MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Every third post, I just pretend they ended with "I blame the jews" and it just makes the whole thing fun to me

Damn. This is a lot less fun with all the Hitler talk

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Guys, can we calm down with the mischaracterization of Slava?

It's already been well established that he's literally Hitler. We don't need to go through this again.

I think he's metaphorically Hitler.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Slava

Whoa, literally? I can confirm that I cannot grow a thick, lustrous moustache like that. My German is a little rusty as well.

There's only one way to settle this. Get growing your best Chaplin stache, and post the results for the community to judge. Your clients will understand, it's for the internet!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I’m still not hearing the root problem that needs to be studied. PRs can’t vote is a fact, but is it an important problem that needs to be addressed?

Let’s assume for a moment that it is an important issue that needs studying and debate. How would you frame that debate? How do you judge if it is a good thing or not? A majority of councillors voted to debate it based on it being a good thing, just like you’re framing it as a positive thing for democracy. What process could lead them or you to a different conclusion? You complain about people objecting to this, disingenuously describing their positions as ‘cause it’s always been that way’ yet your mind is clearly made up. If I’m incorrect, what are the pros, cons and considerations you are mulling?

Are you suggesting that we don’t know if someone being able to vote is a good thing or not? lol.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I already tried engaging but then some old guys who complain about people dogpiling decided they would do the exact same thing and pretend it was different.

That said, I’m not sure I understand your question. You want me to explain why they should review something without talking about the benefits of making the change they would be reviewing? lol.

I guess the easiest answer is that, far beyond this issue, the people we elect to government should always be reviewing things and looking at ways to improve and protect our lives and our democracy. They don’t need justification for doing so, that should literally be the expectation. I’m not electing someone because I want them to be the best at sending emails, nor do I want them to wait until a problem is out of control before they do anything. Politicians should be proactively looking at ways to improve life for everyone. You disagree and think they need more justification for reviewing or exploring something that some other countries/cities/whatever do better? Cool, then we agree to disagree.

On a municipal level especially, there’s really justification for leaving it the way it is outside of “that’s the way it is,” and the justification for at least exploring it is that these people live here like the rest of us and should have representation, too. I don’t believe there’s any value in putting these people in a lower class. They’d be helping elect a city councillor in the city they live and pay property taxes in, not the Prime Minister. We have a councillor who plays golf all day and another that assaulted a girl, and we’re pretending there’s anything special and Canadian about the people that voted them in? lol.

This isn't the correct group of politicians to be looking at this though.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This isn't the correct group of politicians to be looking at this though.

Maybe it should be.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe it should be.

One of the other things they don't have the power to do is grant themselves more power.

They could ask the UCP to put them in charge of this, but I'm 100% confident that would be a waste of time.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are you suggesting that we don’t know if someone being able to vote is a good thing or not? lol.

On it’s own it’s a good thing, like apple pie. Is it a good thing to water down the unique rights of citizens? What is the trade off? What rights should be preserved for citizens in your mind?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Are you suggesting that we don’t know if someone being able to vote is a good thing or not? lol.

Also, define good, and for who? Does it help address any of the pressing issues in the city - housing, affordability, transit, etc.?

Your also still avoiding the question of what the pros and cons are, ie give us some deep thoughts. Or try this…why not give everyone who sets foot int country the vote? If not, what are the specific measurable criteria you use to decide who should and shouldn’t vote?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

On it’s own it’s a good thing, like apple pie. Is it a good thing to water down the unique rights of citizens? What is the trade off? What rights should be preserved for citizens in your mind?

Sorry, can you explain how your rights are watered down by someone else having rights?

Citizens have a bunch of rights that permanent residents don’t have, from running for office to holding a passport, not being able to be deported, not having to maintain their status, being able to sponsor a wider range of family members, accessing more social programs and security clearance, etc. We’re not talking about changing any of those things. Hell, we’re barely talking about voting in terms of anything beyond municipal elections.

Why do you feel you have to trade something/get something to give someone else the right to vote in a municipal election?

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Also, define good, and for who? Does it help address any of the pressing issues in the city - housing, affordability, transit, etc.?

Your also still avoiding the question of what the pros and cons are, ie give us some deep thoughts. Or try this…why not give everyone who sets foot int country the vote? If not, what are the specific measurable criteria you use to decide who should and shouldn’t vote?

We should constantly strive to strengthen and improve our democracy. Most people recognize that FPTP is sub-optimal. The feds promised change and failed. Our provincial gov't is openly corrupt and flouts our democracy at every opportunity. Not to mention the open hostility to democracy happening across the United States, which is sadly very relevant given the playbook of the monster in the Premier's chair.

Frankly our civic gov't is our only remaining remanence of the "democracy" we all grew up believing in, but who knows how long that will last as this despicable legislature is actively working to dismantle it. It doesn't really matter where the discussion starts - it will be a long and thorough process to consider any change. As it should be. And this change would not really be monumental. That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. This will go nowhere right now. Oh well, maybe like DST reform or HSR in Alberta it will happen eventually after another dozen false starts.



Now it's your turn. There has been plenty of good faith engagement throughout the thread...but I have yet to hear a single cogent argument justifying why the status quo is superior.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

We should constantly strive to strengthen and improve our democracy. Most people recognize that FPTP is sub-optimal. The feds promised change and failed. Our provincial gov't is openly corrupt and flouts our democracy at every opportunity. Not to mention the open hostility to democracy happening across the United States, which is sadly very relevant given the playbook of the monster in the Premier's chair.

Frankly our civic gov't is our only remaining remanence of the "democracy" we all grew up believing in, but who knows how long that will last as this despicable legislature is actively working to dismantle it. It doesn't really matter where the discussion starts - it will be a long and thorough process to consider any change. As it should be. And this change would not really be monumental. That doesn't mean it isn't worth doing. This will go nowhere right now. Oh well, maybe like DST reform or HSR in Alberta it will happen eventually after another dozen false starts.



Now it's your turn. There has been plenty of good faith engagement throughout the thread...but I have yet to hear a single cogent argument justifying why the status quo is superior.

Lots of good words about democracy but adding a few more voters isn’t going to save it.

Here’s where I’m coming from. I’ve already stated that there is no specific logic that proves allowing only citizens to vote is better than the alternative. It is a specific boundary chosen by those who define our citizenship and is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:


Further the Department of Justice further adds this in their analysis of charter rights relating to the democratic process:



(https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...heck/art3.html)

Municipal voting rules are controlled by the provincial government and they can relax this requirement if they choose. The fact that it is enshrined as a unique right in the charter speaks to its importance as a principle. I don’t see a good argument for watering down that principle to let a PR vote a few years early or vote while delaying citizenship indefinitely.

Further it does nothing to help the city and is a waste of time and energy IMO. What happens if it passes? X% more people vote. If it doesn’t, X% more people continue to not vote.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Slava

But this is the reality. I'm not some super radical right winger, or have these outlandish views, so it's hilarious to me that I'm now characterized in that light.

Except you don't believe in funding operations with deficit, which is actually an extreme pro-austerity position. "We are all Keynesians now", except Slava.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Lots of good words about democracy but adding a few more voters isn’t going to save it.

Here’s where I’m coming from. I’ve already stated that there is no specific logic that proves allowing only citizens to vote is better than the alternative. It is a specific boundary chosen by those who define our citizenship and is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:


Further the Department of Justice further adds this in their analysis of charter rights relating to the democratic process:



(https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sj...heck/art3.html)

Municipal voting rules are controlled by the provincial government and they can relax this requirement if they choose. The fact that it is enshrined as a unique right in the charter speaks to its importance as a principle. I don’t see a good argument for watering down that principle to let a PR vote a few years early or vote while delaying citizenship indefinitely.

Further it does nothing to help the city and is a waste of time and energy IMO. What happens if it passes? X% more people vote. If it doesn’t, X% more people continue to not vote.

You’ve been presented multiple sound arguments for it, and you’ve responded with bordering ignorant hand waving about your rights being watered down and how it’s important just the way it is because it’s written there.

If you admit that you can’t come up with a logical reason why citizenship is the line and are contradicting yourself this much, then maybe it’s time to admit you might be wrong and the issue is actually one that should be explored?

If the fact that the right to vote being enshrined in the charter speaks to it’s importance, then it would stand to reason that you shouldn’t even have to ask what happens if it passes nor should you care if it helps the city. In fact, if you had bothered to read the purpose of section 3, you’d realize you’re speaking directly against it:

The purpose of section 3 is to protect the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process … Participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of its impact upon the actual outcome of elections … Denial of the right to vote affects one’s dignity and sense of self-worth.

Voting rights can’t be both incredibly important and a waste of time. What is written in the charter can’t be incredibly important while the purpose behind it something you contradict at will. And it doesn’t take a legal expert to understand that the main thrust of section 3 isn’t limiting the right to vote to citizens, it’s the right to vote itself.

Overall, you seem to be grasping at straws here.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by SebC

Except you don't believe in funding operations with deficit, which is actually an extreme pro-austerity position. "We are all Keynesians now", except Slava.

Lol, glad to see you pop up with support for the UCP actions these days!

I'm fine with deficit spending for capital projects, just not operations. I still can't even believe people debate this. That said, I have zero interest in debating this for what has to be the millionth time.

[lambeburger]

If you were president of a condo home owner association, you wouldn't let the renters in the building have a vote at HOA meetings. The renters in the building might be fine neighbours and part of the community, but ultimately the long term well being of the building isn't their purview.

[Ozy_Flame]

What if the renter's are paying condo fees, been there for a long time, and positively contribute to the wellbeing of the condo? What if some owners are far more irresponsible than renters?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You’ve been presented multiple sound arguments for it, and you’ve responded with bordering ignorant hand waving about your rights being watered down and how it’s important just the way it is because it’s written there.

If you admit that you can’t come up with a logical reason why citizenship is the line and are contradicting yourself this much, then maybe it’s time to admit you might be wrong and the issue is actually one that should be explored?

If the fact that the right to vote being enshrined in the charter speaks to it’s importance, then it would stand to reason that you shouldn’t even have to ask what happens if it passes nor should you care if it helps the city. In fact, if you had bothered to read the purpose of section 3, you’d realize you’re speaking directly against it:



Voting rights can’t be both incredibly important and a waste of time. What is written in the charter can’t be incredibly important while the purpose behind it something you contradict at will. And it doesn’t take a legal expert to understand that the main thrust of section 3 isn’t limiting the right to vote to citizens, it’s the right to vote itself.

Overall, you seem to be grasping at straws here.

The charter is very clear that voting is an important right for CITIZENS and is in fact the only right that is EXCLUSIVE to citizens. The authors of the charter thought citizenship wa a pretty freaking big deal relative to voting but somehow I’m hand waving and grasping at straws. Take it up with them.

And lol with the argument that it won’t pass so don’t worry about it. I’m not worried about it at all I just think it’s a waste of time, and more importantly supports the growing public view that this council is out of touch with what the voters think is important. Read the room guys, you’re going to get us something worse next election.

[fotze2]

This beast has been parked around the block for a few days. I think it’s kinda cool so don’t care that it shouldn’t be parked there, but is the Grateful Dead touring?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The charter is very clear that voting is an important right for CITIZENS and is in fact the only right that is EXCLUSIVE to citizens. The authors of the charter thought citizenship wa a pretty freaking big deal relative to voting but somehow I’m hand waving and grasping at straws. Take it up with them.

And lol with the argument that it won’t pass so don’t worry about it. I’m not worried about it at all I just think it’s a waste of time, and more importantly supports the growing public view that this council is out of touch with what the voters think is important. Read the room guys, you’re going to get us something worse next election.

There’s two ways to read section 3. One, that the right to vote should be restricted to citizens, and two, that the right to vote should be protected for citizens. Making it clear that voting is an important right for CITIZENS doesn’t imply voting shouldn’t even be considered important to anyone else. And, as I pointed out, your arguments (specifically your dismissal of the importance of the right to vote and saying it won’t change elections) actually go against the purpose of the charter, so don’t pretend like you actually respect it or care about it.

Your arguments aren’t any better than the ones that were probably used against allowing women and indigenous people to vote. “This thing over here says they can’t and that means that they can’t do take it up with Chrétien!” like, come on man, have an actual opinion you formed on your own. Point to a document from 1982 and saying “this is it! this is the end!” is stupid. We should be using the charter to protect rights, not to limit them.

It’s just funny watching you go back and forth on this. Oh, it’s so so important! the charter! voting rights! IMPORTANT! But uhhh, also a waste of time and out of touch with what’s important. lol. Clown stuff.