Should everyone be allowed to vote?

[sassthathoopie]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/dont-panic-post...

Should everyone be allowed to vote? or did the Romans have it right that only qualified citizens have the right. You wouldn't necessarily have to do a lifetime's military service, just have to jump a very simple hurdle like knowing which constituency you belong too, or who your current MP is.

Remember that your well thought out and reasoned vote is worth the same as these muppets

:devilsadvocatehaton:

Edited by sassthathoopie on Wednesday 21st April 07:59

[Don]

Good poll.

I could make strong arguments for both so the result will be interesting. I don't think there's a "right" answer to this one as the qualifications for voting could vary so widely.

[900T-R]

So who are you going to trust with deciding who should have the right to vote - the government?

[JagLover]

As Don says there are arguments on both sides.

What I will say is that there was a property qualification to vote in the nineteeth century and (after the great reform act of 1832) the standard of political debate was higher and the grasping need of government to control every aspect of our lives was far lower.

[ewenm]

As an additional question, should every vote be worth the same?

[HOGEPH]

Edmund Blackadder: Well, Mrs. Miggins, at last we can return to sanity. The hustings are over, the bunting is down, the mad hysteria is at an end. After the chaos of a general election, we can return to normal.

Mrs Miggins: Oh, has there been a general election, then, Mr. Blackadder?

Edmund: Indeed there has, Mrs. Miggins.

Mrs M: Oh, well, I never heard about it.

Edmund: Well of course you didn't; you're not eligible to vote.

Mrs M: Well, why not?

Edmund: Because virtually no-one is: women, peasants, (looks at Baldrick)
chimpanzees, lunatics, Lords...

Baldrick: That's not true -- Lord Nelson's got a vote!

Edmund: He's got a *boat*, Baldrick. Marvelous thing, democracy. Look at
Manchester: population, 60,000; electoral roll, 3.

[V8mate]

People are used to voting and dislike change, so everyone should be allowed to vote. There should only be one choice on the ballot paper though.

Voting will soon lose its appeal and it can be withdrawn quietly.

[cymtriks]

To answer the OP, yes, they should.

A politician's job is to interest ordinary people in politics. The people should be interested enough to vote one way or another, understand major policies and consider their MP as the first point of contact for raising an issue of government, from tax to health care to green issues to the colour of park benches.

If so many people don't have a clue then perhaps it's actually the politicians that are at fault?

An obvious way to engage more people is to actualy discuss serious issues with them. Not try to avoid seeing them, not claim that it can all be wished away but actually discuss solutions. There is not only an elelephant in the room, there's half a zoo. Just consider tax, NHS, benefits, expenses, public pensions, the national debt, immigration. All routinely skirted around or wished away with sound bites and vague claims of tweaking at the edges.

Consider the national debt. 1000 Billion. What do they argue about? How to save or tax 6 billion. Wow! Only another 994 billion to go, great start, thanks for for open debate, its really encouraged voters to see the point in the system.

Education? Lets just move the goal posts and bluster about how its all down to hard working and clever kids and demonise anyone who disagrees as being against "social mobility" or "fairness". Seeing as its all down to kids being so smart and hard working these days does this imply that the lower grades of thirty years ago make our parents thick and lazy? By their logic or granparents must have been complete retards.

Immigration. Watch them duck, wriggle, sqirm and shout abuse. They watch the BNP grow and lecture us all on how great it is to be faced with being taxed more to pay for all the extra services and facilities required plus having everything translated into twenty languages while integration happens very very very slowly.

Why would anyone bother to get involved in this?

[cs02rm0]

900T-R said:

So who are you going to trust with deciding who should have the right to vote - the government?

This problem far outweighs any benefits from not letting historic Labour voters make any more mistakes.

[DJC]

I dont know which constituency Im on or who my MP is, yet I have a degree in this bloody stuff and can probably quote chapter and verse to a greater depth on the various political philosophies of our wonderful parties than damn nr anybody else on ph.

I realised a long time ago that studying this crap simply lead to complete contempt for anybody involved in it. Not only is an awful lot of it staggeringly dull but you get a good look at those around you who actually find it all interesting. Who pay attention. Who are eager. These are the next generation of people who will go into politics as a profession. Dear God, once you have seen these people close up you realise what fking geeks, gimps and imbeciles will be running the country within 20yrs and the only conclusion you can come to is that whole thing is a waste of time charade and the only salvation is alcohol.

My cynicism may have shone through when a neighbour and friend invited me round to his house the other week. He is standing as a prospective Tory local council member and was having a little dinner party of guests inc the new prospective Tory MP, Mr Mark Pawsey. Alas my fiend and neighbour literally threw me out of his house when I asked said hopefuly Member of Parl. if he really thought his little wet prick of a Shadow Chancellor was upto the job of not fking up the economy. So I know who one prospective member is for our area, havent a clue who the others are and dont actually know what our political area is called. Im not vastly fussed either.

[Strangely Brown]

"The Best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter". - Winston Churchill.

Bear in mind that these same people could be on a jury of your peers should you ever be unfortunate enough to be in that situation.

"Average Voter" - It's a beautifully contemptuous term.

[sassthathoopie]

I've often wondered if that was the case. Somehow I can't imagine Winky's cabinet meetings are like an episode of the West Wing...

Edited by sassthathoopie on Wednesday 21st April 09:36

[MX7]

cymtriks said:

A politician's job is to interest ordinary people in politics.

It is? I thought it was their job to represent their constituents.

cymtriks said:

If so many people don't have a clue then perhaps it's actually the politicians that are at fault?

Loads of people don't have a clue how to cook, but given the amount of cookery programmes on TV, it can't be because they've never had the opportunity to learn.

Some people are simply not interested. It seems strange to give an equal vote to those who make no effort to understand politics, or those who's vote is decided by historical family voting, celebrity endorsements, or an hour or two of well manicured sound bites.

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

cymtriks said:

A politician's job is to interest ordinary people in politics.

It is? I thought it was their job to represent their constituents.

cymtriks said:

If so many people don't have a clue then perhaps it's actually the politicians that are at fault?

Loads of people don't have a clue how to cook, but given the amount of cookery programmes on TV, it can't be because they've never had the opportunity to learn.

Some people are simply not interested. It seems strange to give an equal vote to those who make no effort to understand politics, or those who's vote is decided by historical family voting, celebrity endorsements, or an hour or two of well manicured sound bites.

Maybe they are disinterested because they feel it is irrelevant to their lives?

[Zod]

I think the test should be whether you can properly use "to" and "too".

[MX7]

V8mate said:

Maybe they are disinterested because they feel it is irrelevant to their lives?

Possibly, but is there anyone who really is completely detached from politics? You'd have to be living in a wood in the middle of nowhere. Ideally designated as green belt.

[Davi]

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

Maybe they are disinterested because they feel it is irrelevant to their lives?

Possibly, but is there anyone who really is completely detached from politics? You'd have to be living in a wood in the middle of nowhere. Ideally designated as green belt.

being detached from it and knowing that all available options lead to you being bent over and greased up are a tad different though, no?

[Mazda Baiter]

Zod said:

I think the test should be whether you can properly use "to" and "too".

To, too and two.

"Can you, the potential voter, form one correct sentence using these three forms of the same sounding word?"


There, their and they're.


"Can you, the potential voter, form one correct sentence using these three forms of the same sounding word?"


Half of PH would fail this test.

Edited for copy and paste spacktardedness.

Edited by Mazda Baiter on Wednesday 21st April 17:54

[Davi]

Mazda Baiter said:

Zod said:

I think the test should be whether you can properly use "to" and "too".

To, too and two.
There, their and they're.

"Can you, the potential voter, form one correct sentence using these three forms of the same sounding word?"


There, their and they're.


"Can you, the potential voter, form one correct sentence using these three forms of the same sounding word?"


Half of PH would fail this test.

Is it just me that reading that post is thinking 'fail'?

[V8mate]

MX7 said:

V8mate said:

Maybe they are disinterested because they feel it is irrelevant to their lives?

Possibly, but is there anyone who really is completely detached from politics? You'd have to be living in a wood in the middle of nowhere. Ideally designated as green belt.

Do you really feel involved with politics then? (Maybe you're a Party activist?)

I certainly don't. I'm very interested in politics, economics etc, but in no way feel that I have any influence, including at the ballot box, in anything the government might decide to 'do to me'.

I'm taxed a bit more, taxed a bit less, drive a bit slower, hand over more and more of my personal details etc. There was no opportunity to ever influence those things happening.

So, whilst I haven't yet indulged myself in such action, I wholeheartedly support the throwing of rocks at Police down Whitehall as the only way of drawing attention to public dissatisfaction.