You made 2 attempts to post a link last night but a) it appears to be dead & b) the Forum Software does not like it for some reason, & is sending your posts to the Naughty Room, so I've had to remove them, sorry.
@Tikay10 Thanks for doing that TK, it was much the same , showing Tanks on the Streets of Glasgow as the Gov feared a revolution ....could be we Scots have just postponed it !
Okay I am going to throw a controversial one out there this Sunday morning
"should everyone be entitled to vote?"
This is an understandably contentious topic. I mean certain groups within society, and certain societies, have had to fight hard to make sure we have the right to vote.
I think that stopping any group from voting based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc is wrong and I would vehemently defend the rights of any of these groups to vote. In fact I actually attended political gatherings during the Scottish referendum and actively encouraged people from often marginalised sections of society to become politically active.
However, I also feel that people voting irresponsibly is dangerous. Voting based on a ludicrous claim you once heard is pretty awful IMO.
As said, I would never seek to stop a particular group from voting. However, I would be in favour of voters having to show that they had at least some basic knowledge of politics and the matter being debated before they could vote.
@Tikay10 Thanks for doing that TK, it was much the same , showing Tanks on the Streets of Glasgow as the Gov feared a revolution ....could be we Scots have just postponed it !
It's barely imaginable, isn't it? Certainly, I was not aware of it until you posted. Tanks on a British street? Who'd have thought?
Re ‘Should everyone be entitled to vote’ That’s a great question Mark, the Democratic way is yes of course if you are old enough, however looking into it in more depth, the very nature of politics, and humans who seem to grasp on to power by any means makes me question the logic. It’s not long ago that homosexuality was illegal, now we have a strong LGBT ‘community ‘ ( for want of a better word) and guess what? The political parties are falling over themselves to advocate the rights of the LGBT. Also not long ago women didn’t have the right to vote, on a few years and we had a woman prime minister and very nearly a woman president. Same with slavery,on a few years we had Mr.Obama in the White House.
Ok, taking all that into consideration, and now to my point....it seems the government of today are relaxing the ‘rules’ on whether prisoners should be allowed to vote, if given this right to vote the cynic in me says that each political party would once again be falling over themselves to be getting the vote of prisoners, what next? A prisoner running for office? Some would say that’s ridiculous ( as would they for a woman prime minister, LGBT councillor, And Mr.Obama becoming president)
So my answer is....prisoners shouldn’t be allowed to vote 😊
Should really poor poker players be allowed to vote?
If they don’t realise that calling with 4th pair on a 4heart paired board is bad then should they be allowed the responsibility of helping decide our future ?
We need all in votes, commitment is essential if the tick is in the right box.
Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean.
Does your ‘All in’ include all people over the age of 16 who were born in this country, adopted this country, those who live abroad who were born here, prisoners, including terrorists,murderers,rapists ?
Please could you specify if your ‘All in’ doesn’t include any of the above, thanks.
I would allow all 16 year olds, people that have chosen to live here and stayed for over 3 yrs, and ALL prisoners . The prison system is broken , little rehabilitation is taking place, to have prisoners involved in political discussions would be a good thing, they may learn that it is their society also, and lead a more constructive life on release. The prison system under the Tories is being privatised, this is not right IMO , education is the way forward for most, and a private prison system is not big on rehabilitation. T May and her man have huge investments in G4 , they are lining their own pockets.
Okay I am going to throw a controversial one out there this Sunday morning
"should everyone be entitled to vote?"
This is an understandably contentious topic. I mean certain groups within society, and certain societies, have had to fight hard to make sure we have the right to vote.
I think that stopping any group from voting based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc is wrong and I would vehemently defend the rights of any of these groups to vote. In fact I actually attended political gatherings during the Scottish referendum and actively encouraged people from often marginalised sections of society to become politically active.
However, I also feel that people voting irresponsibly is dangerous. Voting based on a ludicrous claim you once heard is pretty awful IMO.
As said, I would never seek to stop a particular group from voting. However, I would be in favour of voters having to show that they had at least some basic knowledge of politics and the matter being debated before they could vote.
I think it would be a very dangerous road to go down, when so many people sacrificed so much to get a vote. I understand the reason you are asking the question, but doesn't the fact that everyone gets a vote contribute to the fact that we are a democracy. Although we may wish to put some hurdles in front of those wishing to become citizens, like speaking English. How could you possibly have an idea about whats going on if you don't. If you are particularly referring to the EU Referendum, then it would have made much more sense, because it was such a mammoth decision, to have required a 60 or 65% majority, before any change could take place. As for a General Election, I think that we should adopt a system of Proportional Representation to be truly democratic. Many people live in constituencies for their whole lives, where their vote just doesn't count, and the Party they don't want to vote for has a massive majority, with little chance of changing that. However Proportional Representation would mean that everyones vote counts. I don't think that disqualifying any small groups would be of any real benefit, and probably encourage the political parties to try to exclude those that were unlikely to vote for them.
I would allow all 16 year olds, people that have chosen to live here and stayed for over 3 yrs, and ALL prisoners . The prison system is broken , little rehabilitation is taking place, to have prisoners involved in political discussions would be a good thing, they may learn that it is their society also, and lead a more constructive life on release. The prison system under the Tories is being privatised, this is not right IMO , education is the way forward for most, and a private prison system is not big on rehabilitation. T May and her man have huge investments in G4 , they are lining their own pockets.
Hi Glencoelad I assume by ‘All Prisoners’ you are including those that are ‘Banged Up’ for terrorism charges. Are you saying they should be allowed to vote in a political system they are by nature wholly against and trying to destroy? At what point are you suggesting they should have the right to vote? Before their rehabilitation? (I would respectfully suggest that some are unable to change their views on our society) After their rehab? If there was a general election the week after they were found guilty, are you advocating their right to vote in that?
Okay I am going to throw a controversial one out there this Sunday morning
"should everyone be entitled to vote?"
This is an understandably contentious topic. I mean certain groups within society, and certain societies, have had to fight hard to make sure we have the right to vote.
I think that stopping any group from voting based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc is wrong and I would vehemently defend the rights of any of these groups to vote. In fact I actually attended political gatherings during the Scottish referendum and actively encouraged people from often marginalised sections of society to become politically active.
However, I also feel that people voting irresponsibly is dangerous. Voting based on a ludicrous claim you once heard is pretty awful IMO.
As said, I would never seek to stop a particular group from voting. However, I would be in favour of voters having to show that they had at least some basic knowledge of politics and the matter being debated before they could vote.
Think this would be a very dangerous idea as would be wide open for abuse from those in power to suppress votes from sections of the population they didn’t want voting. They did something similar (for very different reasons) in the US southern states untitled not that long ago, people had to take a test to vote which was impossible to pass, certain sections of the population (landowners) were exempted, essentially suppressing minority’s votes. Voter suppression still happens to this day to a lesser degree, big debate on having to have photo ID to vote in the US, as certain sections of the population then have a harder time voting - There was an interesting podcast on this I listened to recently https://stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/election-laws-suppress-voting.htm If you make people take a test to vote you automatically suppress votes even if the treat is fair, as bias favours those who have time and motivation to take a test. Not only that the person controlling the test can massively influence election outcomes, big opportunity for abuse of power there.
To avoid any confusion I don’t think you are agreeing with the above ideas, however don’t think you can stop people voting as they believe something you feel is stupid, this is basically shutting down people you don’t agree with, like you said with the conspiracy theories if we shut down stupid ideas this can add further fuel to them. Responsibility should be on politicians/lobbies/activists to educate people so they can make an informed decision
I would go the other way and make it as easy as possible for everyone eligible to vote. i think younger people are now waking up to the fact that if they don’t vote they will be ignored which is great. In the future we can hopefully vote online to make voting really easy - companies are looking at Blockchain for a secure solution to this. https://thebalance.com/how-the-blockchain-will-change-how-we-vote-4012008
Denying ALL prisoners the vote is, IMO, plain wrong. ECHR only told the UK to come up with a coherent plan re prisoner votes. Would be lawful to deny lifers/long sentences, just not everyone. Seems strange that we deny all prisoners and 16/17 year-olds the vote, whereas people in dementia care homes can vote.
Why are 80-year-olds deemed more important than 16-yr-olds re being in the EU, when being in or out will have far more impact on the young?
Okay I am going to throw a controversial one out there this Sunday morning
"should everyone be entitled to vote?"
This is an understandably contentious topic. I mean certain groups within society, and certain societies, have had to fight hard to make sure we have the right to vote.
I think that stopping any group from voting based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc is wrong and I would vehemently defend the rights of any of these groups to vote. In fact I actually attended political gatherings during the Scottish referendum and actively encouraged people from often marginalised sections of society to become politically active.
However, I also feel that people voting irresponsibly is dangerous. Voting based on a ludicrous claim you once heard is pretty awful IMO.
As said, I would never seek to stop a particular group from voting. However, I would be in favour of voters having to show that they had at least some basic knowledge of politics and the matter being debated before they could vote.
@dragon1964 - Not sure I see the contradiction to be honest. I wouldn't support any group being deprived of a vote. I am just asking whether it would be a viable idea to have people show they have some sort of basic knowledge of the topic at hand. Whatever someones gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc etc... They would be able to take the test. It wouldn't be a politics degree or anything, just some simple questions that anyone could easily research. The only people who realistically would not be able to pass it would be those who cannot be ar5ed. I wouldn't count people who cannot be ar5ed as a 'group'.
@Essexphil & others expressing concerns - I fully appreciate there are problems with the idea. I also think it is entirely possible that it would not be viable, could be open to exploitation and may not be viable. I would say the question is at least worth asking though. There have been several very important votes lately which have been won by a small margin and may have been won by certain individuals and groups throwing ridiculous claims around, dressing them up as facts and reeling in gullible votes.
@those advocating a vote for 16 year olds - I couldn't agree more.
Comments
@glencoelad
Morning George,
You made 2 attempts to post a link last night but a) it appears to be dead & b) the Forum Software does not like it for some reason, & is sending your posts to the Naughty Room, so I've had to remove them, sorry.
Think they referred to this sad day?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square
"should everyone be entitled to vote?"
This is an understandably contentious topic. I mean certain groups within society, and certain societies, have had to fight hard to make sure we have the right to vote.I think that stopping any group from voting based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, etc is wrong and I would vehemently defend the rights of any of these groups to vote. In fact I actually attended political gatherings during the Scottish referendum and actively encouraged people from often marginalised sections of society to become politically active.
However, I also feel that people voting irresponsibly is dangerous. Voting based on a ludicrous claim you once heard is pretty awful IMO.
As said, I would never seek to stop a particular group from voting. However, I would be in favour of voters having to show that they had at least some basic knowledge of politics and the matter being debated before they could vote.
That’s a great question Mark, the Democratic way is yes of course if you are old enough, however looking into it in more depth, the very nature of politics, and humans who seem to grasp on to power by any means makes me question the logic.
It’s not long ago that homosexuality was illegal, now we have a strong LGBT ‘community ‘ ( for want of a better word) and guess what? The political parties are falling over themselves to advocate the rights of the LGBT.
Also not long ago women didn’t have the right to vote, on a few years and we had a woman prime minister and very nearly a woman president.
Same with slavery,on a few years we had Mr.Obama in the White House.
Ok, taking all that into consideration, and now to my point....it seems the government of today are relaxing the ‘rules’ on whether prisoners should be allowed to vote, if given this right to vote the cynic in me says that each political party would once again be falling over themselves to be getting the vote of prisoners, what next? A prisoner running for office? Some would say that’s ridiculous ( as would they for a woman prime minister, LGBT councillor, And Mr.Obama becoming president)
So my answer is....prisoners shouldn’t be allowed to vote 😊
If they don’t realise that calling with 4th pair on a 4heart paired board is bad then should they be allowed the responsibility of helping decide our future ?
Does your ‘All in’ include all people over the age of 16 who were born in this country, adopted this country, those who live abroad who were born here, prisoners, including terrorists,murderers,rapists ?
Please could you specify if your ‘All in’ doesn’t include any of the above, thanks.
they may learn that it is their society also, and lead a more constructive life on release.
The prison system under the Tories is being privatised, this is not right IMO ,
education is the way forward for most, and a private prison system is not big on rehabilitation. T May and her man have huge investments in G4 , they are lining their own pockets.
If you are particularly referring to the EU Referendum, then it would have made much more sense, because it was such a mammoth decision, to have required a 60 or 65% majority, before any change could take place.
As for a General Election, I think that we should adopt a system of Proportional Representation to be truly democratic. Many people live in constituencies for their whole lives, where their vote just doesn't count, and the Party they don't want to vote for has a massive majority, with little chance of changing that.
However Proportional Representation would mean that everyones vote counts.
I don't think that disqualifying any small groups would be of any real benefit, and probably encourage the political parties to try to exclude those that were unlikely to vote for them.
I assume by ‘All Prisoners’ you are including those that are ‘Banged Up’ for terrorism charges.
Are you saying they should be allowed to vote in a political system they are by nature wholly against and trying to destroy?
At what point are you suggesting they should have the right to vote? Before their rehabilitation? (I would respectfully suggest that some are unable to change their views on our society)
After their rehab?
If there was a general election the week after they were found guilty, are you advocating their right to vote in that?
Think this would be a very dangerous idea as would be wide open for abuse from those in power to suppress votes from sections of the population they didn’t want voting. They did something similar (for very different reasons) in the US southern states untitled not that long ago, people had to take a test to vote which was impossible to pass, certain sections of the population (landowners) were exempted, essentially suppressing minority’s votes.
Voter suppression still happens to this day to a lesser degree, big debate on having to have photo ID to vote in the US, as certain sections of the population then have a harder time voting - There was an interesting podcast on this I listened to recently https://stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/election-laws-suppress-voting.htm
If you make people take a test to vote you automatically suppress votes even if the treat is fair, as bias favours those who have time and motivation to take a test. Not only that the person controlling the test can massively influence election outcomes, big opportunity for abuse of power there.
To avoid any confusion I don’t think you are agreeing with the above ideas, however don’t think you can stop people voting as they believe something you feel is stupid, this is basically shutting down people you don’t agree with, like you said with the conspiracy theories if we shut down stupid ideas this can add further fuel to them. Responsibility should be on politicians/lobbies/activists to educate people so they can make an informed decision
I would go the other way and make it as easy as possible for everyone eligible to vote. i think younger people are now waking up to the fact that if they don’t vote they will be ignored which is great. In the future we can hopefully vote online to make voting really easy - companies are looking at Blockchain for a secure solution to this. https://thebalance.com/how-the-blockchain-will-change-how-we-vote-4012008
5 tables on the go right now, will reply properly later. Think it is back now? It was in the spam box, and I released it.
Seems strange that we deny all prisoners and 16/17 year-olds the vote, whereas people in dementia care homes can vote.
Why are 80-year-olds deemed more important than 16-yr-olds re being in the EU, when being in or out will have far more impact on the young?
In theory, it has advantages, but in practice it would be too open to abuse by whoever was in power.
@Essexphil & others expressing concerns - I fully appreciate there are problems with the idea. I also think it is entirely possible that it would not be viable, could be open to exploitation and may not be viable. I would say the question is at least worth asking though. There have been several very important votes lately which have been won by a small margin and may have been won by certain individuals and groups throwing ridiculous claims around, dressing them up as facts and reeling in gullible votes.
@those advocating a vote for 16 year olds - I couldn't agree more.