Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, unfortunately we call those ones "politicians".

that was actually a math test, if you are having trouble understanding those numbers, I think the rest of us know where you stand

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by #-3

that was actually a math test, if you are having trouble understanding those numbers, I think the rest of us know where you stand

I was told there would be no math. It's in the CP signup form

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I accept

All policies will be designed to make the weather hotter...probably.

[Doctorfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

People don't automatically gain maturity when they turn 18, either, so I doubt very much it's maturity that keeps it at 18. If you can join the army, get a job, drive a car, etc. you can vote. Agree?



My actual motivation is just to piss off at least one old person every time I bring it up. It's easy fishing.

My grandpa is a left-wing commie bastard. I can't have that man lose his ability to vote!

Yes. Agree.
That’s what I meant.

Leave the old people alone!!

Respect your elders - didn’t anyone teach you that??!!

[jammies]

You can't craft a system where all voters make rational, well-informed choices. You can, however, limit the influence of any one particular irrationality by making the system robust, resistant to corruption, and self-healing.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by #-3

And I should remind you in a world where 75% of people believe they are above average, 1/3 of them are wrong.

Without doing any research whatsoever into the matter, I really doubt that intelligence/competence is distributed in such a manner that the median and mean are the same.

It's got to be some sort of reverse log-normal where there is a big tail of people many standard deviations below the mean that pull down the mean a bunch, while making a smaller change to the median.

And if that's true, the majority of people could have above average (mean) intelligence...

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GGG

While they don’t automatically lose their minds at 65 cognitive decline starts well before that point. It seems like your post acknowledges that there should be an upper limit some how defined based on the maturity of a person to vote.

Just because they experience cognitive decline doesn't automatically mean that they'll have fewer cognitive capabilities than other, younger voters; just fewer than they previously had.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It would be nice if people could just admit that their actual motivations in these types of conversations aren't really principled, and are in fact aimed directly at restricting access to voting for people who, overall, don't vote for the parties or candidates they support, while expanding access to voting for people who do. It's basically just the GOP strategy down south.

Taking gerrymandering to a new, non-geographical level.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Brendone

Only saw a commercial, but there’s a game show out there where people’s kids get to pick the prize if the parents win the game. Someone’s kid picked a Pac-Man arcade game instead of $50k (or something along those lines). So no, kids don’t get to vote. Having said that, lots of “mature” adults also choose the mystery box if it’s sparkly.

Totally rational decision. That could wouldn't see a nickel of that $50k for a long time (if ever). His parents would probably spend it on something stupid like triple pane windows. Borrrrrrring.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Just because they experience cognitive decline doesn't automatically mean that they'll have fewer cognitive capabilities than other, younger voters; just fewer than they previously had.

So your position is that older generations are cognitively superior to younger generations?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

If there was to be a maximum voting age established, ex. 65, I would expect that age limit to also transfer over to public employment. If you can't trust people over a certain age to vote then you can't trust them to work in public positions either which means an age cutoff for politicians, Senators, Lawyers, Judges, Public Servants, etc.

Some of this stuff exists. For example in Ontario Doctors over 70 have to take competency reviews

[GGG]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Just because they experience cognitive decline doesn't automatically mean that they'll have fewer cognitive capabilities than other, younger voters; just fewer than they previously had.

From your post it sounds like you support a cognitive based threshold for voting then?

There are a few questions here

Should level of cognition a requirement for voting?
And if yes what should that level be
And if no what is the justification for children being excluded.

I note you aren’t making the argument that people should get to vote because they are people

[Yoho]

Makes sense to help combat the debt.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670905318417612803

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Makes sense to help combat the debt.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670905318417612803

While #######s in gas guzzlers pay nothing right now. Sounds perfect.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

While #######s in gas guzzlers pay nothing right now. Sounds perfect.

?? You know all Gasoline is taxed right . Even before carbon tax

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

?? You know all Gasoline is taxed right .

Not by Alberta.

[Ozy_Flame]

No tax on gasoline drivers, tax on EV vehicles, and the Premier believes she can use technology to meet carbon emissions reductions.

LOL this alternate dimension the UCP lives in is truly something out of a Marvel movie. One of the ####ty multiverse ones.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by #-3

that was actually a math test, if you are having trouble understanding those numbers, I think the rest of us know where you stand

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Without doing any research whatsoever into the matter, I really doubt that intelligence/competence is distributed in such a manner that the median and mean are the same.

It's got to be some sort of reverse log-normal where there is a big tail of people many standard deviations below the mean that pull down the mean a bunch, while making a smaller change to the median.

And if that's true, the majority of people could have above average (mean) intelligence...

It's actually a well documented effect.

Wiki article because it's easier to source, if you're going to ask for better references scroll to the links at the bottom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Makes sense to help combat the debt.

Canadian provinces looking to tax EV owners to make up lost fuel tax revenue.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670905318417612803

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

While #######s in gas guzzlers pay nothing right now. Sounds perfect.

I mean, it is fair that EV's should pay their fair share in road tax for the roads they drive on - they've been getting a free ride up until now. And this scenario is playing out in various US states and Europe as well, as governments are realizing that road tax revenue from gasoline taxes is drying up.

The fact that the AB government is at the same time suspending the road tax portion in gasoline prices to make things "more affordable" for Albertans is a bit disingenuous.

[Fuzz]

A bit? It's cynical as ####.