Lots of good words about democracy but adding a few more voters isn’t going to save it.
Here’s where I’m coming from. I’ve already stated that there is no specific logic that proves allowing only citizens to vote is better than the alternative. It is a specific boundary chosen by those who define our citizenship and is enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Further the Department of Justice further adds this in their analysis of charter rights relating to the democratic process:
Municipal voting rules are controlled by the provincial government and they can relax this requirement if they choose. The fact that it is enshrined as a unique right in the charter speaks to its importance as a principle. I don’t see a good argument for watering down that principle to let a PR vote a few years early or vote while delaying citizenship indefinitely.
Further it does nothing to help the city and is a waste of time and energy IMO. What happens if it passes? X% more people vote. If it doesn’t, X% more people continue to not vote.
Does this potential watering down concern you more or less than existing disparities of vote impact? How do you feel about someone in Falconridge having 1/52688ths of a say in determining their MLA while someone in Falher AB has nearly twice as much power with only 28992 other people living in their riding? Make sure you're sitting down when you compare a PEI voter to a first-class citizen living in Brantford. (just using prov/fed data because it's much easier to find; Calgary wards are a lot closer to equal, but some voters are more watered down than others).
Which actually raises an interesting question about this at the prov/federal level - we know there is a general disparity of # of electors in rural vs urban districts, but it is amplified even further when we look at total population. How do you feel about urban voters being so watered down now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
Lol, glad to see you pop up with support for the UCP actions these days!
I'm fine with deficit spending for capital projects, just not operations. I still can't even believe people debate this. That said, I have zero interest in debating this for what has to be the millionth time.
You had a lot more than zero interest and brought it up frequently when the NDP were in power. Must just be a weird coincidence that you got tired of talking about it halfway through 2019.
^no, I just don’t want to have the same debate over and over again. Why would we bother?
But like I told you before, I’m just glad that you’ve come to my side now because it’s the UCP that is doing it.
Nah, I can assess each situation based on the circumstances. And I don't particularly care about running a deficit or not as long as the plan makes sense and is not evil.
There’s two ways to read section 3. One, that the right to vote should be restricted to citizens, and two, that the right to vote should be protected for citizens. Making it clear that voting is an important right for CITIZENS doesn’t imply voting shouldn’t even be considered important to anyone else. And, as I pointed out, your arguments (specifically your dismissal of the importance of the right to vote and saying it won’t change elections) actually go against the purpose of the charter, so don’t pretend like you actually respect it or care about it.
Your arguments aren’t any better than the ones that were probably used against allowing women and indigenous people to vote. “This thing over here says they can’t and that means that they can’t do take it up with Chrétien!” like, come on man, have an actual opinion you formed on your own. Point to a document from 1982 and saying “this is it! this is the end!” is stupid. We should be using the charter to protect rights, not to limit them.
It’s just funny watching you go back and forth on this. Oh, it’s so so important! the charter! voting rights! IMPORTANT! But uhhh, also a waste of time and out of touch with what’s important. lol. Clown stuff.
So you’re in favour of everyone voting? Who should and shouldn’t vote and why? Show your work.
So you’re in favour of everyone voting? Who should and shouldn’t vote and why? Show your work.
Nah dude, I’ve shown my work and made my position clear. You put some effort in beyond “but it says so!!” and I’ll entertain you further. If that’s all you can come up with then I’m not sure what I’m going to get out of any more effort as I’m getting nothing worthwhile in return.
There’s two ways to read section 3. One, that the right to vote should be restricted to citizens, and two, that the right to vote should be protected for citizens. Making it clear that voting is an important right for CITIZENS doesn’t imply voting shouldn’t even be considered important to anyone else.
Nah dude, I’ve shown my work and made my position clear. You put some effort in beyond “but it says so!!” and I’ll entertain you further. If that’s all you can come up with then I’m not sure what I’m going to get out of any more effort as I’m getting nothing worthwhile in return.
Imagine our local SJW dissing the charter as a reference….
Does this potential watering down concern you more or less than existing disparities of vote impact? How do you feel about someone in Falconridge having 1/52688ths of a say in determining their MLA while someone in Falher AB has nearly twice as much power with only 28992 other people living in their riding? Make sure you're sitting down when you compare a PEI voter to a first-class citizen living in Brantford. (just using prov/fed data because it's much easier to find; Calgary wards are a lot closer to equal, but some voters are more watered down than others).
Which actually raises an interesting question about this at the prov/federal level - we know there is a general disparity of # of electors in rural vs urban districts, but it is amplified even further when we look at total population. How do you feel about urban voters being so watered down now?
You had a lot more than zero interest and brought it up frequently when the NDP were in power. Must just be a weird coincidence that you got tired of talking about it halfway through 2019.
I would prefer that every vote has the same weight. I’m in favour of some form of proportional representation. What does that have to do with non-citizens voting?
Again, it says it IS reserved to citizens, not that it should be reserved to only citizens. It’s an explanation, not a prescription. That’s also where it says “Participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of its impact upon the actual outcome of elections … Denial of the right to vote affects one’s dignity and sense of self-worth” both of which you disagreed with/mocked, so it’s cool you can trash one part of the doc while holding up the others for your poorly interpreted gospel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
Imagine our local SJW dissing the charter as a reference….
Who is dissing the charter? You just don’t seem to understand what it is and why it’s important. You think its purpose is to gatekeep rights because you believe yours can be watered down and diluted, but it’s actually to protect rights. Here’s an explanation:
Quote:
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) protects basic rights and freedoms that are essential to keeping Canada a free and democratic society. It is a powerful force for progress, protection, and fairness with the power to influence our society by interpreting laws and policies.
40 years before the Charter, indigenous people couldn’t vote. 40 years after, it’s fair ask if things have changed and we can do even better than what the charter set out. It’s called progress and fairness, something mentioned above. If that makes me an SJW “dissing the charter”, I guess your position makes you a bigot who hates the idea of immigrants having rights. Fair? Or can you form an opinion like a big boy?
Neither of us is proposing we roll back charter rights. But one of us is absolutely proposing we limit the charter’s scope. Who might that be?
Again, it says it IS reserved to citizens, not that it should be reserved to only citizens. It’s an explanation, not a prescription. That’s also where it says “Participation in the electoral process has an intrinsic value independent of its impact upon the actual outcome of elections … Denial of the right to vote affects one’s dignity and sense of self-worth” both of which you disagreed with/mocked, so it’s cool you can trash one part of the doc while holding up the others for your poorly interpreted gospel.
Who is dissing the charter? You just don’t seem to understand what it is and why it’s important. You think its purpose is to gatekeep rights because you believe yours can be watered down and diluted, but it’s actually to protect rights. Here’s an explanation:
40 years before the Charter, indigenous people couldn’t vote. 40 years after, it’s fair ask if things have changed and we can do even better than what the charter set out. It’s called progress and fairness, something mentioned above. If that makes me an SJW “dissing the charter”, I guess your position makes you a bigot who hates the idea of immigrants having rights. Fair? Or can you form an opinion like a big boy?
Neither of us is proposing we roll back charter rights. But one of us is absolutely proposing we limit the charter’s scope. Who might that be?
If I reserve a table does that mean it’s not only reserved for me? If your reading is correct, that ‘reserved for citizens’ means not only citizens, then it’s just like all the other rights. Why call that one out specifically??
Meanwhile you’re dodging providing a clear definition of who voting rights ought to apply to in your mind.
If you want a debate, state your position clearly and succinctly.
If I reserve a table does that mean it’s not only reserved for me? If your reading is correct, that ‘reserved for citizens’ means not only citizens, then it’s just like all the other rights. Why call that one out specifically??
Meanwhile you’re dodging providing a clear definition of who voting rights ought to apply to in your mind.
If you want a debate, state your position clearly and succinctly.
If you reserve a table, it’s reserved for you. That doesn’t mean you’re the only one who can ever sit at that table again. You get that, right? You don’t think you still have that table at the Keg you reserved 5 years ago just waiting for you?
And listen, you don’t even understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive. You’ve indicated some things as gospel based on your interpretation of the same doc that includes statements you’ve dismissed as a waste of time and energy. You came into this conversation without even knowing what it was actually about. You’ve also preceded to ignore 90% of what’s being said, offering no actual rebuttals, just repeating yourself on things that I’ve already provided counter arguments to. I’ve stated my position, multiple times, and you’re more likely going to find a poster that would make fun of me for going on and on about this than you will find anyone who thinks I haven’t actually done so.
So, instead, you tell me why I should want to continue to debate you specifically on this and why you aren’t a waste of my time at this point. Because I love a good debate, but you’re giving nothing here, so prove why I’m wrong.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
I haven’t checked, but what is the residency requirements for voting in municipal election? I presume now it’s citizenship plus something like fixed address in Calgary or something, but no requirement to have been here for months or years beforehand.
I haven’t checked, but what is the residency requirements for voting in municipal election? I presume now it’s citizenship plus something like fixed address in Calgary or something, but no requirement to have been here for months or years beforehand.
Citizen, 18, resident on election day (of the city, ward, etc).
No requirement to have lived here for more than a day, no requirement to stay.
I haven’t checked, but what is the residency requirements for voting in municipal election? I presume now it’s citizenship plus something like fixed address in Calgary or something, but no requirement to have been here for months or years beforehand.
It’s exactly as Slava says you can’t do. Just have anyone who lives here on the day of the election vote.
What if the renter's are paying condo fees, been there for a long time, and positively contribute to the wellbeing of the condo? What if some owners are far more irresponsible than renters?
What if the renters are canadian citizens but the landlord/owner is a Permanent Resident?
Who should get to vote in that situation?
__________________
"Teach a man to reason, and he'll think for a lifetime"
