There should be more restrictions on who can vote

Watch
Poll: Should we have a more limited Democracy?
Yes (6)
26.09%
Maybe a little bit (3)
13.04%
No what we have now is good (10)
43.48%
No we should have even less (4)
17.39%
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#1
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
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 week ago
#2
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.
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#3
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?
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 week ago
#4
I'm in favour of allowing more people into politics not less.

I'd support allowing some (but not all) prisoners to run for election as independents. If you can convince the majority of the electorate to vote for you than you deserve the win. It should be like that across the world IMO.

Also if you're going to defranchise these people, do you also support a system where they have reduced taxes? No taxation without representation.

Btw, I note your inclusion of obese. With the creation of the fat tax they're no longer a financial burden on society (although technically never were due to their early deaths and no subsequent pension payments.) I don't see the point of discluding them.
Last edited by Gaddafi; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#5
(Original post by Gaddafi)
I'm in favour of allowing more people into politics not less.

Also if you're going to defranchise these people, do you also support a system where they have reduced taxes?

No taxation without representation.

Btw, I note your inclusion of obese. With the creation of the fat tax they're no longer a financial burden on society (although technically never were due to their early deaths and no subsequent pension payments.) I don't see the point of discluding them.
Lol why?

No.

No.

More to do with shaming them than economics.
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 week ago
#6
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
Lol why?

No.

No.

More to do with shaming them than economics.
1) Democracy is a good thing.

2) Why not?

3) Why do you want to take someone's money but not give them the right to have a say in how it's spent?

I'd be disenfranchised here (I'm a dual national.)

You want "better" people to vote. Ironically I pay multiple times more tax than a 30 year old bricklayer and yet he'd be the one deciding how my money is spent.

4) You want national policies built around shaming people?
0
reply
Gofre
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 week ago
#7
Christ we're getting dangerously close to invoking Poe's Law with this one.
2
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#8
(Original post by Gaddafi)
1) Democracy is a good thing.

2) Why not?

3) Why do you want to take someone's money but not give them the right to have a say in how it's spent?

I'd be disenfranchised here (I'm a dual national.)

You want "better" people to vote. Ironically I pay multiple times more tax than a 30 year old bricklayer and yet he'd be the one deciding how my money is spent.

4) You want national policies built around shaming people?
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.
0
reply
Contested Claim
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 week ago
#9
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
- 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.
3
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#10
(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.
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.
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 week ago
#11
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
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.
1) Letting people have a say in how they are governed is a good principle. I don't see how that principle has gone too far.

2) They cannot control or choose what services are available. You also do not know if they will be on benefits, only one of your categories (the unemployed) is directly wealth related. Many of those in the other categories might very well be net contributors.

3) Those people today can vote - those who lose elections had a fair shot at steering the country down their path. Depriving them of the right to vote and then taking their money isn't the same thing as our current set up.

Oh come on, I'm not the type to be offended. What is your argument against dual citizens. That we're spies or something :lol:?

4) Why do you care about if people are fat? That's their own problem.
Last edited by Gaddafi; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#12
(Original post by Gaddafi)
1) Letting people have a say in how they are governed is a good principle. I don't see how that principle has gone too far.

2) They cannot control or choose what services are available. You also do not know if they will be on benefits, only one of your categories (the unemployed) is directly wealth related. Many of those in the other categories might very well be net contributors.

3) Those people today can vote - those who lose elections had a fair shot at steering the country down their path. Depriving them of the right to vote and then taking their money isn't the same thing as our current set up.

Oh come on, I'm not the type to be offended. What is your argument against dual citizens. That we're spies or something :lol:?

4) Why do you care about if people are fat? That's their own problem.
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.
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 week ago
#13
Funny, but stupid
0
reply
anarchism101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 week ago
#14
(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.
Last edited by anarchism101; 1 week ago
1
reply
-Imperator-
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 week ago
#15
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).
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 week ago
#16
(Original post by Gaddafi)
1) Letting people have a say in how they are governed is a good principle. I don't see how that principle has gone too far.

2) They cannot control or choose what services are available. You also do not know if they will be on benefits, only one of your categories (the unemployed) is directly wealth related. Many of those in the other categories might very well be net contributors.

3) Those people today can vote - those who lose elections had a fair shot at steering the country down their path. Depriving them of the right to vote and then taking their money isn't the same thing as our current set up.

Oh come on, I'm not the type to be offended. What is your argument against dual citizens. That we're spies or something :lol:?

4) Why do you care about if people are fat? That's their own problem.
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).
1
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 week ago
#17
(Original post by Starship Trooper)
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.
1) Making a stupid decision yourself is better than having someone else make a good decision for you. I am reminded of one my favorite quotes: "Better to reign in hell then serve in heaven." Freedom is a great thing in of itself.

You will probably think the opposite so we'll have to agree to disagree.

2) Okay, but money is the driving force of everything. Economic justice is imperative to a just society.

3) True it is a 2 party choice.

That is a fair point. Reasonably though, the average voter can't effect the national interest though. We currently bar dual nationals from certain roles in MI6 and MI5, it would be more justifiable to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to become Ministers, senior military officers etc.

4) Obese people aren't kicking about at A&E (where you would be taken.) You would be prioritized at A&E due to your clinical need. The resources that obese people use are in other NHS departments and don't effect you.

Well, I choose not to date fat girls. Perhaps your children should just consider not dating/marrying the fat?
Last edited by Gaddafi; 1 week ago
0
reply
Gaddafi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 week ago
#18
(Original post by Rakas21)
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).
Fair enough. I didn't immigrate to the UK. I did emigrate for some years though.
I take it that you are at some level a nationalist. Personally, I am not. My "loyalty" belongs neither to the UK or any other country (I'd never "sell out" any country I'm a national of but I'm certainly not actively bothered about advancing it's interests.)

The state does not provide for me, I am an individualist and my loyalty belongs to myself and my family. My line of thinking would not change if I lost either nationality.

Looking at it from your and Starship Trooper's POV though, I don't understand why you would require my "undivided loyalty." I could understand if I was in the civil service, government, military or intelligence apparatus but as a private citizen I can't exactly compromise the nation's interest.

By this logic you'd restrict someone's vote merely because they took up an Irish passport due to one of their grandparents being Irish?
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 week ago
#19
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.
Last edited by londonmyst; 1 week ago
0
reply
Starship Trooper
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 week ago
#20
(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.
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.

Name:  Screenshot_2021-05-02-15-14-30-74.jpg
Views: 6
Size:  302.2 KB
Last edited by Starship Trooper; 1 week ago
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

How do you prefer to get careers advice?

I like to speak to my friends and family (12)
11.54%
I like to do my own research online using careers specific websites (67)
64.42%
I like speaking to the careers advisors at school, college or uni (14)
13.46%
I prefer to listen watch videos or listen to podcasts of people in my chosen career (9)
8.65%
Something else (let us know in the thread) (2)
1.92%

Watched Threads

View All