MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The trade off to vote is not tax obligations. Tax obligations are the trade off to earn money here. Citizenship is the trade off to vote. Full stop.

Yes, that's how it is in Canada now. The debate is why, and does it need to be that way, and what benefits and drawbacks exist. The wiki page on this has lots of info and how other countries do it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage


I think it's ok to discuss these things before cementing an opinion and being entirely inflexible. Full stop.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Exactly, this mysterious “good reason” that you won’t explain is not good enough everywhere else, so why is it good enough here?

What benefit is there? I don’t know, it’s democratic, for one. It’s giving people who live here and pay taxes here say in what life here is like, which directly affects them. It engages more people to participate in our democracy.

What benefit is there to letting women vote? or people of different races? or poor people? These are people who couldn’t always vote. Today, depending where you go, some non-citizens can vote and some can’t, some places (in the US) don’t let prisoners vote even if they’re citizens. If non-citizens in the EU can vote, then why is “citizenship” the bar?

It’s up to each country to decide, and there’s nothing wrong with Canada’s position, regardless what other countries do. Voters have a say in the future of the country and should be committed to the country long term IMO. Someone who is here temporarily voting for their immediate interests isn’t necessarily looking out for the future of the country. (Not that that doesn’t describe many Canadian voters too)

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Yes, that's how it is in Canada now. The debate is why, and does it need to be that way, and what benefits and drawbacks exist. The wiki page on this has lots of info and how other countries do it.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage


I think it's ok to discuss these things before cementing an opinion and being entirely inflexible. Full stop.

My full stop referred to how it is defined today, vs the suggestion that it is defined as taxation. Debate is fine. Several have said the draw the line at citizenship, not just because it’s the current reason, but as a demonstration of commitment to the country. It’s a valid argument, but Pepsi keeps pushing for more, like that there are specific groups we’re trying to exclude for malicious reasons. There are not.

The main counter argument is no taxation without representation. That’s a fine position too. I don’t agree. Where does the debate go from here?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by edslunch

It’s up to each country to decide, and there’s nothing wrong with Canada’s position, regardless what other countries do. Voters have a say in the future of the country and should be committed to the country long term IMO. Someone who is here temporarily voting for their immediate interests isn’t necessarily looking out for the future of the country. (Not that that doesn’t describe many Canadian voters too)

OK, well people very clearly believe there might be something wrong with that position, and that we should be open to discussing it.

I don’t know if you missed how this started, but this was the comment: “seriously how does a motion pass 9-6 at YYC council to explore granting voting rights in municipal elections to permanent residents who are non-citizens? Seriously how was this not laughed out let alone have the support of the mayor and 8 councillors.”

If “drawing the line at citizenship as a demonstration of commitment to the country” is a valid argument against even exploring the idea of granting voting rights in municipal elections to permanent residents who are non-residents, explain why. I’ve brought up valid counter arguments to that, including democratic countries and state that do not draw the line there (specifically for municipal elections, but also for federal elections), so you actually have to put in more effort than “there’s nothing wrong with the way we’re doing it” as opposition to considering doing it any other way.

Do you believe cities, provinces, or countries should be open to exploring the way other democracies do things as a means of improving their own, or do you actually believe that any discussion like that should be laughed out of the room because there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with the way we do things, ever?

And, if citizenship really is where we draw the line, why is it OK to restrict some citizens from voting in some elections in this country (from municipal to federal)? (or is it?)

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ah, so a made up scenario nobody proposed is stupid, cool, but you still can’t actually formulate a reason why the scenario is how it is and why we shouldn’t at least think about how it could be better.

“There is somewhere we draw the line.” Yes, Slava, the conversation is about where we draw the line, welcome to it. Perhaps you can move off that point and onto “should the line be drawn there,” to which you don’t seem to have given any thought at all outside of “well it’s already drawn there and the process seems fine to me!”



What problem are you trying to solve by denying the right to vote to all people who live and pay taxes here? And make sure you say what you mean and don’t imply.

Haha, you're so entertaining. I do happen to think that citizenship is a good place to draw the line. You're the guy who wants to change it, so provide your reasoning. Explain the issue, and why this is a good solution.

[topfiverecords]

Surely intensely debating about municipal voting rights with anyone in his path is exactly what PepsiFree had planned for today when he woke up this morning.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Surely intensely debating about municipal voting rights with anyone in his path is exactly what PepsiFree had planned for today when he woke up this morning.

You said the secret word for the day!

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Haha, you're so entertaining. I do happen to think that citizenship is a good place to draw the line. You're the guy who wants to change it, so provide your reasoning. Explain the issue, and why this is a good solution.

I know you think that, you’ve said it like seven times without being able to or just refusing to explain why you think it’s a good place to draw the line. Remember, the conversation started because an emigrant to the US decided Calgary city council (that’s in Canada) even exploring the idea that people who actually live here could vote here should have been laughed out of the room, despite the idea working in other healthy democracies across the world.

The issue is that permanent residents are effectively second class citizens. Politicians on every level can make decisions that directly affect them and they have no say in those decisions. We’re not talking about people who just “happened to be in Calgary on the day,” we’re talking about permanent residents who actually live here, your neighbours, who pay taxes like you do, contribute to the economy like you do, and are impacted by the same policies you’re impacted by.

Suggesting that you should get a say and they shouldn’t just because you were born here or because you already waited however long and jumped through all the hoops and paid your hundreds of dollars and they haven’t yet, is the way it is (thanks for pointing that out so many times) but that says nothing about whether that’s the way it should be.

The benefits, broadly speaking, are that it’s more liberal and democratic to allow all those who are directly impacted by the policies of the government in the place that they live to have a say in the formation of that government. You’re a liberal, right? So this shouldn’t need a ton of explaining. On a more detailed and specific level, by allowing permanent residents to vote, we encourage them to engage with and participate in our values and way of living. It’s inclusive, something we’re apparently all committed to because we’re citizens (well, some of us, right?). It allows people like I described above (again, not the people who you made up), to have a say in their government. Residency is a more important measure of who should/shouldn’t have voting power than citizenship. Citizenship is an idea, it’s a piece of paper. Residency, on the other hand, is more tangible.

The arguments against it are just fluff.

“Citizenship is the bar”/“Citizenship is the bellwether for democracy”
- Here, but not everywhere, which should signal some thought around whether it’s a good bar at all, you know, “explore” the issue. Plenty of democracies where it isn’t the bellwether, so maybe we’re wrong. Citizens also can’t voted in other cities, or provinces, etc, so… maybe that’s not the real bar?

“You have tax obligations which is why you get a vote.”
- Permanent residents have tax obligations and don’t get a vote. One point for permanent residents.

“People who are here temporarily aren’t as committed”
- Yet someone can move from Ontario to Calgary and vote here within a short period of time. Plus the numerous examples of expats voting from abroad.

“Citizenship requires a commitment to Canadian values and inclusion”
- And yet no naturally born Canadian has to make that commitment and can champion exclusionary policies (like this one!) without losing citizenship or their right to vote

Even forgetting the Canada-wide slant here. There are places where there are exceptions for more local elections like municipalities. Given the benefits above, can you provide a reason beyond “I think it good” why a permanent resident should have to be a Canadian citizen before they can vote for their city councillor? Keeping in mind municipalities have extremely localized and limited scope to their power (it doesn’t extended provincially or federally), and yet can at times directly impact the people who actually live in the city the most out of every level of government?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by topfiverecords

Surely intensely debating about municipal voting rights with anyone in his path is exactly what PepsiFree had planned for today when he woke up this morning.

Slow day at the office. I’m having fun learning more about this topic as I go, but it’d be nice if I could pull more than the dregs of the board who don’t even read stuff into these conversations. I miss Corsi and Peter.

[Wormius]

You know this is going to conclude with an admission that he doesn’t even really care that much anyway and that is the end of this.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Really?? At minimum to participate in democracy in Canada you should at least be a citizen. It shows the most basic long term commitment to the country. I wouldn't want an influx of transient residents who aren't committed to being in Canada long term have a say and potentially sway any decision making at the government level. I don't understand where this comes from at the civic level (Ie what is the problem they are trying to solve with this).

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

It’s a little different. You can’t vote *while* you are in prison in NZ, in the US you can’t vote even after you get out.

But you can be a convicted criminal and run for president. Tell me how this makes sense.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

But you can be a convicted criminal and run for president. Tell me how this makes sense.

Should you be labeled for life for one thing you did illegally? In Canada we have a "correctional system" of justice, who's mandate is:

to contribute to public safety by actively encouraging and assisting offenders to become law-abiding citizens, while exercising reasonable, safe, secure and humane control.

https://www.canada.ca/en/correctiona...te.html#mandat

So if they are rehabilitated into a law abiding citizen, and the expectation is they are no longer a criminal, why should they be restricted?

I'd suggest better restrictions should be in place for those who want to run for government but do not want to be part of Canada. If you can't be loyal to the country, why should you be able to run?

[MoneyGuy]

I agree with you but my point is a convicted felon can be president but not vote for himself.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

2024. What a time to be alive. Called racist for insisting that only actual citizens should be able to vote in elections.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Slow day at the office. I’m having fun learning more about this topic as I go, but it’d be nice if I could pull more than the dregs of the board who don’t even read stuff into these conversations. I miss Corsi and Peter.

Originally Posted by Wormius

You know this is going to conclude with an admission that he doesn’t even really care that much anyway and that is the end of this.

It’s comment like these that just make me wonder why even engage on here though. You used to be able to have reasonable discussions here, and now it just devolves into these lame comments implying that people don’t read or are somehow arguing in bad faith.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s comment like these that just make me wonder why even engage on here though. You used to be able to have reasonable discussions here, and now it just devolves into these lame comments implying that people don’t read or are somehow arguing in bad faith.

Don’t be so hard on yourself. If you hadn’t engaged then there would’ve only been 2, maybe 3 people whose entire argument was explaining that citizenship is a requirement to vote in a conversation around whether citizenship should be a requirement to vote or if council should even explore the idea at all!

We need you, man. We love you. I love you.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

Maybe the reason for using citizenship as the bar has to do with the steps one has to take to become a citizen e.g. a commitment to Canadian values, legal requirements, and the shared responsibility of contributing to a vibrant inclusive society.

Or the most significant reason for citizenship - being born here.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Slava

It’s comment like these that just make me wonder why even engage on here though. You used to be able to have reasonable discussions here, and now it just devolves into these lame comments implying that people don’t read or are somehow arguing in bad faith.

Surely you know that now there are only about half a dozen, maybe a dozen with a few borderline contributors, members here who establish the correct view on every subject and are somehow experts on a vast breadth of topics. You're either with them or you are against them are a drug or whatever disparaging group they want to lump you into.

[calgarywinning]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Surely you know that now there are only about half a dozen, maybe a dozen with a few borderline contributors, members here who establish the correct view on every subject and are somehow experts on a vast breadth of topics. You're either with them or you are against them are a drug or whatever disparaging group they want to lump you into.

On this note; how does CP compare to a Reddit or local Facebook groups?

While choosing not to engage the above mentioned, this forum has been a wonderful place to meet people, hire people, sell things and tickets. It also has the ability to uplift or some really cool conversations you just can't get anywhere else. Such as the Parents with Alzheimers/Dementia.

Perhaps the focus of CP needs to be in attracting new users and old users that are new users?