Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Wouldn't an increase in taxes on heavy/commercial vehicles such as transport trucks and buses just create an even bigger financial issue for poor people though? The extra taxes just get added to the final cost of goods and onto transit costs so the people that struggle the most with affordability will struggle even more.

That’s a poor reason to not increase taxes.

If you are concerned about the poor having affordability issues give them money. Don’t not collect it from people making money and creating costs.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I think they should tax based on the amount of gas you use. The more weight the more gas mostly. Also incentivizes efficiency for transport vehicles. Probably easily implemented as you just tax the gas at the pump.

Doesn’t work because damage is exponential. A semi equals like 8000 cars where as a truck is something like 1.5 to 4 times a car. Then you need to factor in base cost of a road being damaged by just going through freeze thaw cycles and aging concrete.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by GGG

That’s a poor reason to not increase taxes.

If you are concerned about the poor having affordability issues give them money. Don’t not collect it from people making money and creating costs.

But then you run into inflation problems like we have seen recently following the Covid handouts and it just becomes an endless cycle of increasing taxes/increasing handouts.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

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

Generations? No. Some individuals? Absolutely, some older people that are experiencing cognitive decline from their peak will have greater mental capacity than some younger individuals.

Originally Posted by GGG

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

Not at all. I was responding to you making a point about cognitive decline in older individuals which made me think you were in favour of discriminating against individuals' right to vote based on their age. If I misunderstood your position, I apologize. Full disclosure: I wouldn't be able to vote in the next Alberta election if 65 years was the cut-off.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Generations? No. Some individuals? Absolutely, some older people that are experiencing cognitive decline from their peak will have greater mental capacity than some younger individuals.



Not at all. I was responding to you making a point about cognitive decline in older individuals which made me think you were in favour of discriminating against individuals' right to vote based on their age. If I misunderstood your position, I apologize. Full disclosure: I wouldn't be able to vote in the next Alberta election if 65 years was the cut-off.

I think we should be equally arbitrary at 18 as we are at some other age. 80 might be reasonable or require mental competency beyond 75. My question for you essentially is why are you okay against discriminating against children since you aren’t in favour of descriminating against old age both of which have demonstrable lack of capacity as one ages or one hasn’t aged.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

But then you run into inflation problems like we have seen recently following the Covid handouts and it just becomes an endless cycle of increasing taxes/increasing handouts.

So your argument isn’t really about making things more expensive for poor people then. Also if you tax these companies and rebate the portion of the tax that the increase in cost to the poor was you will be collecting more in tax than you were before which should be anti-inflationary.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think we should be equally arbitrary at 18 as we are at some other age. 80 might be reasonable or require mental competency beyond 75. My question for you essentially is why are you okay against discriminating against children since you aren’t in favour of descriminating against old age both of which have demonstrable lack of capacity as one ages or one hasn’t aged.

A mental competency test may make sense. I'm not aware of such a test that currently exists that would fit that use case. I don't think the IQ test, on its own, is considered the only valid test of intelligence.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by D as in David

Generations? No. Some individuals? Absolutely, some older people that are experiencing cognitive decline from their peak will have greater mental capacity than some younger individuals.

Are you in favor of lowering the voting age to 14? Plenty of teenagers who are at least as competent as some adults around.

And if we're considering individuals I'd put my 9 year old up against a significant portion of Alberta voters in terms of decision making competence.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Are you in favor of lowering the voting age to 14? Plenty of teenagers who are at least as competent as some adults around.

And if we're considering individuals I'd put my 9 year old up against a significant portion of Alberta voters in terms of decision making competence.

If they went with competency tests, that does make sense. Again, the testing is the difficult part. In addition to coming up with a politically agreed-upon test for intelligence and also one for emotional maturity/intelligence? Conservatives won't stand for a lowering of the age limit. Likely some centrists and leftists, as well.

[powderjunkie]

The voting system is obviously beyond reproach and founded on such perfectly righteous principles that it's absurd to discuss any changes. They have only ever had to make teeny-tiny tweaks like expanding eligibility to non-land owners, and then blacks, and then women.

[Yoho]

The good old left. We can’t win by fooling adults but we can bus minors in from class with strict instructions how to vote.

I’m betting you’d be a champion of the elderly vote and defending their rights if it was liberal.
Pathetic.

You lost the election fair and square look at changing your platform ,quit dreaming up ideas how to gin the vote up.

[Red Potato Standing By]

The good old right, making up scenarios that don’t exist to create outrage. No one is saying to bus in children with strict instructions to vote in anybody.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think we should be equally arbitrary at 18 as we are at some other age. 80 might be reasonable or require mental competency beyond 75. My question for you essentially is why are you okay against discriminating against children since you aren’t in favour of descriminating against old age both of which have demonstrable lack of capacity as one ages or one hasn’t aged.

The difference is children who are mentally competent and engaged with public policy have to wait maybe 2-3 years before they can vote. They also have parents who typically have a keen interest in championing their interests while they’re minors. So it’s a brief and temporary denial of a civic right.

If you cut off seniors at 75, they may be denied voting for another 15-20 years. That’s a very different ball of wax.

And if we really were serious about vetting voters for mental competency, why stop at age? Why not screen for depression, anxiety, and other mental illnesses? Should we be letting people with suicidal ideation or paranoia cast a ballot?

Seems a pretty ugly can of worms to open to address a non-problem. There are at least a half-dozen ways we could better improve democratic representation than messing with age limits and competency tests.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by D as in David

A mental competency test may make sense. I'm not aware of such a test that currently exists that would fit that use case. I don't think the IQ test, on its own, is considered the only valid test of intelligence.

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by D as in David

If they went with competency tests, that does make sense. Again, the testing is the difficult part. In addition to coming up with a politically agreed-upon test for intelligence and also one for emotional maturity/intelligence? Conservatives won't stand for a lowering of the age limit. Likely some centrists and leftists, as well.

Just add a skill testing math question to the ballot. Answer correctly and your vote will be counted while if you answer wrong your ballot is tossed.

[AltaGuy]

I'm heartily in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 or 14. Mostly because it seems like a terrific way to introduce civics into people's lives at an earlier age. Most people I know simply didn't vote between 18 and like 40.

On a larger level, I'm pretty concerned by the appeal of anti-democratic forms of government and the influence of authoritarians in western democracies. Civic engagement seems like the best way to combat that to me.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I'm heartily in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 or 14. Mostly because it seems like a terrific way to introduce civics into people's lives at an earlier age. Most people I know simply didn't vote between 18 and like 40.

On a larger level, I'm pretty concerned by the appeal of anti-democratic forms of government and the influence of authoritarians in western democracies. Civic engagement seems like the best way to combat that to me.

Is there any indication or evidence that suggests voting younger brings about higher engagement and builds stronger democracies? I didn't know this before but a minimum voting age of 18 didn't become the norm until the 1970's.

Austria introduced voting at 16 in 2007 and in their first election in 2008 they saw considerable interest and turnout in 16/17 year old voters but in subsequent elections those numbers dropped and it doesn't look like that initial younger voting period has carried over into higher turnout for the 18-30 group as those kids aged.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

There is absolutely no way the bolded would be politically approved in 2023.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

No matter what age you choose, it is arbitrary. I think it would be more important to improve the voting turnout of those already eligible, rather than lowering the age to make more people eligible.

On the upper end, I am not sure what would be disqualifying. Is there really a problem of incapacitated old-timers getting shipped in to vote for something the don't understand? I can't see that as a major problem, anymore than the "voter fraud" the right is constantly bitching about.

[edslunch]

People are generally considered adults and legally independent of their parents/guardians (this is an important point) at 18 for most purposes. They remain adults their entire life. Our democracy allows adults to vote. Seems reasonable to me. Any ability to restrict voting rights for adults should be based on existing laws for incapable persons - e.g. power of attorney, etc.

in short - it's not broken, don't fix it.