Should all citizens have equal voting power? (1 Viewer)

[moll.]

I think voting should remain compulsory. It seems that the most vocal and interested in politics are usually at either extreme of the political spectrum (eg, socialist alternative fags) and I really don't want them deciding who will lead us. Fact of the matter is that elections are decided by about 10% of the population anyway.

Yeah, I think the same.
I honestly think this is one of the reasons why American politics is so fucked up. Cos it's only the extreme left and right who are actually dedicated enough to vote, you get extremists senators and congressmen getting elected by appealing to the far-left or far-right factions in their districts or states. Meanwhile the moderate bases' political representation is slowly getting eroded, and it only gets a voice when the is a grassroots and widespread movement against the incumbent government, such as last year.

 

[Strawbaby]

Prisoners should have their voting rights renounced for the length of the gaol period. They flout and abuse other people's rights, the state should have the right to abuse theirs in turn, on behalf of the populace.

Go and look at Roach v Electoral Commissioner, and maybe this too: Right to Vote: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Website

 

[moll.]

Go and look at Roach v Electoral Commissioner, and maybe this too: Right to Vote: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Website

K. My bad. I didn't actually bother researching the clauses. Too lazy.
But it should be extended to all of the prisoners.

 

[aussie-boy]

Homeless people don't pay taxes though so it's not their money being spent :O : O :O

Lol well this would be one way to stop tax minimisation/fraud

 

[SylviaB]

Well I'm so sorry this isn't Libertopia where we leave the sick and homeless to rot in gutters while we get rich.

You damn well should be sorry >:[ >:[

And it's not called getting rich, it's called having the right to keep the money you earn :O :O

 

[xeuyrawp]

tl;dr, so not sure if someone's said this, but I've got to point out the irony of having a poll in this thread. :S

 

[Graney]

The aim of government should be to help the disadvantaged (how you best achieve this is another matter).

The poor, disabled, uneducated are the people most in need of representation.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

Let's give representation to those people by having them represented by more affluent citizens, who'll certainly have their best interests at heart. it's worked for us so far!!!

 

[jb_nc]

Let's give representation to those people by having them represented by more affluent citizens, who'll certainly have their best interests at heart. it's worked for us so far!!!

In a taped speech broadcast at a conference in Washington, Mr Netanyahu refused to use the words "Palestinian state" but suggested that he was ready to put his penis in a bum.

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

in a prepared statement today, jb_nc

that's right

JB_NC

 

[jb_nc]

dats actually what the real ben nenthanyanu said

unless ur the real one

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

i no dat u nong

i read da same article
and posted it on bos

you daft cunthole

 

[jb_nc]

i dont read ur threads theyre gay

 

[Ben Netanyahu]

come on jb_nc,

i'm one of the only usyd people you don't have on ignore!



i like you too, though

 

[Natendo]

Instead of saying only people who 'understand politics and care about it should get a vote/get greater voting power' why don't we focus on why people don't have this information or hold such an attitude in the first place?

A lot of people are apathetic as a result of not having learned what it means to be a member of 'civil society' or more generally a democracy. Add to that, many have very little understanding of what politics really means and how it impacts on the individual. People are also socialised into apathetic families...

Yeah, ok some people donkey vote. Some people vote only because they have to and end up voting based on some irrational judgment there and then. But I would say the majority of people (aged above 30) vote based on a criteria they see fit; whether it be through analysis of policy or an inclination towards Piers Akerman.
Not all people are highly educated, political, moral beings and they're opinion has just as much validity as the white collared skilled professional. To say one is better than the other is to suggest there are not solely 'misinformed'/'underinformed' people out there, but there is a 'wrong' and 'right' way to live your life.

Also, preferencing one demographic over another would be disastrous. Imagine if corporate business execs had greater voting power than the rest of us? political campaigns would be overhwhelmingly aimed at them, and policies skewed towards the elite (or perhaps this is already happening? coughliberalpartycough)

Although, maybe if the poor had greater voting leverage politicians would start making homelessness a more important issue... and lower tax on booze

The point is, most people ultimately have a rather parochial agenda when voting. And everyone has the right to stipulate what they think is right for themselves regardless of who they are and what they know. After all; they don't implement plans. They just exercise their opinion and attitudes.
When the state starts telling you that 'they know best' and that 'experts know best' then liberal society is d00med.

 

[Lentern]

Yeah, I think the same.
I honestly think this is one of the reasons why American politics is so fucked up. Cos it's only the extreme left and right who are actually dedicated enough to vote, you get extremists senators and congressmen getting elected by appealing to the far-left or far-right factions in their districts or states. Meanwhile the moderate bases' political representation is slowly getting eroded, and it only gets a voice when the is a grassroots and widespread movement against the incumbent government, such as last year.

America doesn't have an extreme left. Ralph Nadar would be in the moderate wing of our liberal party.

 

[moll.]

Extreme left by our measure? No they don't.
Extreme left by their measure? Yes, but it only relates to our centre or centre-left.
Unless you're talking about economics (which is only one part of politics) then the left-right spectrum is relative.

 

[Lentern]

Extreme left by our measure? No they don't.
Extreme left by their measure? Yes, but it only relates to our centre or centre-left.
Unless you're talking about economics (which is only one part of politics) then the left-right spectrum is relative.

You can't honestly tell me there are extreme differences in the parties(not the people who vote for them) in the United States. The spectrum is overall moved a few points to the right but it is much the same kind of range that Australia has. Infact as there is no heavyweight third party like the British liberal democrats or the Bloc Quebecois in Canada I'd say we and the US are two of the more similar democracies in the world.

 

[moll.]

You can't honestly tell me there are extreme differences in the parties(not the people who vote for them) in the United States. The spectrum is overall moved a few points to the right but it is much the same kind of range that Australia has. In fact as there is no heavyweight third party like the British liberal democrats or the Bloc Quebecois in Canada I'd say we and the US are two of the more similar democracies in the world.

Just because we both virtually have a two-party system doesn't make us similar. Entirely different cultures, histories and demographics make us very different countries.
Not to mention that comparing the US parties to the Australian ones is ridiculous. The American parties are just a loose coalition of around 300 individual representatives, all with their own agenda and ideology who frequently don't tow the party line. In Australia you get ostracised from the rest of the party if you don't tag along with the majority in public. The Australian party make-up is far more authoritarian and hierarchical.
And yes, there are large differences in median ideology between us and the US. Because the American system involves a larger degree of autonomy for each Congressional seat, it means that relatively immoderate or radical counties can elect a representative who suits their ideology better and thus get more say than in the Australian system where that MP would still have to tow the party line.

 

[Amplification]

Just because we both virtually have a two-party system doesn't make us similar. Entirely different cultures, histories and demographics make us very different countries.
Not to mention that comparing the US parties to the Australian ones is ridiculous. The American parties are just a loose coalition of around 300 individual representatives, all with their own agenda and ideology who frequently don't tow the party line. In Australia you get ostracised from the rest of the party if you don't tag along with the majority in public. The Australian party make-up is far more authoritarian and hierarchical.
And yes, there are large differences in median ideology between us and the US. Because the American system involves a larger degree of autonomy for each Congressional seat, it means that relatively immoderate or radical counties can elect a representative who suits their ideology better and thus get more say than in the Australian system where that MP would still have to tow the party line.

Of those 300 elected representatives, how many do you suppose are fags and dykes?