General Politics Thread

Giga Hertz said:


Well, I think Canada has run its course.

Hey, America! Canada has tyranny (and oil)! :bulmatea:
Click to expand...

I think the voting age needs to be pushed up, not down.

I would say 25 but people would argue that is too extreme probably but what average 18 year old is actually informed in today's world? Heck, what average 23 year old is? Most people don't pay attention to politics until they are over the age of 25. I want informed voters to vote.

Another fix would be removing all party affiliations so you have to vote based on policy and names only.
 
Beerus said:
I think the voting age needs to be pushed up, not down.

I would say 25 but people would argue that is too extreme probably but what average 18 year old is actually informed in today's world? Heck, what average 23 year old is? Most people don't pay attention to politics until they are over the age of 25. I want informed voters to vote.

Another fix would be removing all party affiliations so you have to vote based on policy and names only.
Click to expand...
To help better reflect on my point... New Jersey elected a dead man. Let that sink in.

:wut:
 
Giga Hertz said:
So did the Democrats in the last Presidential election. :bulmatea:
Click to expand...
Come On Biden GIF by GIPHY News
 
How is America? Do you ppl fear a civil war or is that farfetched? Tbh tho, the split is just way more noticeable. Sad.
 
Cell said:
For all the "funny" reactions I've made ...I'm laughing with y'all. The idea that you're free in Palestine as a LBGTQ person is laughable. Even I know that's not true. No place in the Middle East is safe for those people.

Laughable.

If you SO much say you're "gay" there, they pull out pitchforks. No, seriously. You should watch shows like 90 days fiance, and you WILL see this talked about.

You can't even date someone that your family doesn't appreciate or approve in the Middle East.

People don't understand these facts.

I wanted to stay out of this argument because its just exhausting to explain this to people who don't get it.
Click to expand...
If you had actually read my posts, you would understand I was addressing precisely this idea.... But you have selective reading...
 
I've seen posts (not here) based on also trying to measure a person's knowledge on politics for them to be apt to vote...

The problem with that arises from various questions from my PoV :

Who gets to decide if someone is knowledgeable enough to vote? How do we determine which skills and knowledge are essential for voting rights? Should a macroeconomics expert who knows nothing about medicine be allowed to vote? What about a doctor who doesn't understand macroeconomics? Is understanding a country's racial or gender civil rights movements more critical for voting, or is it more important to know the history of the government's structure? Who decides what matters most? If a right-leaning person creates the test, it might disenfranchise left-leaning individuals, and vice versa. The knowledge deemed important could vary greatly depending on who sets the criteria.

What about the moral implications for those considered too unknowledgeable or unintelligent to vote, who then suffer or are suppressed without a way to improve their situation through the system? For instance, if a group is denied the education needed to pass the test, yet can't pass the test to vote for better education, how can they change their societal position?
 
ahill1 said:
I've seen posts (not here) based on also trying to measure a person's knowledge on politics for them to be apt to vote...

The problem with that arises from various questions from my PoV :

Who gets to decide if someone is knowledgeable enough to vote? How do we determine which skills and knowledge are essential for voting rights? Should a macroeconomics expert who knows nothing about medicine be allowed to vote? What about a doctor who doesn't understand macroeconomics? Is understanding a country's racial or gender civil rights movements more critical for voting, or is it more important to know the history of the government's structure? Who decides what matters most? If a right-leaning person creates the test, it might disenfranchise left-leaning individuals, and vice versa. The knowledge deemed important could vary greatly depending on who sets the criteria.

What about the moral implications for those considered too unknowledgeable or unintelligent to vote, who then suffer or are suppressed without a way to improve their situation through the system? For instance, if a group is denied the education needed to pass the test, yet can't pass the test to vote for better education, how can they change their societal position?
Click to expand...
I think most people generally suggest the criteria as:
- a rudimentary understanding of civics (how the legislature process works, what the checks and balances are, who you actually vote for, how candidates are determined, etc.)
- an understanding of which policies have been suggested in the campaign run

Generally when I vote in Australian elections, I have a basic understanding of how our election process works (which far too many people don't seem to), and what the positions are of the candidates for whom I'm voting.
 
Giga Hertz said:
I think most people generally suggest the criteria as:
- a rudimentary understanding of civics (how the legislature process works, what the checks and balances are, who you actually vote for, how candidates are determined, etc.)
- an understanding of which policies have been suggested in the campaign run

Generally when I vote in Australian elections, I have a basic understanding of how our election process works (which far too many people don't seem to), and what the positions are of the candidates for whom I'm voting.
Click to expand...
People may not be able to articulate that very well, they may struggle with that... But they may have a very insightful reasoning IMO regardless due to experiences with a certain government and the president background, speeches. Not saying many speeches are populist ones, but if a poor person can relate with a president coming from poverty and having speeches that resonated with them, even though it may not be applied, the feeling of being represented by someone who has a feeling for what's being like that... Is important even though they may not know specifics about politics structure, even simple ones...
 
ahill1 said:
People may not be able to articulate that very well, they may struggle with that... But they may have a very insightful reasoning IMO regardless due to experiences with a certain government and the president background, speeches. Not saying many speeches are populist ones, but if a poor person can relate with a president coming from poverty and having speeches that resonated with them, even though it may not be applied, the feeling of being represented by someone who has a feeling for what's being like that... Is important even though they may not know specifics about politics structure, even simple ones...
Click to expand...
Sure. If one were to be tested, I think multiple choice would be the way to go. They don't have to be complicated questions. As for being quizzed on platform, I don't think it'd have to go that far. Probably, as Beerus said, given a sheet of paper with no names or parties, just "I am voting for [policy]"

As someone from a nation with mandatory voting, the parties resort to a lot of dumb gimmicks, promises and platforms to get the vote. We literally have parties like "The Sex Party" or "Legalise Cannabis".
 
Giga Hertz said:
Sure. If one were to be tested, I think multiple choice would be the way to go. They don't have to be complicated questions. As for being quizzed on platform, I don't think it'd have to go that far. Probably, as Beerus said, given a sheet of paper with no names or parties, just "I am voting for [policy]"

As someone from a nation with mandatory voting, the parties resort to a lot of dumb gimmicks, promises and platforms to get the vote. We literally have parties like "The Sex Party" or "Legalise Cannabis".
Click to expand...
What about people who don't know read or have never taken a written exam? They may still have political awareness...
 
ahill1 said:
What about people who don't know read or have never taken a written exam? They may still have political awareness...
Click to expand...
I'm assuming those same people would struggle with an ordinary ballot then. In which case, if an election official has to read for them, so be it. That's fine, I doubt anyone has a problem with that.
 
Giga Hertz said:
I'm assuming those same people would struggle with an ordinary ballot then. In which case, if an election official has to read for them, so be it. That's fine, I doubt anyone has a problem with that.
Click to expand...
Yes, but defining how is the point... Because it's way too complex and nuanced to establish a metric on what weighs when being apt to vote. An understanding of the politics overall game may not necessarily be more insightful thanks someone who hasn't but lives politics decisions influence in their lives. Maybe they could be more prone to be used... But past experiences from different periods knowing what each party has had a positive outlook in their situation may be very insightful... Some ppl can't even afford follow up with politics... But they can tell that within a certain time under a certain government their lives got better, that a woman working as a house cleaner could have rights assured and have a bigger prospect within their lives, even though far from ideal, improvements are noticeable... Harden keeper, drivers.... Experience within a certain time and all can be very important and essential for allowing voting...
 
ahill1 said:
How is America? Do you ppl fear a civil war or is that farfetched? Tbh tho, the split is just way more noticeable. Sad.
Click to expand...
Civil War has been on the table for the last 10 years. I think we are already in one but it is just cold. This is why the conflict has not escalated to people actually taking up arms and fighting factions.

I don't think you can turn this country around when you have people so polarized against each other.
 
I mean if the voting age was 25 i couldnt stop Afd from getting more votes!
Although i have to see the traffic light (all the good major parties) also doesnt seem tempting! so for this year i voted a smaller party!
Next year im sorta forced to vote Cdu becuase im afraid that afd gets voted in!
 
People from all parties will vote for whatever or who ever so long as the party name or label is slapped next to it.

Just removing party affiliation will solve a lot of problems. I do thinking the voting age needs to be boosted a bit unless you are serving for your country.
 
I watched a video from Andrew Yang who had a good and interesting point on how votes should be in the US so it avoids dominance between two parties only.
 
ahill1 said:
I watched a video from Andrew Yang who had a good and interesting point on how votes should be in the US so it avoids dominance between two parties only.
Click to expand...
He had some good points until he started talking about crossing state lines just to alter an election with his vote. Then he started pandering hard to the progressives which are basically destroying the economy of this country.