MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don’t know about the transient part, but it’s entirely rational to think that we should have citizens making decisions for the citizens of the country. According to Google, only 45% of permanent residents become citizens within a decade.

What % of 80 year olds are still citizens within a decade?

[CliffFletcher]

WEF conspiracy theory nutbars are a big enough problem without politicians handing them gifts like this. Imagine being that politically tone-deaf. It’s almost as if they want to get swept out in the next election by populists.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

WEF conspiracy theory nutbars are a big enough problem without politicians handing them gifts like this. Imagine being that politically tone-deaf.

Or they are baiting Smith and Parker. I'm not sure they are that crafty, though.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What % of 80 year olds are still citizens within a decade?

More support for my reforms to democracy!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What % of 80 year olds are still citizens within a decade?

Really, do you think we should be disenfranchising people because they are old??

[Ozy_Flame]

I'm actually not against that. Just like I'm not against having age limits for running politicians. Their votes and policies can detrimentally affect younger generations, and they won't have to suffer the consequences of that. They just don't have as much skin in the game at that point.

I'd cut people off at 80, and give them better social security as a trade-off.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

What % of 80 year olds are still citizens within a decade?

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really, do you think we should be disenfranchising people because they are old??

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really, do you think we should be disenfranchising people because they are old??

Anyone who isn’t likely going to be here long term, for sure.

Though I hope you appreciate the humour of a guy who lives in Toledo voicing an opinion about who should/shouldn’t get to vote in Calgary elections.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really, do you think we should be disenfranchising people because they are old??

It’s grim, but they don’t have to live for 60+ more years with bad decisions made today.

[CliffFletcher]

Another example of the vast gulf between online politics and real-world politics. Any politicians or party calling for an age limit on voting would be committing electoral suicide. It would also be unconstitutional. Which is why it hasn’t been introduced by any government anywhere.

Meanwhile, restricting voting to citizens is a near-universal norm in democracies around the globe.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Wormius

It’s grim, but they don’t have to live for 60+ more years with bad decisions made today.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Another example of the vast gulf between online politics and real-world politics. Any politicians or party calling for an age limit on voting would be committing electoral suicide. It would also be unconstitutional. Which is why it hasn’t been introduced by any government anywhere.

Meanwhile, restricting voting to citizens is a near-universal norm in democracies around the globe.

We should have weighted voting. For the first ten years of eligibility (18-28) your vote is worth 100%. Every decade after that your voting power becomes 10% lower. By retirement age your vote is only 60%.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

We should have weighted voting. For the first ten years of eligibility (18-28) your vote is worth 100%. Every decade after that your voting power becomes 10% lower. By retirement age your vote is only 60%.

You've taken my idea and made it worse.

You start voting at 14 with a 0.1 value vote that increases to 1 vote until you are 25. You get that until you are 70, then the value decreases back to 0.1 over the next 10 years.

The ramp in at a younger age gets people participating, but not having undue pull. Open to negotiating the upper limit.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

You've taken my idea and made it worse.

You start voting at 14 with a 0.1 value vote that increases to 1 vote until you are 25. You get that until you are 70, then the value decreases back to 0.1 over the next 10 years.

The ramp in at a younger age gets people participating, but not having undue pull. Open to negotiating the upper limit.

If you want to entice young people to vote you need more carrot. They aren't going to get excited about such low value for their votes.

[Torture]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

WEF conspiracy theory nutbars are a big enough problem without politicians handing them gifts like this. Imagine being that politically tone-deaf. It’s almost as if they want to get swept out in the next election by populists.

Meh, WEF conspiracy theory nutbars are going to WEF conspiracy theory no matter what you do.
IMO you have to govern based on what you think is the best for the future of the city regardless of what the conspiracy theorists are going to think.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If you want to entice young people to vote you need more carrot. They aren't going to get excited about such low value for their votes.

Sure they will. It gives the opportunity for educators to getting youth interested while an election is on that they can actually participate in, rather than graduating and instantly forgetting the stuff you talked about in class but could never do. I remember not caring at all because I couldn't vote, so why would I care about candidates? I can't see an argument where this would reduce youth voter engagement from where we are now.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Another example of the vast gulf between online politics and real-world politics. Any politicians or party calling for an age limit on voting would be committing electoral suicide. It would also be unconstitutional. Which is why it hasn’t been introduced by any government anywhere.

Meanwhile, restricting voting to citizens is a near-universal norm in democracies around the globe.

It’s still funny to bring up, partly because it triggers “liberals” (hard quotes), but mostly because it almost always effectively showcases the cognitive dissonance that exists on these topics. Having permanent residents who pay taxes and may do so for 10, 20, or 30+ years before being able to vote on how their taxes are spent is no less absurd than allowing someone who will be dead in 5 years to vote (of course, they might live to 100! which is why the example is just an example, despite what people who think online isn’t real-life can comprehend).

That said, let’s not let facts get in the way:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...-voting-rights

How about being able to vote in national elections after just one year of residence in a new country? New Zealand has used such a system since 1975 to offer expansive voting rights to legally present noncitizens.

Around the world, the ability of emigrants to vote in their origin countries and of immigrants to vote in their residence countries have fluctuated over the years, but have generally increased. These rights tend to be limited and almost always depend on legal status and government oversight. Where such rights are offered, some but not all migrants are often eligible to vote in some but not all elections, such as for local ordinances but not national office.

There can be significant misinformation and mischaracterization of immigrants’ eligibility to vote, as there has been recently in the United States. Noncitizens, whether lawfully or unlawfully present, are legally barred from voting in U.S. federal elections and no state permits noncitizen voting in statewide elections. A small number of U.S. municipalities in California, Maryland, and Vermont, as well as the District of Columbia, permit noncitizen voting in certain local elections. Immigrant voting is more widespread elsewhere. For example, EU citizens living in another EU Member State enjoy many social and economic benefits, as well as some voting rights, in their new country without having to acquire citizenship—at least until a rupture such as the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union pushes them to get a different status or naturalize to keep those rights.

Throughout history, governments at various levels around the world have allowed non-naturalized immigrants and emigrants—and sometimes their descendants—to participate in elections. In the United States, 40 states had policies at various points between independence in 1776 and the outbreak of World War II in 1939 allowing noncitizen men to vote.

I mean, I can vote in the US despite having lived here permanently since I was a teenager. If I ever have a child, they too will be able to vote in US elections… even if they never, ever, live in the US.

But hey, those are just some of the “norms” of democracies around the world. We shouldn’t give into WEF crazies by ever, ever questioning any of these norms, ever.

[Cowboy89]

Let's all be clear, one citizen over 18 one vote is the bellwether in our democracy for a number of very good reasons. All discussions otherwise are politically motivated to put a thumb on the scale with a mind towards generating political outcomes more favorable to the person/group suggesting them.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Let's all be clear, one citizen over 18 one vote is the bellwether in our democracy for a number of very good reasons. All discussions otherwise are politically motivated to put a thumb on the scale with a mind towards generating political outcomes more favorable to the person/group.

I’d argue that such strict adherence to “one truth,” which is not universally accepted across well-functioning democracies across the world, is even more politically motivated.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’d argue that such strict adherence to “one truth,” which is not universally accepted across well-functioning democracies across the world, is even more politically motivated.

How so, what's the political motivation? Say what you mean and don't imply.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s still funny to bring up, partly because it triggers “liberals” (hard quotes), but mostly because it almost always effectively showcases the cognitive dissonance that exists on these topics. Having permanent residents who pay taxes and may do so for 10, 20, or 30+ years before being able to vote on how their taxes are spent is no less absurd than allowing someone who will be dead in 5 years to vote (of course, they might live to 100! which is why the example is just an example, despite what people who think online isn’t real-life can comprehend).

That said, let’s not let facts get in the way:
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...-voting-rights



I mean, I can vote in the US despite having lived here permanently since I was a teenager. If I ever have a child, they too will be able to vote in US elections… even if they never, ever, live in the US.

But hey, those are just some of the “norms” of democracies around the world. We shouldn’t give into WEF crazies by ever, ever questioning any of these norms, ever.

Well you can vote in the US because you're a US citizen. So...exactly what we're saying here.