_voting

[Demeny voting is the provision of a political voice for children by allowing parents or guardians to vote on their behalf. The term was coined by Warren C. Sanderson in 2007.[1] Under a Demeny voting system, each parent would cast a proxy vote, worth half a vote, for each of their dependent children, thus allowing for a split vote if the parents' political views differ. Once children reach the minimum voting age, their parents would no longer vote on their behalf./QUOTE]
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
weighting is possible, here you go

1 vote citizen
1 vote pays tax
1 vote subject to a draft
Small business men usually have absolutely no sense of the common good while as not all the time but more frequently than a P.ie's Capitalists would have believe mummies living on council estates do. I would reject any property qualification therefore.

The essence of the OP is that I find it an appalling concept that bedsit Libertarians drowning in bitterness that the supposed Socialism of the current ROI has robbed them of the chain of sweat shops they feel that otherwise would be rightfully their's, tranny hugging drugged Trotskyite hipsters and partisans of Shamnesty International drowning in their perfidiously bourgeois soft inquity should have equal politicial rights with the rationally virtuous: in fact I think that the former should have no political rights at all and even more learn some silence around their betters.
 

Erudite Caveman

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2016
Messages
7,329
So this is an actual conversation we're having?.....goody.
Why not just shoot the poors and the lefties and be done with it :|
Or can we attempt to have a grown up discussion about the subvertion of democracy because of civic cluelessness and political opportunism?
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,146
Would it not make more sense to limit candidates to those with some grip on reality.
Population Usually Resident and Present in the State (Number) by
Nationality, Sex, Religion and Census Year 2011

Irish
Both sexes
Roman Catholic 3,525,573
Church of Ireland, England, Anglican, Episcopalian 93,056
Muslim (Islamic) 18,223
Orthodox (Greek, Coptic, Russian) 8,465
Other Christian religion, n.e.s. 24,023
Presbyterian 14,348
Apostolic or Pentecostal 5,520
Other stated religions (5) 34,867
No religion 173,180
Not stated 29,888
All religions 3,927,143
All 173,180 of us?
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
There should be no return to 19th century style property qualifications, as sought by some Remoaners after Brexit on YouTube
I would be completely against property qualifications and Im not advocating one's based on IQ as such either.
 

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
Or can we attempt to have a grown up discussion about the subvertion of democracy because of civic cluelessness and political opportunism?
No, or to get more technical, it took generations of people sometimes dying to wrench the ability for the populace to pick their government, not have it imposed upon them, any and I mean any backwards step in giving away those hard earned rights is a slope made out of butter and we'd be on skis.
You want to see something depressing, here is a survey for ya.
Is it "essential to live in a democracy"


If that is even half way indicative of public opinion it's a tragedy.

So yes I will take every opportunity to ridicule and resist anyone attempts to chip away at a persons right to vote in a free and fair election.

Do I want people to be well informed and capable ye of courses, but too much of this smacks of limiting people who others don't want to hear from.
 

stopdoingstuff

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
23,039
I can't support any restrictions on the franchise other than applying it only to adults. It is not meant to be optimal and the more we try to optimize things, the more we create the very opposite of what we want to achieve to begin with. If we want sensible and informed voters, and so we limit voting to group A, all we have done is to make sure that there is no possible counterbalance in place if group A gets smug/corrupt/narrow-minded/exclusionary. The other thing is that democracy is not just about empowering people to do things- that is just one side of the balance sheet. The other side is that it helps prevent people from doing things, which in the long run is far more vital as power is a dangerous thing. On top of that, most issues in life should not be party to political interference, so any thing that obstructs the expansion of state power is normally a very good thing. Therefore I want a wide and obstructive franchise and I want non-action on all matters except those of dire necessity.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,606
It's not just voting rights need to be limited, but so to does running for office.

The charts above show how "democracy" is loosing currency and isn't what it used to be - to the extent that people are no longer that bothered about voting, not to mention fighting or dying for democracy.

IMHO democracy has been hollowed out by the kind of people who have led countries for the past 3, maybe 4 decades - career politicians without the wit or talent to make it in the "real" world thrive in the murky world of stroke politics.

Democracy has been hijacked by people who have learned that all they need to do is promise the majority that they will fleece the minority to pay for maintain their unsustainable lifestyles...and all they have to do is to actually favour an even smaller minority who fund their campaigns.

I don't know how voting rights could be restricted - but we'd get a lot further if the right to run for office was restricted to people with real-world experience, with term limits of 10 years, with degrees or apprenticeships, with a clean tax record and with a job to go back to. Career politicians are the bane of our lives, corrupt weasels who see no value in solutions, only votes in symptoms.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
If that is even half way indicative of public opinion it's a tragedy.

So yes I will take every opportunity to ridicule and resist anyone attempts to chip away at a persons right to vote in a free and fair election.

Do I want people to be well informed and capable ye of courses, but too much of this smacks of limiting people who others don't want to hear from.
Why? Parliamentary Democracy as are all political systems is only a means to an end and not an end in and of itself; the end of course being the common good. If another system can reach towards that end better in a particular circumstance than it should take over and democracy be thrown out.

Capitalism oppresses and exploits the masses but it also panders to what is most base within them; that in most cases "market forces" would seek out the lowest common denominator should be common sense. The Old Left was very concerned about raising the cultural and moral levels of the working class but since the 1960s increasingly the Left that has come to be for a large part seems to glory in them being lowered and I think that it is no accident that this has gone hand in hand with the decline and fall of the old Workers' movements. These facts should be borne in mind in this discussion.

We face the abyss and the "Glorious Principles of 1776 and 1789" have led us there. We need to start thinking our way out of Political and Economic Liberalism in a rational and constructive manner.
 

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
Why? Parliamentary Democracy as are all political systems is only a means to an end and not an end in and of itself; the end of course being the common good. If another system can reach towards that end better in a particular circumstance than it should take over and democracy be thrown out.

Capitalism oppresses and exploits the masses but it also panders to what is most base within them; that in most cases "market forces" would seek out the lowest common denominator should be common sense. The Old Left was very concerned about raising the cultural and moral levels of the working class but since the 1960s increasingly the Left that has come to be for a large part seems to glory in them being lowered and I think that it is no accident that this has gone hand in hand with the decline and fall of the old Workers' movements. These facts should be borne in mind in this discussion.

We face the abyss and the "Glorious Principles of 1776 and 1789" have led us there. We need to start thinking our way out of Political and Economic Liberalism in a rational and constructive manner.
The survey didn't mention parliamentary democracy or any flavors of the week of democracy, it said "democracy" full stop...

Anyone want to take a whack at a better form of government then the people deciding?
We've had people trying to figure other viable forms of government none of them hold up to it.
 

Novos

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
3,364
What is the purpose of voting?

If it is to select leaders who will make intelligent decisions to benefit the community then the candidates should be restricted to those capable of doing that job. That doesn't happen.

Then you have the electorate tasked with selecting these leaders. Logic would dictate that you wouldn't allow people incapable of making those decisions a franchise.

If we allow idiots to choose our leaders and allow idiots to run as leaders we would end up with what we have now.

It's not complicated.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
It's not just voting rights need to be limited, but so to does running for office.

The charts above show how "democracy" is loosing currency and isn't what it used to be - to the extent that people are no longer that bothered about voting, not to mention fighting or dying for democracy.

IMHO democracy has been hollowed out by the kind of people who have led countries for the past 3, maybe 4 decades - career politicians without the wit or talent to make it in the "real" world thrive in the murky world of stroke politics.

Democracy has been hijacked by people who have learned that all they need to do is promise the majority that they will fleece the minority to pay for maintain their unsustainable lifestyles...and all they have to do is to actually favour an even smaller minority who fund their campaigns.

I don't know how voting rights could be restricted - but we'd get a lot further if the right to run for office was restricted to people with real-world experience, with term limits of 10 years, with degrees or apprenticeships, with a clean tax record and with a job to go back to. Career politicians are the bane of our lives, corrupt weasels who see no value in solutions, only votes in symptoms.
I agree in that I would have far more stringent tests for those seeking public office.
 

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
What is the purpose of voting?

If it is to select leaders who will make intelligent decisions to benefit the community then the candidates should be restricted to those capable of doing that job. That doesn't happen.

Then you have the electorate tasked with selecting these leaders. Logic would dictate that you wouldn't allow people incapable of making those decisions a franchise.

If we allow idiots to choose our leaders and allow idiots to run as leaders we would end up with what we have now.

It's not complicated.
"Allow" people to choose?......
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
No, or to get more technical, it took generations of people sometimes dying to wrench the ability for the populace to pick their government, not have it imposed upon them, any and I mean any backwards step in giving away those hard earned rights is a slope made out of butter and we'd be on skis.
You want to see something depressing, here is a survey for ya.
Is it "essential to live in a democracy"


If that is even half way indicative of public opinion it's a tragedy.

So yes I will take every opportunity to ridicule and resist anyone attempts to chip away at a persons right to vote in a free and fair election.

Do I want people to be well informed and capable ye of courses, but too much of this smacks of limiting people who others don't want to hear from.
There are certain categories of people whose voting rights should be curtailed.

A prime example is the Irish public servant cohort whose en bloc voting tactics decisively influenced the plebescite to return govts who would continue fund their extraordinarily lavish pay scales and pensions.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom