Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    I didn't really want to get into this argument because its a rather silly one. We have a representative democracy and as such its important that as many people as possible are represented. Should we have a direct democracy then measures like this (not as silly of course) could be positive. I would also like to state that it is conventional that all major constitutional reform has been agreed to by the public in the form of a referendum so if the right honorable gentleman would like to persue this i would rather it were done properly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by BenC1997)
    Well, I can't say I've ever been told I do not support demorcracy because I believe more people deserve to vote than the person accusing me, who is proposing a bill that would remove many people's right to vote. Simply astonishing, one really could not make it up.
    the centeral tennant of democracy is that those who will be affacted by a change get a say it it. You are encouraging giving the vote to people who won't be massively affected which is undemocratic. If you want to do that we should let everyone on earth vote in the uk general elections.

    What is emotional about stating people expect that when they pay tax they will at least have a say in how it is spent? You may believe it is wrong, but emotive? Come on.

    Also, that is essentially the basis of your entire argument. "Why should old people be allowed to affect the lives of us young people?!?!" Emotive.
    yes emotive. And it is wrong... As myself and TDA have stated.

    I'm considering them irrelevant because they basically are. The needs of the dead do not outweigh the needs of the living.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I didn't really want to get into this argument because its a rather silly one. We have a representative democracy and as such its important that as many people as possible are represented. Should we have a direct democracy then measures like this (not as silly of course) could be positive. I would also like to state that it is conventional that all major constitutional reform has been agreed to by the public in the form of a referendum so if the right honorable gentleman would like to persue this i would rather it were done properly.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So if I put this as a referendum in the second reading (assuming I peruse a second reading) you would vote for the public to decide?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aph)
    the centeral tennant of democracy is that those who will be affacted by a change get a say it it. You are encouraging giving the vote to people who won't be massively affected which is undemocratic. If you want to do that we should let everyone on earth vote in the uk general elections.


    yes emotive. And it is wrong... As myself and TDA have stated.

    I'm considering them irrelevant because they basically are. The needs of the dead do not outweigh the needs of the living.
    I see that you are now employing the good old "repeat an unsubstantiated claim without any back up to rescue my argument" tactic regarding my 'emotive' language. That's fine.

    No, it is not the same. Please stop pretending that because someone might, might die a decade after they make a decision they will not be greatly affected by it, they obviously will be.

    That also ignores the other part of your bill, the intelligence /uni graduate part. People who do not fit this criteria will be affected by political decisions for a long time. Thus, by your own logic, they should be allowed to vote. Yet according to this, they will not be able to. Bit inconsistent.

    But please, continue to go round in delusional circles over how I am being emotive without any justification.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    So if I put this as a referendum in the second reading (assuming I peruse a second reading) you would vote for the public to decide?
    No. I wouldnt accept these measures while we have a representative democracy. Why do you think we have a representative democracy Aph?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by BenC1997)
    I see that you are now employing the good old "repeat an unsubstantiated claim without any back up to rescue my argument" tactic regarding my 'emotive' language. That's fine.

    No, it is not the same. Please stop pretending that because someone might, might die a decade after they make a decision they will not be greatly affected by it, they obviously will be.

    That also ignores the other part of your bill, the intelligence /uni graduate part. People who do not fit this criteria will be affected by political decisions for a long time. Thus, by your own logic, they should be allowed to vote. Yet according to this, they will not be able to. Bit inconsistent.

    But please, continue to go round in delusional circles over how I am being emotive without any justification.
    Ummmm what?

    No there is no obvious about it....

    No, I'm saying that in a democracy they would. But people who vote for David Cameron because he has nice hair for instance shouldn't be voting.


    (Original post by Lime-man)
    No. I wouldnt accept these measures while we have a representative democracy. Why do you think we have a representative democracy Aph?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So what about for referendums? (The main reason I think these might be needed) and because the powergrabbing elite want to maintain control and we need to fight the patriarchy!!!!
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    So what about for referendums? (The main reason I think these might be needed) and because the powergrabbing elite want to maintain control and we need to fight the patriarchy!!!!
    We have a representative democracy so that we can elect people who know their **** even if we dont. Which makes your measure null because their not needed while we have a representative democracy. Youd than have to prove your measures to be preferable to our current system of representative democracy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    We have a representative democracy so that we can elect people who know their **** even if we dont. Which makes your measure null because their not needed while we have a representative democracy. Youd than have to prove your measures to be preferable to our current system of representative democracy.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm pretty sure that doesn't work though... Because we end up electing the party not the people. If we elected the people it would be a valid point... Also is thsi were I point out that the chancellor hasn't studied economics and relies on a team of civil servants who are the real people who know their sh*t when we don't.... Politicians are just pretty faces...

    I've explained why I belive they are. And you didn't answer teh referendum question,
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    I'm pretty sure that doesn't work though... Because we end up electing the party not the people. If we elected the people it would be a valid point... Also is thsi were I point out that the chancellor hasn't studied economics and relies on a team of civil servants who are the real people who know their sh*t when we don't.... Politicians are just pretty faces...

    I've explained why I belive they are. And you didn't answer teh referendum question,
    You vote for the candidate who will represent you. You can argue about how it works in practice but at the end of the day your own position is one based on ideology and as such you leave yourself in a pretty bad position to be talking about practicality. What makes you think that our current system works so badly? even though it works differently to how its supposed to work in theory it doesnt mean that it works any worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    You vote for the candidate who will represent you. You can argue about how it works in practice but at the end of the day your own position is one based on ideology and as such you leave yourself in a pretty bad position to be talking about practicality. What makes you think that our current system works so badly? even though it works differently to how its supposed to work in theory it doesnt mean that it works any worse.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    But the practicality of this bill is the same as it works in ideology...
    Okay let's look at the old.
    They have fixed pentions, a free bus pass and many other benifits and the argument used is that they have paid in all their life so they shoudl get something back. (Stupid argument btw) all of thsi plus the extra a out they use the NHS costs a lot and they don't look much toward the future (e.g. Don't do much for the environment) so they doubley hurt the young and then people say it's because the young don't vote but there are no policies for them to vote for making them less likely to vote.
    Also I belive that people who are voting for stupid reasons shoudl not be voting and people who have to deal with any messes made (the young and healthy) shoudl be the ones to decide how teh messes are made and not have messes forced upon them by their parents.

    I started this bill to try and make up my mind as to which way I though and I must say the debate against this bill is making me for it...
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    But the practicality of this bill is the same as it works in ideology...
    Okay let's look at the old.
    They have fixed pentions, a free bus pass and many other benifits and the argument used is that they have paid in all their life so they shoudl get something back. (Stupid argument btw) all of thsi plus the extra a out they use the NHS costs a lot and they don't look much toward the future (e.g. Don't do much for the environment) so they doubley hurt the young and then people say it's because the young don't vote but there are no policies for them to vote for making them less likely to vote.
    Also I belive that people who are voting for stupid reasons shoudl not be voting and people who have to deal with any messes made (the young and healthy) shoudl be the ones to decide how teh messes are made and not have messes forced upon them by their parents.

    I started this bill to try and make up my mind as to which way I though and I must say the debate against this bill is making me for it...
    Everything youve said is ideological and short sighted. Pensioners have a lot of time on their hands and theyve paid into the treasury all their lives, they expect to be treated well and any party that doesnt will face the consequences on election day. Pensioners are treated well because they vote, not because they vote for a particular party.

    Your focus on the elderly is quite curious, they vote in the same way that anyone else votes, in their self interest. Theyre better at it because they have more time on their hands and work commitments are less likely to prevent them from voting. This is democracy done right, if you wish to make politics more representative then I'd suggest making election day a public holiday.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Everything youve said is ideological and short sighted. Pensioners have a lot of time on their hands and theyve paid into the treasury all their lives, they expect to be treated well and any party that doesnt will face the consequences on election day. Pensioners are treated well because they vote, not because they vote for a particular party.

    Your focus on the elderly is quite curious, they vote in the same way that anyone else votes, in their self interest. Theyre better at it because they have more time on their hands and work commitments are less likely to prevent them from voting. This is democracy done right, if you wish to make politics more representative then I'd suggest making election day a public holiday.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why should they expect to be treated well? They have no right to be treated well. They are very short sited and the young should be the ones making decisions as we are the ones who will inherit the earth so we should be allowed to not have it screwed up by the old.

    People shoudl vote for what's best for society not what's best for themselves... And that wouldn't change a thing because you still have the loop.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Why should they expect to be treated well? They have no right to be treated well. They are very short sited and the young should be the ones making decisions as we are the ones who will inherit the earth so we should be allowed to not have it screwed up by the old.

    People shoudl vote for what's best for society not what's best for themselves... And that wouldn't change a thing because you still have the loop.
    Are you just ageist or do you have a different problem?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    In fairness, the old age thing is a fair point. If we know for certain that someone will die tomorrow, we should not let them vote in a general election today. However, the lack of certainty is a big problem.

    Maybe you should have a continuous vote, with people free to change it at any time, which expires upon death.
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    In fairness, the old age thing is a fair point. If we know for certain that someone will die tomorrow, we should not let them vote in a general election today. However, the lack of certainty is a big problem.

    Maybe you should have a continuous vote, with people free to change it at any time, which expires upon death.
    Exactly.

    I'm not sure how that would work in practically
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Are you just ageist or do you have a different problem?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    My issue is I belive that the young people should get to decide their own destiny not wait until they become middle aged.

    And I don't apreciate the ad hominem.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    In fairness, the old age thing is a fair point. If we know for certain that someone will die tomorrow, we should not let them vote in a general election today. However, the lack of certainty is a big problem.

    Maybe you should have a continuous vote, with people free to change it at any time, which expires upon death.
    I repeat, whats so significantly wrong with our current system to implement an untried, untested and potentially devastating new system which may or may not solve the non issues that you seem to be so obsessed with?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    I repeat, whats so significantly wrong with our current system to implement an untried, untested and potentially devastating new system which may or may not solve the non issues that you seem to be so obsessed with?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm voting against this, I just think some parts of it are less cuckoo than other people seem to be saying. It's certainly much better than his Animal Rights Charter.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    3(1)(a) is as sexist as the new junior doctors contract is it will punish men more

    But I agree we should limit amount of people voting I would suggest limiting it to me
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Aph)
    Exactly.

    I'm not sure how that would work in practically

    My issue is I belive that the young people should get to decide their own destiny not wait until they become middle aged.

    And I don't apreciate the ad hominem.
    Its not ad hominem it was a genuine question.

    Your issue is not that the older people's votes are worth more but instead that young people vote less meaning that parties do less for their votes. Older people having an easier time is an example of democracy working well, if you want that to spread then your aim should be to make election day a public holiday rather than disenfranchisement.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Its not ad hominem it was a genuine question.

    Your issue is not that the older people's votes are worth more but instead that young people vote less meaning that parties do less for their votes. Older people having an easier time is an example of democracy working well, if you want that to spread then your aim should be to make election day a public holiday rather than disenfranchisement.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You were questioning the motives of my decision suggesting that my motives affacted the argument.

    No, my issue is that a dying person who doesn't have to live with the decision gets to decide what happens. It's stupid.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 30, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.