Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Let's restrict the right to vote


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

People who were not born here should not be allowed to vote under any circumstances from now on. Voting should be a privilege for real Canadians only. Coming here on a plane 2 years ago doesn't give a person enough knowledge of my country to be able to decide my fate.

I wouldn't be allowed to vote in the desert country or the jungle country so why should they be allowed to vote here?

What about your ancestors, Mr Can?

Did they get to vote?

Why should new immigrants not get to partake in democracy, when old ones did?

What you want to do is destroy democracy, imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What about your ancestors, Mr Can?

Did they get to vote?

Why should new immigrants not get to partake in democracy, when old ones did?

What you want to do is destroy democracy, imo.

I am pretty sure that the rules have been changed relatively recently. When my parent immigrated (in the fifty's) they had to wait a minimum of five years before they could apply for citizenship - I think it's a lot less now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that if you really wanted to vote, you would be able to make the effort and acquire it, however low your economic means.

There is no way of doing this without marginalizing huge numbers of people who deserve to vote. I readily admit that. You cannot disinfranchise millions of people and think every one of them is too much of a loser to vote. There will be intelligent, capable people who take the time to know what is going on and vote quite earnestly who would lose their vote, and there will be moronic imbeciles who go vote based on whatever commercial they heard on the radio last week still able to vote.

The idea is that the end result will see Maybe 75% of the idiots no longer voting, along with perhaps 20% of the people who deserved to vote now disinfranchised. But that will still produce a voting block considerably better in terms of knowledge and intelligence than what we have now.

Well Argus, why not do like ALL THE MUSLIM COUNTRIES (48) AND RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO VOTE TO MEN ONLY!!!!

hahahaha!

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Canada's organic growth rate, under this criteria the last voter will die in about 100years.

beautiful. true.

Canada's net negative birth rate.

And of course, we have a boomer blip in the seniors range needing support.

Then we'll have an immigration blip of Canadians, who certainly want to have a vote on how their taxes are spent.

Such is life. Change is the only constant.

We are all peoples of the earth, all have a vote.

Edited by tango
Link to post
Share on other sites

What a ridiculous, simpleton proposal. I know of very wise, uneducated people who follow issues very closely. They would be non-voters. I know of well-educated people who never read the newspaper except for the sports pages.

None of the factors mentioned are reliable indicators of engagement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to Canada's organic growth rate, under this criteria the last voter will die in about 100years.

You're assuming, somehow, that no one will be born here within the next century? Have I got that right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you agree then Argus, that the more money you put in the pot the more say you should have in how it is spent?

Logically, that would make sense. However, we have a society in which a very, very few individuals have an enormous amount of money. And I don't think it's a stretch to suggesst that they have a rather different outlook on life than "normal" Canadians. In any event, there is no need to compensate them with extra influence since they already do ample to ensure that they enjoy that influence regardless of how many votes they officially cast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Argus's proposal has some merit.

Voting as an earned privilege makes it more valuable than an entitled right. Learning the responsibilities associated with voting should be a part of the criteria for earning the vote.

I don't think that anyone making their living from government should have a vote. It is a conflict of interest. Publicly funded policemen, firemen, etc., if they exist, should not have a vote. Convicted criminals should not have a vote. Welfare recipients, if public welfare should exist, should not have a vote. Politicians should not have a vote. Although a federal employee may not vote federally he may vote provincially or municipally.

Paying taxes and receiving no benefit above anyone else from the payment of those taxes should be a part of the criteria for earning a vote.

Perhaps the biggest criteria is understanding the role of government in a person's life. Of course, a constitution should define the role of government and it's relation to it's citizens. Nationally, in my opinion, it cannot be an organism for the benefit of special interests or special individuals, to act so is divisive. It's laws must apply equally to all individuals and groups; that doesn't mean that every criminal conviction receives the same sentence, judgment is not just about determining guilt and punishment but about determining damage done and atonement to victims.

Since no one knows what intelligence is it should not be a criteria. Besides, a political "idiot savant" may miss out on earning a vote if intelligence is a part of the criteria.

Some believe that government should grant rights. If it is a right that involves an obligation from another to provide it then it is not a right. It should be called what it actually is - a privilege.

It may be a part of the Constitution of a nation to provide privilege to citizens but let's not confuse privilege with rights, especially at the expense of others who are not receiving the same privilege.

If it is a right then all should receive it without consideration of circumstance.

Some on this thread have said that not having the "right" to vote is tantamount to slavery. It may be if you can't ever earn the privilege and perhaps some never will but they also have to be subject to the will of another to be a slave and I don't think anyone is advocating that beyond what all others are also subject to under the general agreement of a Constitution and law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that anyone making their living from government should have a vote. It is a conflict of interest.

If being employed by the government were a conflict of interest with voting for the government, then paying taxes would also be a conflict of interest with voting on tax proposals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Logically, that would make sense. However, we have a society in which a very, very few individuals have an enormous amount of money. And I don't think it's a stretch to suggesst that they have a rather different outlook on life than "normal" Canadians. In any event, there is no need to compensate them with extra influence since they already do ample to ensure that they enjoy that influence regardless of how many votes they officially cast.

I don't think it is relevant if they have a rather differnt outlook on life than "normal" Canadians. Isn't that the point of having a say so that a "different" view is represented? In fact it is even more important to have a say when the view is different because mainstream views are already represented.

Most of the revenue collected isn't from a few individuals with a lot of money, it is from the large middle class. While many middle class don't have the same level of wealth as a few wealthy individuals, they more than make up for it in volume. IMV they should get a larger and institutionalized way of having a greater say. It should not to left to indeterminate ways of generating influence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I disagree completely with the notion that the number of votes be determined by how much taxes you pay, I was just thinking that if it were the case that it worked that way, I think there would have to be a qualifying factor based on how much of your income and wealth are taxed in Canada. So, if you want the privilege of using the more taxes = more votes formula, your wealth can not be (predominantly) held in offshore accounts and tax havens. The justification being that it must be assured that the voter in question does not merely have some money in Canada but is in fact invested in Canadas well being first and foremost among nations.

Edited by Remiel
Link to post
Share on other sites
While I disagree completely with the notion that the number of votes be determined by how much taxes you pay, I was just thinking that if it were the case that it worked that way, I think there would have to be a qualifying factor based on how much of your income and wealth are taxed in Canada. So, if you want the privilege of using the more taxes = more votes formula, your wealth can not be (predominantly) held in offshore accounts and tax havens.

I agree that it should be tax contributed to Canada. Since Canada taxes worldwide income this sholdn't be an issue exept we would need to offest foreign tax credits. If the income is not visible to the CRA it doesn't generate tax paid to Canada and it should not result in any political influence.

The justification being that it must be assured that the voter in question does not merely have some money in Canada but is in fact invested in Canadas well being first and foremost among nations.

It is irrelevant if the wealth is "invested in Canadas well being first and foremost among nations" (what does that even mean). All that is relevant in that proposal is that tax is paid on the income.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is irrelevant if the wealth is "invested in Canadas well being first and foremost among nations" (what does that even mean). All that is relevant in that proposal is that tax is paid on the income.

I guess that was not very clear, but what I mean is that if the fate of Canada is not more important to your well-being than any other country (under normal circumstances), then you can hardly be counted on to be the kind of informed, energetic citizen that Argus is looking for.

Perhaps a different way to enforce the same idea would be residency requirements. If you do not live in Canada, why in God's name should you get 50x, 100x, or 1000x the votes when trying to repeal environmental legislation protecting Canadians from smog, hazardous waste disposal and the like?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps a different way to enforce the same idea would be residency requirements. If you do not live in Canada, why in God's name should you get 50x, 100x, or 1000x the votes when trying to repeal environmental legislation protecting Canadians from smog, hazardous waste disposal and the like?

I would have thought that the impact of environmental legislation is to beyond just Canadians. For example if we pollute the air do we have some way of ensuring that the smog stays in Canada? In any case, if Canada thinks it has justification to tax non-residents then perhaps non-residents should also have a say in how their taxes are spent.

IMV, there should be at least 2 categories of legislation. Some legislation require no financial commitment from govenment, others do. Taxpayers should have a say on those which imply a financial commitment to the extent that the taxpayers have funded that commitment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You're assuming, somehow, that no one will be born here within the next century? Have I got that right?

No.

But native Canadians (born here) are dying faster than we are being born, and have been for decades.

So yes, without immigration into the country, eventually Canadians will die off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No.

But native Canadians (born here) are dying faster than we are being born, and have been for decades.

So yes, without immigration into the country, eventually Canadians will die off.

Huh? You mean immigrants would return to their home country to give birth or perhaps you don't consider offspring of immigrants who are born on Canadian soil "native Canadians"

Link to post
Share on other sites
If being employed by the government were a conflict of interest with voting for the government, then paying taxes would also be a conflict of interest with voting on tax proposals.

No. A conflict of interest is seen to result in a realized personal gain, normally at someone else's expense, not at your own expense, and definitely not a general benefit to all.

A simple example would be that a political party runs as it's platform that it will downsize bureaucracy. It means jobs in the public sector will be gone. As a public sector worker will you, or will your Union encourage you, to vote for that party?

One doesn't vote on tax proposals generally. I don't remember having a vote on the GST? You vote for your representative who is going to do the job you think he will do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idiot-factor in action:

From today's Toronto Star

...Harper's personal popularity has taken off with 27 per cent of Canadians preferring him as prime minister compared to 17 per cent for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff...

When assessing Harper, ...and 38 per cent believe he is intelligent. ...

As for Ignatieff, 52 per cent of respondents believe he's intelligent....

...

Link to post
Share on other sites
The idiot-factor in action:

From today's Toronto Star

An illustration of my point that there is no clear understanding of what intelligence is. It may have something to do with one's ability to sustain himself in the current and improve his outlook for the future.

If I listen to environmentalists it appears they wish to sustain the earth, just not us. We are lost in their equation. Seems kind of unintelligent to me. I see the merit in keeping the planet able to sustain life but we needn't destroy ourselves to do so. We just have to consider it as part of our development.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Argus's proposal has some merit.

Voting as an earned privilege makes it more valuable than an entitled right. Learning the responsibilities associated with voting should be a part of the criteria for earning the vote.

I don't think that anyone making their living from government should have a vote. It is a conflict of interest. Publicly funded policemen, firemen, etc., if they exist, should not have a vote. Convicted criminals should not have a vote. Welfare recipients, if public welfare should exist, should not have a vote. Politicians should not have a vote. Although a federal employee may not vote federally he may vote provincially or municipally.

Paying taxes and receiving no benefit above anyone else from the payment of those taxes should be a part of the criteria for earning a vote.

Perhaps the biggest criteria is understanding the role of government in a person's life. Of course, a constitution should define the role of government and it's relation to it's citizens. Nationally, in my opinion, it cannot be an organism for the benefit of special interests or special individuals, to act so is divisive. It's laws must apply equally to all individuals and groups; that doesn't mean that every criminal conviction receives the same sentence, judgment is not just about determining guilt and punishment but about determining damage done and atonement to victims.

Since no one knows what intelligence is it should not be a criteria. Besides, a political "idiot savant" may miss out on earning a vote if intelligence is a part of the criteria.

Some believe that government should grant rights. If it is a right that involves an obligation from another to provide it then it is not a right. It should be called what it actually is - a privilege.

It may be a part of the Constitution of a nation to provide privilege to citizens but let's not confuse privilege with rights, especially at the expense of others who are not receiving the same privilege.

If it is a right then all should receive it without consideration of circumstance.

Some on this thread have said that not having the "right" to vote is tantamount to slavery. It may be if you can't ever earn the privilege and perhaps some never will but they also have to be subject to the will of another to be a slave and I don't think anyone is advocating that beyond what all others are also subject to under the general agreement of a Constitution and law.

No it doesn't. He wants to remove the right of vote to all the ones that are not "100% Canadian" + remove the right of vote to all ethnic minorities.

I don't want a Canada like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In any case, if Canada thinks it has justification to tax non-residents then perhaps non-residents should also have a say in how their taxes are spent.

Do you not pay taxes on income in the country where the income is made?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Huh? You mean immigrants would return to their home country to give birth or perhaps you don't consider offspring of immigrants who are born on Canadian soil "native Canadians"

I used 'native' Canadians to mean those who are born here. I don't really like that confusing and divisive term, but it is sometimes used when discussing birth rates, and birth rates were under discussion re:

QUOTE (Mr.Canada @ Aug 24 2009, 09:32 AM) *

People who were not born here should not be allowed to vote under any circumstances from now on....

*According to Canada's organic growth rate, under this criteria the last voter will die in about 100years.

I'm not sure that *'s calculation is 'exactly' correct, but the point is correct:

Mr Canada wants to deny ALL immigrants the right to vote in Canada in their whole lifetime, though presumably in his scheme their children born here do get to vote in their lifetime. (?MrCan?)

Mr Canada and others who thus would discriminate against first generation immigrants, and whose life and conversation seems to revolves around hatred of the whole concept of immigration to Canada (except for their own ancestors of course <_< ) ...

... people with such narrow viewpoints fail to respect that without immigration, Canada's population would be DECLINING.

Canada's birth rate in 2005-6 was 1.5 children born per woman - well under the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 per cent - or 10.6 children born per 1,000 population. ... This gets to be a problem down the road when there are fewer taxpayers to replace those who retire or die, so there's less money to fund everything from highways to health care.

But this isn't really a problem for Canada as a whole because immigration is fuelling the best population growth among the G8 industrialized nations. Canada's population growth rate is 5.6 per cent from 2005 to 2006 and four per cent over five years, from the last census in 2001

http://www.aims.ca/regionaldevelopment.asp...D=4&id=1585

The post WWII 20-year-long BABY BOOM B) is aging. The biggest bulge in our population, is those now forty-four years old:

There were more babies born in Canada in 1965 than ever before or since.

Right now, and for at least a few more decades, there are and will be more elders dying in Canada than there are children being born here.

Considering only those 'born in Canada', there will be fewer taxpayers to pay for (esp) health care for the aging and dying elders. The baby boomers had the opposite - There were many more of them to look after far fewer elders.

If we stopped ALL immigration to Canada right now, at present birth rates eventually all Canadians would die off. If denying the vote to first generation immigrants discouraged people from immigrating to Canada, or if immigration was arbitrarily stopped, then our population would go into decline and eventually the last voter would disappear.

The population of Canada is ONLY growing because of immigration, and that's intentionally so: Governments and most Canadians recognize that we need a larger base of taxpayers to support the huge group of aging elders we have, frankly.

Denying the vote to first generation immigrants, as MrCan suggests, does not seem like a practical :rolleyes: solution for anything, and of course it is blatant discrimination and offensive, as is this topic and most of the thread.

(IMO, those who would deny the vote to any Canadian should themselves be tested on their worthiness as Canadians. And boy, have I got a CANIQ test for them!!

Assuming that the end of the baby boom will be the harbinger of world peace and contentment, perhaps reducing immigration will be reasonable one day, when there are no people being driven out of their homelands by (Canadian) corporations or by catastrophy, or feeling a need for better opportunities elsewhere.

But I think by then we'll all be so used to all of the peoples of the world, that we'll all be at home anywhere. Just think of it as the legacy of the baby boomers ... world peace.

We'll die happy then. :D

But all you forty-three and unders may have the biggest financial burden ever carried by Canadians: Afterall, we boomers have grown accustomed to respect (because we're large and we're loud - Jimi and Janis are still rocking on our stereos) and we expect good services (because we designed them that way for our parents), and we are in our most expensive health care years. Good luck kids!

On the bright side, we are the wealthiest generations of retirees ever and most of us have provided pretty well for ourselves. The poverty rate among Canada's current seniors is very low and has been reduced substantially with targeted programs (for our parents, see, and there were enough of us to afford it).

Oh, and we will most likely be the most activist bunch of retirees ever!

Protesting Vietnam was a cake walk compared to what we will now do for our kids and grandkids!

Well, excuse me ... I seem to have drifted off topic a bit.

(The social, financial and political and environmental influence of the baby boomers on subsequent generations of Canadians needs another thread, I think.)

Restrict the vote ... right ... ho hum.

no.

Next some idiot want all of us babyboomers to euthanaze ourselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

I'm not sure that *'s calculation is 'exactly' correct, but the point is correct: ..

My statement was in reference to then-immigration minister Sergio Marchese (?) back in the 1990s in response to the Reform Party calling for restricting immigration. His statement went something like, If we end immigration, the last Canadian will die in 125years.

Edited by daniel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




×
×
  • Create New...