There should be more restrictions on who can vote
Poll
Should we have a more limited Democracy?
At the moment in most western countries the only limit to voting is that a person needs to be above an arbitrary age limit and in some cases not be in prison. Most people seem to agree this is a good thing.
Peculiarly the people seemingly most in favour of this are liberals who are the keenest on the use of 'experts' to dictate policy but when it comes to how the governing of the country is run believe that a unemployed ex convict with the IQ of 70 has as much right to vote as a Judge or Doctor.
.....
Personally I think that letting anyone have the right to vote is irresponsible and stupid and that we would have a better system if only the brightest and best were able to vote, or at least those who have shown a degree of responsibility in their lives.
Examples of people that should be denied the vote IMO
-People under 30
- Unemployed people
-those found guilty of serious crimes
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
Peculiarly the people seemingly most in favour of this are liberals who are the keenest on the use of 'experts' to dictate policy but when it comes to how the governing of the country is run believe that a unemployed ex convict with the IQ of 70 has as much right to vote as a Judge or Doctor.
.....
Personally I think that letting anyone have the right to vote is irresponsible and stupid and that we would have a better system if only the brightest and best were able to vote, or at least those who have shown a degree of responsibility in their lives.
Examples of people that should be denied the vote IMO
-People under 30
- Unemployed people
-those found guilty of serious crimes
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
Scroll to see replies
While i would be hesitant to change the entitlement to suffrage as it would create a precedent which may bite us in the long run if i were designing a democracy i must admit that i would likely restrict the franchise to property owners and those who are employed since those are the people with the most economic investment in society, i would also likely include parents as i believe they have a greater social stake in society around things like crime and justice.
Long term unemployment should not be tolerated (i have no issue the long term unemployed being conscripted into job roles after a certain point) and nor should duel citizenship so i disagree with those boundaries. Age as said is a poor measure anyway, serious crimes i thought were already preventative and i don't believe that somebody's weight really has a bearing on their intelligence.
Long term unemployment should not be tolerated (i have no issue the long term unemployed being conscripted into job roles after a certain point) and nor should duel citizenship so i disagree with those boundaries. Age as said is a poor measure anyway, serious crimes i thought were already preventative and i don't believe that somebody's weight really has a bearing on their intelligence.
Not on their intelligence but their responsibility. If they can't look after their own body should they be trusted with deciding the fate of the country?
Lol why?
No.
No.
More to do with shaming them than economics.
No.
No.
More to do with shaming them than economics.
Christ we're getting dangerously close to invoking Poe's Law with this one.
1- Debatable. I think it can be good but it's gone too far now.
2- Because we still need to pay for things
which they will still use , probably to a greater extent than those who are able to vote eg like benefits. I'm in favour of reducing public spending but not by that much
3- well we do that now essentially for people who lose in elections.
No comment on the dual citizenship
I wouldn't necessarily want the bricklayer to vote either, I do mean an elite eg the top 15-30% of society. I wouldn't qualify right now.
4- Yes, I think it's a good tool to use for the betterment of society. This is something we do now for instance with tax Dodgers and benefit cheats etc before somebody tries to take the moral high ground.
2- Because we still need to pay for things
which they will still use , probably to a greater extent than those who are able to vote eg like benefits. I'm in favour of reducing public spending but not by that much3- well we do that now essentially for people who lose in elections.
No comment on the dual citizenship
I wouldn't necessarily want the bricklayer to vote either, I do mean an elite eg the top 15-30% of society. I wouldn't qualify right now.
4- Yes, I think it's a good tool to use for the betterment of society. This is something we do now for instance with tax Dodgers and benefit cheats etc before somebody tries to take the moral high ground.
Original post by Starship Trooper
- The Obese
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
-Dual citizens
You are arguing that the Oxford-educated Prime Minister of Britain, MP, former Mayor of London and former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson should have been denied the right to vote because he was until recently a little porky (he certainly had a BMI in the obese category) and held dual citizenship.
Which is pure idiocy.
On that basis, I take it you must include yourself in those who should be denied the right the vote.
Original post by Contested Claim
You are arguing that the Oxford-educated Prime Minister of Britain, MP, former Mayor of London and former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson should have been denied the right to vote because he was until recently a little porky (he certainly had a BMI in the obese category) and held dual citizenship.
Which is pure idiocy.
On that basis, I take it you must include yourself in those who should be denied the right the vote.
Which is pure idiocy.
On that basis, I take it you must include yourself in those who should be denied the right the vote.
Sure in theory. (I mean he wasn't that fat and also he has now lost the weight and renounced his dual citizenship too do he'd be able to vote now. Maybe he agrees with me
)*Why? I didn't know you were such a Boris fan. Do you think Boris Is a responsible leader?
I have already said I wouldnt qualify right now see #8
If you want to try and get me on hypocrisy you should have gone after Trump for being obese although I think if my measures were in place we wouldn't need him anyway.
1- People are stupid and don't know what's good for them basically.
2- again I'm not primarily driven by economic factors.
3- meh. Not really, unless you agree with the two parties that have a remote chance of winning. I think those who can't vote should focus on bettering themselves.
No I know you're cool brah, unfortunately there are some sensitive souls here. My reasoning is they might have dual loyalty that may conflict and go against the National Interest.
4- man is a social animal and not an island. For instance a obese person may have children who have health problems due to their parents obesity. If my children marry theirs then that may become my problem. If I die waiting in hospital after an accident because the place is full up of lard arses then it's my problem. There's no such thing as s victim less crime.
2- again I'm not primarily driven by economic factors.
3- meh. Not really, unless you agree with the two parties that have a remote chance of winning. I think those who can't vote should focus on bettering themselves.
No I know you're cool brah, unfortunately there are some sensitive souls here. My reasoning is they might have dual loyalty that may conflict and go against the National Interest.
4- man is a social animal and not an island. For instance a obese person may have children who have health problems due to their parents obesity. If my children marry theirs then that may become my problem. If I die waiting in hospital after an accident because the place is full up of lard arses then it's my problem. There's no such thing as s victim less crime.
Funny, but stupid
Original post by Starship Trooper
At the moment in most western countries the only limit to voting is that a person needs to be above an arbitrary age limit and in some cases not be in prison. Most people seem to agree this is a good thing.
We've passed the point in history where there could be a meaningful debate about whether it's a good or bad thing. Now it's just a reality and it's not going anywhere.
The old days of heavily limited voter franchises were possible because of the wider social situation. Lower literacy rates, much lesser media, communication and transport technologies, lower population density, more time spent working, etc all produced a situation where the average person was significantly less able to be aware of and involved in politics than they are now. States' economic and military power nowadays are much more dependent on the ability to mobilise large masses of the ordinary population than they used to be. You can play around at the edges of who's eligible, but a significant departure from universal suffrage is now no longer a meaningful possibility.
Nor really is there anything to gain from it. There's a reason even most authoritarian dictatorships, who conduct elections with virtually no democratic credibility or competition, still generally allow more or less everyone to vote - it allows potential opposition to let off steam and record their views in a controlled manner, rather than removing all their legal means of opposing and thus pushing them to pursue more radical options.
(edited 2 years ago)
There are ways of limiting democracy besides restricting who can vote. One of the reasons I like FPTP is that it creates a more-or-less two-party system (although leaves enough room for a new party to take the place of one that's in decline).
I'm with ST on your duel citizenship. Immigration should serve the UK, that it serves the immigrant too is simply a happy coincidence. Your undivided loyalty should be to the UK (that's not to say I have a problem with you being resident elsewhere if work demands it albeit that does not heavily benefit us).
I agree that there should be more restrictions in relation to voting in the UK.
I believe that voting restrictions should applicable to: all persons under 18, adults convicted of serious crimes committed within uk territories, habitual criminals with more than 5 uk convictions, all uk proscribed organisation members/former members/financial backers & self-proclaimed spokesmen/spokeswomen, individuals found "unfit to plead"/"not guilty" of more than two separate crimes, individuals declared by the courts to lack all mental capacity, those assessed by two plus medical specialists subject to current gmc registration as having very limited mental capacity including to consent to sexual intercourse/marriage, all former asylum seekers that have been granted uk nationality and those dual nationals who obtained the uk citizenship through naturalisation.
I believe that voting restrictions should applicable to: all persons under 18, adults convicted of serious crimes committed within uk territories, habitual criminals with more than 5 uk convictions, all uk proscribed organisation members/former members/financial backers & self-proclaimed spokesmen/spokeswomen, individuals found "unfit to plead"/"not guilty" of more than two separate crimes, individuals declared by the courts to lack all mental capacity, those assessed by two plus medical specialists subject to current gmc registration as having very limited mental capacity including to consent to sexual intercourse/marriage, all former asylum seekers that have been granted uk nationality and those dual nationals who obtained the uk citizenship through naturalisation.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
We've passed the point in history where there could be a meaningful debate about whether it's a good or bad thing. Now it's just a reality and it's not going anywhere.
The old days of heavily limited voter franchises were possible because of the wider social situation. Lower literacy rates, much lesser media, communication and transport technologies, lower population density, more time spent working, etc all produced a situation where the average person was significantly less able to be aware of and involved in politics than they are now. States' economic and military power nowadays are much more dependent on the ability to mobilise large masses of the ordinary population than they used to be. You can play around at the edges of who's eligible, but a significant departure from universal suffrage is now no longer a meaningful possibility.
Nor really is there anything to gain from it. There's a reason even most authoritarian dictatorships, who conduct elections with virtually no democratic credibility or competition, still generally allow more or less everyone to vote - it allows potential opposition to let off steam and record their views in a controlled manner, rather than removing all their legal means of opposing and thus pushing them to pursue more radical options.
The old days of heavily limited voter franchises were possible because of the wider social situation. Lower literacy rates, much lesser media, communication and transport technologies, lower population density, more time spent working, etc all produced a situation where the average person was significantly less able to be aware of and involved in politics than they are now. States' economic and military power nowadays are much more dependent on the ability to mobilise large masses of the ordinary population than they used to be. You can play around at the edges of who's eligible, but a significant departure from universal suffrage is now no longer a meaningful possibility.
Nor really is there anything to gain from it. There's a reason even most authoritarian dictatorships, who conduct elections with virtually no democratic credibility or competition, still generally allow more or less everyone to vote - it allows potential opposition to let off steam and record their views in a controlled manner, rather than removing all their legal means of opposing and thus pushing them to pursue more radical options.
We haven't "passed the point in history" of anything that is teleological nonsense. Empires rise and fall and ours is no different.
I agree with that but it is highly dependent on a number of factors including continuous growth, printing a constant money supply, being a global Hegemon etc which are not going to remain that way forever. Eventually the roosters will come home to roost. As a commie you should understand that.
Now when there are 'bad times' that makes autocratic leaders who promise to actually do things a more attractive proposition. This may require the need for 'emergency powers' to handle the crisis - if and when it is resolved,
there are all sorts of ways in which voting rights can be suppressed eg to improve voter verification there could be a enhanced process that makes it difficult for most people.
I think liberals wrongly assume that people place a lot of value in being able to vote. I think if given the right conditions most people wouldn't really care.
As for the motive well it's one way that conservatives can ensure their power base remains the same (this is obviously why liberals want to expand the vote as much as possible ). For instance if only married Christian men were granted the vote in America Trump would basically have a one party state.
Most people are apathetic and will go with the status quo. You only need a dedicated cadre of the population to change things and the rest will follow. It's just a matter of leadership now.
(edited 2 years ago)
1: I actually agree, the problem is that the consequences of me making a bad decision for myself are far less important than if the government does it.
I can't remember the exact quote or who said it but to paraphrase 'a monarchy needs only a single good ruler, democracy needs millions' whilst I'm not a monarchist I agree that it's unreasonable to expect a majority of the population to be wise enough to choose what direction the country goes towards.
I think that to some degree personal freedom is undoubtedly a good thing. I am an authoritarian not a Totalitarian which I actually oppose.
2: It is now but I don't think that's s good thing, and hadn't always been this way. To put it this way, money can't buy class.
.
3-Ok
4- in my analogy my kids weren't dating the fat woman but her kids, who due to their parents unhealthy personal choices have all sorts of inherited problems.
I can't remember the exact quote or who said it but to paraphrase 'a monarchy needs only a single good ruler, democracy needs millions' whilst I'm not a monarchist I agree that it's unreasonable to expect a majority of the population to be wise enough to choose what direction the country goes towards.
I think that to some degree personal freedom is undoubtedly a good thing. I am an authoritarian not a Totalitarian which I actually oppose.
2: It is now but I don't think that's s good thing, and hadn't always been this way. To put it this way, money can't buy class.
.
3-Ok
4- in my analogy my kids weren't dating the fat woman but her kids, who due to their parents unhealthy personal choices have all sorts of inherited problems.
Original post by Starship Trooper
At the moment in most western countries the only limit to voting is that a person needs to be above an arbitrary age limit and in some cases not be in prison. Most people seem to agree this is a good thing.
Peculiarly the people seemingly most in favour of this are liberals who are the keenest on the use of 'experts' to dictate policy but when it comes to how the governing of the country is run believe that a unemployed ex convict with the IQ of 70 has as much right to vote as a Judge or Doctor.
.....
Personally I think that letting anyone have the right to vote is irresponsible and stupid and that we would have a better system if only the brightest and best were able to vote, or at least those who have shown a degree of responsibility in their lives.
Examples of people that should be denied the vote IMO
-People under 30
- Unemployed people
-those found guilty of serious crimes
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
Peculiarly the people seemingly most in favour of this are liberals who are the keenest on the use of 'experts' to dictate policy but when it comes to how the governing of the country is run believe that a unemployed ex convict with the IQ of 70 has as much right to vote as a Judge or Doctor.
.....
Personally I think that letting anyone have the right to vote is irresponsible and stupid and that we would have a better system if only the brightest and best were able to vote, or at least those who have shown a degree of responsibility in their lives.
Examples of people that should be denied the vote IMO
-People under 30
- Unemployed people
-those found guilty of serious crimes
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
It's better if it's based on IQ Tests rather than anything else. Get 3-4 IQ Tests. Get the average and if it's around 120 or above then you can vote.
This way you will definitely exclude all the average minded and not very bright individuals. Many here on TSR will obviously not be eligible and won't be allowed to vote.
Original post by Bushyasta
It's better if it's based on IQ Tests rather than anything else. Get 3-4 IQ Tests. Get the average and if it's around 120 or above then you can vote.
This way you will definitely exclude all the average minded and not very bright individuals. Many here on TSR will obviously not be eligible and won't be allowed to vote.
This way you will definitely exclude all the average minded and not very bright individuals. Many here on TSR will obviously not be eligible and won't be allowed to vote.
Whilst important I don't think IQ alone is sufficient. Eg a Marine might not have the highest IQ but they have other strengths that are important to a functional and moral human society.
Some of the cleverest people in the country are also paradoxically some of the dumbest.
Original post by Starship Trooper
Whilst important I don't think IQ alone is sufficient. Eg a Marine might not have the highest IQ but they have other strengths that are important to a functional and moral human society.
Some of the cleverest people in the country are also paradoxically some of the dumbest.
Some of the cleverest people in the country are also paradoxically some of the dumbest.
Of course I am exaggerating, however the importance of intelligence cannot be understated.
Although marines and others are very useful for a functioning society this should not mean that they could vote on an election.
Original post by Starship Trooper
At the moment in most western countries the only limit to voting is that a person needs to be above an arbitrary age limit and in some cases not be in prison. Most people seem to agree this is a good thing.
Peculiarly the people seemingly most in favour of this are liberals who are the keenest on the use of 'experts' to dictate policy but when it comes to how the governing of the country is run believe that a unemployed ex convict with the IQ of 70 has as much right to vote as a Judge or Doctor.
.....
Personally I think that letting anyone have the right to vote is irresponsible and stupid and that we would have a better system if only the brightest and best were able to vote, or at least those who have shown a degree of responsibility in their lives.
Examples of people that should be denied the vote IMO
-People under 30
- Unemployed people
-those found guilty of serious crimes
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
Peculiarly the people seemingly most in favour of this are liberals who are the keenest on the use of 'experts' to dictate policy but when it comes to how the governing of the country is run believe that a unemployed ex convict with the IQ of 70 has as much right to vote as a Judge or Doctor.
.....
Personally I think that letting anyone have the right to vote is irresponsible and stupid and that we would have a better system if only the brightest and best were able to vote, or at least those who have shown a degree of responsibility in their lives.
Examples of people that should be denied the vote IMO
-People under 30
- Unemployed people
-those found guilty of serious crimes
-Dual citizens
- The Obese
How would you determine who are among the "brightest and best"?
Why should people under 30, unemployed people, dual citizens and the obese be banned from voting? Will they be given tax credits because they will have nobody to represent them?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Have polls work the same way that they do on showthread 2
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: flags
- shouldn't all young people register to vote now because
- UK governments to ban disposable vapes
- essay question - sociology
- Is there a reason why the government has failed to control its borders?
- goldies poll soundtracks of the 2000s
- Top universities ‘will turn away more UK students’
- TSR Community Awards 2023 - VOTING NOW CLOSED!
- Id at uni
- Should i vote Labour?
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- Kallisto's SUnday Question: Theme Park
- What game should I buy
- [Official] 2024 US elections megathread
- An Inspector Calls: Gerald Essay of Relationship
- How does one even go about answering this question!?
- Can immigration actually been controlled?
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Countries
Latest
Last reply 17 minutes ago
Anyone else applying/has applied to UCL's Robotics and AI MEng course??Last reply 1 hour ago
Inlaks, Commonwealth, and Other Scholarships for Indian Students 2024: ThreadLast reply 1 hour ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
LAWYERS: Can I bring an action against my old schoolLast reply 1 hour ago
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over hate crime lawLast reply 1 hour ago
Children to no longer be prescribed puberty blockers, NHS England confirmsLast reply 1 hour ago
Official: University of Manchester A106 2024 Entry ApplicantsMedical Schools
1275
Last reply 2 hours ago
Official Cambridge Postgraduate Applicants 2024 ThreadTrending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?Trending
Last reply 5 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 6 days ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 2 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Last reply 3 weeks ago
How did John Major become PM with barely any qualifications?
