Should the Right to vote be limited?

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
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.
No, FFS, you start making arbitrary exceptions and you're opening it up to shifting it further...where next, only people with jobs can vote...people making 500+ grand a year get 2 votes. People behind on their taxes get no vote?

You start making exceptions for groups because you don't like them or some part of what they represent, you're leaving that crack in the door for that reasoning to be slipped in somewhere else to be used on others...or you.
 


Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,987
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.
Agreed either (a) sack the bastards or (b) -and this is a poor second, don't allow them to vote.
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,987
Would it not make more sense to limit candidates to those with some grip on reality.
Imagine if the mods applied that criterion to p.ie. It would be wiped out.
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
23,973
I believe that ideally only those who are of good will which in this case means that they put the interests of the common good before their own narrow personal ones when making political decisions and those of at least a basic degree of rationality (Im not talking about IQ- there are very many people with high IQs who are deeply irrational) should have any Politcial Rights. Do people here think it would be possible to create tests that could show whether people or not possessed these virtues even if they choose to lie on them? Scientology is evil but they are all sorts of ingenius tests that show up people's psychological and emotional weakenesses even if they are trying to hide them.

I think if such tests could be created and passing them made a necesscity if you were to get the right to vote even under current circumstances it would greatly improve the quality of our politics given how so much of it has now been reduced to people seeking to serve their pretty greeds and allowing the puppet masters of the media and capitalist entertainment industry to play their emotions like a violin (and what a hordid sound they produce off them most of the time).
This OP is really too stupid to comment on...

ZOO...
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,606
I agree in that I would have far more stringent tests for those seeking public office.
And exit points during terms - once B-b-b-ertie was up before the Tribunal there should have been NO WAY he was still sitting in a position of power and influence.
 

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
Agreed either (a) sack the bastards or (b) -and this is a poor second, don't allow them to vote.
It's not even a poor second, it's a none finisher.

Anyone want to travel back 100+ years with me and as the Suffragettes whether they thought being "allowed" to vote was essential?

And here we are debating which of the untouchables we'd stop from voting...ugh.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
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.
So speaks the Kosher Conservative...This video of the French Monarchist pop band (yes such exist) Les Brigandes really captures what Kosher Conservatism means to me.

[video=youtube;Ec4DqgtybTg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec4DqgtybTg[/video]
 

Cellachán Chaisil

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
9,841
It has been suggested to me by two (actually possibly three) people that only those with a degree of fluency in Irish should be allowed to vote in the Republic of Ireland; I think instead what should be done is to give such people two or maybe three extra votes instead. I also think that people who have children should get one vote more than those who have not done their duty to the gene pool (unless of course they are Priests or Religious) because they have much more of a stake in the future.
Hey, don't drag us into your nonsense.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
217,741
And exit points during terms - once B-b-b-ertie was up before the Tribunal there should have been NO WAY he was still sitting in a position of power and influence.
I agree in principle but you might want to look deeper into his attempted stitch up the hawkish elements of the UK Deep State- as much or more even than Gerry Adams Bertie Ahern brought relative peace to my native Northern Ireland, a fact that I can never forget as is the one that good deeds in this world often bring down the wrath of evil persons.
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,146

Cellachán Chaisil

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
9,841
Sure we only need about 8 electors.

Mainz
Trier
Cologne,
Saxony,
Han(n)over,
Brandenberg
Bavaria
Bohemia.

And they shall choose from among us he with the most outrageous jaw.
 

'orebel

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
20,146
No, FFS, you start making arbitrary exceptions and you're opening it up to shifting it further...where next, only people with jobs can vote...people making 500+ grand a year get 2 votes. People behind on their taxes get no vote?

You start making exceptions for groups because you don't like them or some part of what they represent, you're leaving that crack in the door for that reasoning to be slipped in somewhere else to be used on others...or you.
The United States has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other Western nation, and more than Russia or China. The dramatic rise in the rate of incarceration in the United States, a 500% increase from the 1970s to the 1990s, has vastly increased the number of people disenfranchised because of the felon provisions.

According to the Sentencing Project, as of 2010 an estimated 5.9 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of a felony conviction, a number equivalent to 2.5% of the U.S. voting-age population and a sharp increase from the 1.2 million people affected by felony disenfranchisement in 1976. Given the prison populations, the effects have been most disadvantageous for minority and poor communities
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States
 

The Field Marshal

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
43,651
No, FFS, you start making arbitrary exceptions and you're opening it up to shifting it further...where next, only people with jobs can vote...people making 500+ grand a year get 2 votes. People behind on their taxes get no vote?

You start making exceptions for groups because you don't like them or some part of what they represent, you're leaving that crack in the door for that reasoning to be slipped in somewhere else to be used on others...or you.
The prblem is democracy ends when one large cohort within the electorate obtains undue and disproportionate power.
That is Irelands position qua the public service voting cohort.

How do you deal with this serious destruction of democracy?
 

Socratus O' Pericles

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
32,987
The prblem is democracy ends when one large cohort within the electorate obtains undue and disproportionate power.
That is Irelands position qua the public service voting cohort.

How do you deal with this serious destruction of democracy?
Take it from them by force.
 

Elvis jaffacake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
5,874
The prblem is democracy ends when one large cohort within the electorate obtains undue and disproportionate power.
That is Irelands position qua the public service voting cohort.

How do you deal with this serious destruction of democracy?
That is a difficult question and I have no easy answer...I would prefer to work through it in a sensible manner...I don't believe taking the vote away from an entire block of people is that manner.
 

Hans Von Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
1,594
Why not exclude all people who own property or who have any talent, display skill, or diligence, in their work from voting? That way we could build a fair society such that regardless of how much wealth diminish might over time, it could be shared fairly, so that everyone could be equally miserable, and poor.
 

Hans Von Horn

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2015
Messages
1,594
The prblem is democracy ends when one large cohort within the electorate obtains undue and disproportionate power.
That is Irelands position qua the public service voting cohort.

How do you deal with this serious destruction of democracy?
Build a small Public Sector.
 

Disillusioned democrat

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
16,606
Why not exclude all people who own property or who have any talent, display skill, or diligence, in their work from voting? That way we could build a fair society such that regardless of how much wealth diminish might over time, it could be shared fairly, so that everyone could be equally miserable, and poor.
That's kind of what Ireland's tax policy does - it doesn't exclude them, it just makes the people who pay 80% of the tax electorally irrelevant.
 

Expose the lot of them

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2009
Messages
21,309
It has been suggested to me by two (actually possibly three) people that only those with a degree of fluency in Irish should be allowed to vote in the Republic of Ireland; I think instead what should be done is to give such people two or maybe three extra votes instead. I also think that people who have children should get one vote more than those who have not done their duty to the gene pool (unless of course they are Priests or Religious) because they have much more of a stake in the future.
Why not champion the return to a property ownership condition and while you are at it limit the right to vote to property owning womem over 35,with the consent of their male owners (parish priest, husband, father, brother, son, etc) naturally?

The present system has its faults but it is a hell of a lot better than your insane suggestions.
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top Bottom