Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I think we should just move to a system where I'm the only person who gets to vote in all the elections. It's the only way we can be sure to get the correct result every time.

Why not skip the middle man and just appoint you dictator-for-life?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Why not skip the middle man and just appoint you dictator-for-life?

I accept

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Why not skip the middle man and just appoint you dictator-for-life?

One is work for life, the other is work for 5 minutes every 4 years, while someone else does what you want. And takes the blame, should an uprising occur.

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670861594283081728

[Fuzz]

"Great News Alberta! We are continuing to build up our deficit so we can justify cuts to services in the future!"

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

Had a weird random thought. Someone has posted on here, kinda in jest, that older people should not have as much voting power as younger people.

Maybe we should go down that road, and maybe what should happen is your vote doesn’t count for a much unless you have children. If you don’t have kids, all you are looking out for is yourself, if you have kids, you might vote to look out for future generations.

More of a random thought, and I’m not really serious. More kids, more voting power!!

Wow, that could be a disaster. Hahaha

Do voting power based on a point system?

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Cappy

In my experience, my family had a far greater influence on my political leanings at a young age.

Sure, ones family will always have a big influence throughout life, but I think in general peers and teachers hold quite a lot of influence in those early voting years (ie late teens and throughout your 20s) compared to your parents who have more influence earlier on. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (I think college should be a place where you're inspired by passionate teachers, and have some of your pre-conceived beliefs challenged), I'm just saying that if were playing the game of "prevent the youth from being politically influenced", then we need to consider schools too, because there's a lot of that happening on campus. And I say that as someone who taught at a college for few years and saw plenty of it.

But as I said, I'm against the notion of trying to shield grown adults from political influence...because that's just not realistic nor beneficial for having adults who can think critically for themselves.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

The age at one end is set because people aren’t deemed mature enough to vote. People don’t automatically lose their minds when they turn 65.

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?

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.

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!

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1670861594283081728

Isn't it pretty well established that the price at the pump was just bumped up to compensate for the 13 cent difference?

[PepsiFree]

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.

Maybe everyone gets a choice at the polling station. Would you like to vote, or take a chance on what’s in the mystery box? Could strip out dumb dumbs of any age.

That's a great idea, actually. What's in the mystery box? Wait, you can't tell me. But it could be anything.

How exciting.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's a great idea, actually. What's in the mystery box? Wait, you can't tell me. But it could be anything.

How exciting.

Carrot it's a Carrot...........

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Why not skip the middle man and just appoint you dictator-for-life?

That sounds like more effort than I'm interested in putting into this operation.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

That's a great idea, actually. What's in the mystery box? Wait, you can't tell me. But it could be anything.

How exciting.

Could really have an impact in the States if you hinted the mystery box may contain an AR-15. Even if it only has a $1 scratcher in it they’d probably leave happy.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Isn't it pretty well established that the price at the pump was just bumped up to compensate for the 13 cent difference?

No in fact there is no evidence to support that brought up by anyone.

Toombes was tracking it earlier and whatever stickiness at the time people were all up in arms about pricing was also occurring in the eastern BC cities. Somewhere is this thread and the gas thread would be some charts.

Hopefully Toombes or someone with this extension will summarize the current state of this. Essentially you just need to plot all the Canadian major cities against the governments tax policies to see if it worked or not.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Doctorfever

The age at one end is set because people aren’t deemed mature enough to vote. People don’t automatically lose their minds when they turn 65.

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.

[MoneyGuy]

Stripping the right to vote for seniors? Worst idea ever. /hyperbole to make a point

[bizaro86]

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.

Yeah, I mean there are some 16 year olds who would be way more informed than the average voter, and some 19 year olds who lack the maturity to order pizza successfully, but we take an average/best guess and go with it.

I think 65 is probably too young I could see saying voting ends at 85-90 or something. Realistically the average person isn't taking in new information for the purpose of critically making informed decisions by then.

[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.

[#-3]

I think in a perfect world it would be fair to have some level of mandatory engagement prior to voting. Need to attend a debate, or ready a policy statement for all candidates.

It would be in the hopes that some moderates would actually see how stupid some of the ideas are, or see that a 2% percentage point increase on corporate taxes over $500,000 is not a 37% increase on taxes for everyone. But the problem is in reality it would just widen the gap between motivated and unmotivated voters, and motivated votes somehow seem to be the ones supporting the worst ideas.

So I think in reality making it a low friction to vote as possible is the best idea. All you need to do is sign and attestation that you're allowed to vote, great. Lower it to 16, great. Extended voting period even better...

Looking at and IQ test is a tempting idea to like, but it leads down a bad road fast. And I should remind you in a world where 75% of people believe they are above average, 1/3 of them are wrong.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by #-3

I think in a perfect world it would be fair to have some level of mandatory engagement prior to voting. Need to attend a debate, or ready a policy statement for all candidates.

It would be in the hopes that some moderates would actually see how stupid some of the ideas are, or see that a 2% percentage point increase on corporate taxes over $500,000 is not a 37% increase on taxes for everyone. But the problem is in reality it would just widen the gap between motivated and unmotivated voters, and motivated votes somehow seem to be the ones supporting the worst ideas.

So I think in reality making it a low friction to vote as possible is the best idea. All you need to do is sign and attestation that you're allowed to vote, great. Lower it to 16, great. Extended voting period even better...

Looking at and IQ test is a tempting idea to like, but it leads down a bad road fast. And I should remind you in a world where 75% of people believe they are above average, 1/3 of them are wrong.

Yes, unfortunately we call those ones "politicians".