MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Cappy

What about 16 year olds? 14 year olds? 10 year olds?

What about people incarcerated?

Calgary requires people be resident for 6 months to be eligible to vote in municipal elections.

there are (or have been) several caveats to the idea of democratic eligibility, and some of these are arguments have nothing to do with tipping the scales one way or another.

Look man, things have been done this way since time immemorial, and as a Conservative I can't possibly conceived something could be changed, and any discussion around it must be an attempt to suppress my team and take something away from me.

[Slava]

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?

Well there is somewhere we draw the line, right? Like you can't just have everyone over 18 (or 16 or whatever age0 who happens to be in Canada that day have a vote because that's obviously stupid. So we set the bar at citizenship, which by the way is not incredibly onerous. The path from PR to citizenship is well known and well used. If people are deciding that they don't want the citizenship and want to stick with the PR status, that's their decision and involves some tradeoffs. One of which is your vote.

[BlackArcher101]

Imo, any country that takes part of your income should also give you the ability to vote in how it's used.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Imo, any country that takes part of your income should also give you the ability to vote in how it's used.

No taxation without representation?

Sounds revolutionary to me.

[timun]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

Imo, any country that takes part of your income should also give you the ability to vote in how it's used.

So do unemployed people get disenfranchised, or...?

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by timun

So do unemployed people get disenfranchised, or...?

More pay, more say

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well there is somewhere we draw the line, right? Like you can't just have everyone over 18 (or 16 or whatever age0 who happens to be in Canada that day have a vote because that's obviously stupid. So we set the bar at citizenship, which by the way is not incredibly onerous. The path from PR to citizenship is well known and well used. If people are deciding that they don't want the citizenship and want to stick with the PR status, that's their decision and involves some tradeoffs. One of which is your vote.

100% agree. There's a well defined, non-onerous path to becoming a citizen should one choose. What problem is YYC Council trying to solve by allowing PR non-citizens to vote?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

100% agree. There's a well defined, non-onerous path to becoming a citizen should one choose. What problem is YYC Council trying to solve by allowing PR non-citizens to vote?

I tend to agree with there being no pressing need to change the current voter eligibility criteria. However if the question is how do you best create a representative democracy then I think residency is more important than citizenship at the municipal and provincial level for sure and probably at the federal level as well.

The goal of a representative democracy is to provide services and taxation in areas where the goals of capitalism don’t align with the goals of a community.

So democracy is a selection of people who align with the goals of a community and an evaluation of people’s performance on accomplishing those goals.

So municipal governance is really about the day to day services you receive and interact with aside from health and education. So to set the level of these services it really seems that being a resident is more important. You are the direct user of these services. Some may talk about long term visions of cities but since we don’t have future residency requirements for any voters I’m not sure why you’d want to differentiate between citizen and non-citizen.

So I’d use a municipal test as 51% of the year preceding the election is required to vote. As Slava states you can’t just use who happens to be in Canada that day. But that’s exactly what we do for citizens in municipal elections. If you are a resident of Calgary on election day (and a citizen of Canada) you can vote. Same for federal riding boundaries and provincial residency for provincial elections.

I think the general principle of anyone who has made an intention to live somewhere for a period of time that will be impacted by the decisions of the government they are living under probably should get to vote.

We give permanent residents OAS after 10 years, they get health care and education benefits, they can pay into CPP. The main difference between it and citizenship are residency requirements to get citizenship.

So I think in general a residency focused system rather than a citizenship focused system would result in a more representative democracy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well there is somewhere we draw the line, right? Like you can't just have everyone over 18 (or 16 or whatever age0 who happens to be in Canada that day have a vote because that's obviously stupid. So we set the bar at citizenship, which by the way is not incredibly onerous. The path from PR to citizenship is well known and well used. If people are deciding that they don't want the citizenship and want to stick with the PR status, that's their decision and involves some tradeoffs. One of which is your vote.

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!”

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

100% agree. There's a well defined, non-onerous path to becoming a citizen should one choose. What problem is YYC Council trying to solve by allowing PR non-citizens to vote?

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.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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 should be noted because you've used New Zealand as an example of a healthy democracy and also singled out the US as not allowing prisoners to vote that New Zealand also doesn't allow prisoners to vote and they also exclude people who have been convicted of corrupt practice.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It should be noted because you've used New Zealand as an example of a healthy democracy and also singled out the US as not allowing prisoners to vote that New Zealand also doesn't allow prisoners to vote and they also exclude people who have been convicted of corrupt practice.

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.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

It should be noted because you've used New Zealand as an example of a healthy democracy and also singled out the US as not allowing prisoners to vote that New Zealand also doesn't allow prisoners to vote and they also exclude people who have been convicted of corrupt practice.

I think you missed the point, which was “why is citizenship the bar” when in many places, from the US where just being a citizen isn’t enough to New Zealand and the EU where you don’t have to be a citizen at all, it isn’t. Worth noting, since we’re noting things we should note, that some states in the US do allow some non-citizens to vote in some elections.

Nobody seems to be able to formulate an answer, other than some variation of “because mom said so.”

It’s not like I decided New Zealand was an example of a healthier democracy, I cited the democracy index. How can they be a healthier democracy than Canada or the US if they let non-citizens vote, something supposedly just political gamesmanship and an antithesis to the “bellwether” of democracy?

But hey. Gotta stop those immigrants who pay taxes from helping decide their councillor.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you missed the point, which was “why is citizenship the bar” when in many places, from the US where just being a citizen isn’t enough to New Zealand and the EU where you don’t have to be a citizen at all, it isn’t. Worth noting, since we’re noting things we should note, that some states in the US do allow some non-citizens to vote in some elections.

Nobody seems to be able to formulate an answer, other than some variation of “because mom said so.”

It’s not like I decided New Zealand was an example of a healthier democracy, I cited the democracy index. How can they be a healthier democracy than Canada or the US if they let non-citizens vote, something supposedly just political gamesmanship and an antithesis to the “bellwether” of democracy?

But hey. Gotta stop those immigrants who pay taxes from helping decide their councillor.

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.

[iggy_oi]

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.

A lot of citizens don’t show much of a commitment to Canadian values or contributing to an inclusive society.

[PepsiFree]

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.

Have them sign a declaration stating as much when they enrol to vote. Pretty simple.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

A lot of citizens don’t show much of a commitment to Canadian values or contributing to an inclusive society.

Hell, a lot of politicians don’t.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think you missed the point, which was “why is citizenship the bar” when in many places, from the US where just being a citizen isn’t enough to New Zealand and the EU where you don’t have to be a citizen at all, it isn’t. Worth noting, since we’re noting things we should note, that some states in the US do allow some non-citizens to vote in some elections.

Nobody seems to be able to formulate an answer, other than some variation of “because mom said so.”

It’s not like I decided New Zealand was an example of a healthier democracy, I cited the democracy index. How can they be a healthier democracy than Canada or the US if they let non-citizens vote, something supposedly just political gamesmanship and an antithesis to the “bellwether” of democracy?

But hey. Gotta stop those immigrants who pay taxes from helping decide their councillor.

You seem to be caught up on the democracy index and New Zealand being high and somehow attributing that solely or largely on non citizen voting. There are apparently 60 metrics driving that index of which suffrage is a small part. Despite non citizen voting rights being established in 1975 the voter turnout has steadily dropped in New Zealand. It has gone from the high 80% - low 90% range up until the late 80s down to high 70% - low 80% now.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

You seem to be caught up on the democracy index and New Zealand being high and somehow attributing that solely or largely on non citizen voting. There are apparently 60 metrics driving that index of which suffrage is a small part. Despite non citizen voting rights being established in 1975 the voter turnout has steadily dropped in New Zealand. It has gone from the high 80% - low 90% range up until the late 80s down to high 70% - low 80% now.

I’m not attributing solely or largely to non-citizen voting. I’ll ask again: how is New Zealand a healthier democracy when they do not adhere to what some here are trying to position as a “bellwether” for democracy, full stop?

If we believe the above, and believe even just DISCUSSING alternatives (like the alternative New Zealand has) are undemocratic attempts to put a “thumb on the scale,” how are they better?

Canada’s voter turnout is in the 60% range, FYI.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Well, if the trade-off for getting to vote is tax obligations, then why shouldn’t permanent residents be able to vote?

Keeping in mind, as I already pointed out, they are in fact able to vote in countries that have healthier democracies than those in Canada or the US.

If it doesn’t seem crazy to you that’s fine, but that just means you aren’t really engaging with the question. Which is also fine, but I’ll happy push back on anyone who says the question shouldn’t even be asked.

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.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m not attributing solely or largely to non-citizen voting. I’ll ask again: how is New Zealand a healthier democracy when they do not adhere to what some here are trying to position as a “bellwether” for democracy, full stop?

If we believe the above, and believe even just DISCUSSING alternatives (like the alternative New Zealand has) are undemocratic attempts to put a “thumb on the scale,” how are they better?

Canada’s voter turnout is in the 60% range, FYI.

So, how much healthier can Canada become if we loosened voting requirements? Are there other elements holding us back which likely aren't addressed by citizenship?