Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
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.