h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Quick post 'cos I need to get up tomorrow morning (so apologies if abrupt)...

Effers: that was fine up until to the point where your argument switched from logical steps to "It makes no sense to me that...". That's just the same assertion as before in different language. While we're at it, why does it go "without saying of course that once that debt to society has been paid they are entitled once again to vote" - how does that follow?

SWL: so if I donate 1p to the government or to a charity in your system, but otherwise contribute nothing, am I entitled to vote? If so, I have no problem with it.

Arnie: what makes that different from a contract signed under coercion? Does a contract mean anything if you don't know you're signing it? Why am I even asking these questions of this entirely fictional contract whose clauses you're presumably making up as you go along?

Dogs shall get back to you when I'm calmer. Just to remind you, in case you might have forgotten, given my ultra placid nature, that you know so well, 'I'm not a clucking robot'

And thanks for saying, 'it was fine up until the point....' Crikey you sound so much like my old headmistress.

Shall muse on this Dogs with some effers grey matter ...

Hi Dogster

How is it under coercion? People are free to leave the country whenever they want, for the most part.

To the original question

"anyone who cannot recognise bullshit at 600 metres"

Novo

Effers, sorry again for the abruptness - was speed posting.

Arnie, it's coercion if there's a threat involved, in this case the threat is that you have to leave the country, separate from your family and everyone you know, possibly learn a new language, etc. if you don't sign the contract. But really, this misses the crucial point which is that the contract you're talking about *doesn't exist* and *nobody signs it*. The onus is not on me to rebut this idea, it's on you to present it in a form that makes any sense at all.

No worries Dogs.

I've thought more and see that by strict logic my argument doesn't add up. I think Arnie's point about convicts voting, allows them to influence who is elected, and therefore affect their position as convicts under the law does make logical sense though.

Now I'm not sure what I think about it in practice though, but I am coming round to the idea that they maybe should have the vote in a strict democratic sense.

Hi Effers,

"I think Arnie's point about convicts voting, allows them to influence who is elected, and therefore affect their position as convicts under the law does make logical sense though."

AIUI, Arnie's argument was that they would be able to use their vote to get themselves let out of prison. I find it difficult to believe he really means this given how obviously wrong it is (for a start they don't form a large enough bloc to get their own policies enacted, as Vicky said). OTOH, you are right that the prison vote, if it were well organised, would allow prisoners to have some small effect on elections in marginal situations. For example, it might perhaps allow them to get conditions made more tolerable in prison. And that's a good thing, because prisoners are human too.

"Now I'm not sure what I think about it in practice though, but I am coming round to the idea that they maybe should have the vote in a strict democratic sense."

I don't see why the practice should differ from the theory here. Is there some strong over-riding reason why prisoners in particular should be disallowed the vote? Is there any evidence that their having it has bad consequences? Not that I'm aware of, whereas there are good reasons, and evidence (in the US for example) that denying them the vote does have anti-democratic consequences. (For instance, Bush wouldn't have won in 2000 but for this...)

Dogs,

>for a start they don't form a large enough bloc to get their own policies enacted, as Vicky said<

Yes but its about the principle. Having the 'vote' should be seen as almost a 'sacred' thing. There's plenty who sneer at the whole idea of voting and democracy. I can think of at least one Scottish researcher here who regularly sneers at the whole principle.

Taking someone's liberty away from them is probably the worst thing you could do to someone, other than executing them. Allowing people who have deliberately and knowingly broken the laws of society as decided by the elected representatives, to be part of the process, suggests a 'cheapening' of the way that principle is perceived by society.

If you commit a crime, in the full knowledge that you will have your liberty taken from you, if caught, would suggest that you really don't much care about your own personal freedoms and rights anyway.

Effers, contracts don't have to be signed.

If the parents give birth in country A, they've made a choice for their child. If the child wants to leave country A, but the parents don't, then that's a question/argument to be had between between them. There is no external agency forcing them to stay.

If a person doesn't like their job, they may *feel* the need to keep it to maintain their current lifestyle, but no one is making them keep it.

<>

Though circumstances may well force them to stay... Responsibilities, or legal problems, even money.

If country A is as isolated from the rest of the world as Australia and NZ are, it's harder still..

Fanny - I don't sneer at democracy and voting, I sneer at the utter sham we have here in the UK.

1992, Tories win with 14.09m votes, 41% share, 336 seats.
Labour have 11.56m votes, 34.4% share, 271 seats.
Liberals have 6m votes, 17.8% share, 20 seats.

Remember, that was the election Major won by the "skin of his teeth". Look at the shares and seats - the liberals got half the share of Labour, but only 7% of the seats

1997 - the Labour "Landslide"

Labour win with 13.52m, 43.2% share, 418 seats.
Tories have 9.6m, 30.7% share, 165 seats
Liberals have 5.24m, 16.8% share, 46 seats.

Labour didn't "win" that - the Tories lost it. Look at the numbers - the Liberals got less votes in 97, less of the share, but more than twice the seats Labour got about 1/2 million more votes than in 92, but got 147 more seats And remember, Labour only got 22% of the electorate to vote for them. Most people were just sickened by the whole thing & didn't vote. So where did the almost legendary "wave of euphoria" come from in 97? A figment of the media.

Two socialist views on voting:

"It's not how the people vote that counts, it's who does the counting" Stalin
"If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it" Ken Livingstone

We don't have democracy at all. We have a joke system that's been fiddled and butchered beyond all recognition. It's not who you vote for in this country, but where you vote.

Mind you, the US can't be too smug. They've got a system where the guy with the most votes wins. Most of the time.

And yet it's our two countries who bomb countries into submission in order to bring them the benefits of democracy

Effers,

"Having the 'vote' should be seen as almost a 'sacred' thing."

The word 'sacred' suggests to me that nothing should make you lose it. It's the very importance of the vote that means you shouldn't just be taking it away from people. I get a bit riled about this issue because I really believe in democracy, and I think that the world could do with much more of it. Taking the vote away from prisoners (or any other group) would mean we would be less democratic, not more.

"Taking someone's liberty away from them is probably the worst thing you could do to someone, other than executing them. Allowing people who have deliberately and knowingly broken the laws of society as decided by the elected representatives, to be part of the process, suggests a 'cheapening' of the way that principle is perceived by society."

I'm not sure which principle you're referring to in that last sentence - the principle of punishing people for crime or the principle of democracy? Either way, making the country less democratic seems a pretty effective way to cheapen of our society.

"If you commit a crime, in the full knowledge that you will have your liberty taken from you, if caught, would suggest that you really don't much care about your own personal freedoms and rights anyway."

If people don't care about their own right to vote - they don't have to vote. Many people make this decision, but it's not up to anyone else to make it for them.

Incidentally, I suspect you're wrong about what motivates people to commit crime - not caring about their own personal freedoms and rights seems pretty low on the list of candidates.

SWL,

"Two socialist views on voting"

come on SWL, you can do better than that.

"We don't have democracy at all. We have a joke system that's been fiddled and butchered beyond all recognition. It's not who you vote for in this country, but where you vote."

No, we do have a democracy, but a necessarily imperfect one (see A520372). Doesn't mean we shouldn't be working towards making it better though.

Dogster - you seem prepared to let all people contribute to the election of the government, regardless of their place in society.

Logically therefore all people should be allowed to vote from the moment they're born. you seem happy to let criminals, with warped moral senses, lunatics, with warped world views, and rich people with warped economic views have the vote - so why not babies ?

What's with this discrimination against the chronolically challenged ?

I want to stop people voting who have shown by their actions that they believe they are above the morals of society.

McKay,

"... so why not babies?"

Actually, it's not such a bad idea.

Stop laughing! Let me explain.

You could have a system whereby everyone has a vote, but that children under a certain age (perhaps 16, perhaps 14) have a proxy vote which is exercised on their behalf by their parents.

This would be a more representative system than we have at present. I haven't decided if I think this is a good idea or not, but it's worth thinking about.

"I want to stop people voting who have shown by their actions that they believe they are above the morals of society."

Yeah, but who decides?

The law? I've already explained the problem with that.

Most children are brought up by 2 parents. Who gets the extra vote?

Each get's a half vote.

Works for me...

You could donate your half vote to charity

You think 'family values' don't dominate politics enough as it is?

The harshest punishment I give in PE is this.

I exclude the kids for 5 minutes "time out" thne I ask that kid what we should do next.

They invariably choose their favourite activity. We duly due it, then when they are invited back in I change the game.

They get an influence but they miss out on taking part. It works for the most part because it stings them to miss out on the things they like.

I dont like voting its a pain in the ass but its better than the alternative.

I think everytone should have a say even if their say is I give up my proxy to such and such. Which is what any of us does by voting anyway.

What's so wrong with family values Bouncy?

one love