Sign in to follow this  
Marshall

Marching On, Under a minority Government

Recommended Posts

On 11/11/2019 at 5:46 AM, Jaydee said:

How Trudeau was elected.....Buy the media.....By the media.....Bub Bye ......media credibility !!

B513946F-48F7-4B34-8CB7-3FA6E34BA82F.jpeg

SOCIAL MEDIA.  From the same people that brought you Brexit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Political elites want to abandon ‘one man, one vote’ and suppress the votes of older people

Misguided attempt to improve our supposed political fitness would degrade our political genetic code — youths are the least-qualified voters

Most neutral observers agree Canada’s recent election was the most abysmal in recent times. It focused on personal attacks and scandals rather than principles and policies, especially economic ones. It is not as if Canada lacks economic challenges, after a decade-long debt binge, chronically weak business investment, lagging manufacturing exports and stagnant productivity in a rapidly aging society. Instead of responses to these challenges, we got pandering proposals for painless spending cuts and for piling more taxes on those relatively few already shouldering most of the burden.

Canadians apparently found none of the party leaders very appealing. Unappetizing leadership choices have become the norm in major Western nations as political parties cannot generate qualified candidates with widespread appeal based on more than their father’s name. The U.S. 2020 election promises to be as uninspiring as the 2016 choice between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The U.K. election currently underway features a firebrand Marxist and a Conservative unable to unite his own family, let alone party. In Italy, a party founded by a comedian won the most votes in 2018, legitimizing buffoonery as a qualification for political leadership.

Political elites are increasingly frustrated and intolerant of the workings of democracy. In the U.S., Democrats are still in denial over the 2016 presidential election, needlessly pursuing impeachment when the president they’re about to impeach faces the electorate’s assessment of his fitness for office in less than a year. The businessman and political adviser Alain Minc declared that the Brexit referendum “was the victory of uneducated people over educated people.” Bernard-Henri Lévy, one of France’s leading public commentators, went further in calling Brexit the “victory of the little over the great, of stupidity over the mind.”

Unable to admit its own inability to nominate capable leaders with broad appeal, the political class is circulating proposals to subvert our democracy’s basic principle of “one man, one vote.” Former conservative prime minister of France François Fillon declared that young people should have two votes, presumably to ensure the “correct” result of voting down Brexit (a majority of British youths did not actually vote to remain but demonstrated their disinterest by abstaining). In Canada, Broadbent Institute fellow Miles Corak floated a similar proposal to give youth votes more weight. For his part, French geographer Christophe Guilluy, philosopher of the forgotten French “periphery,” imagines a future where youth ballots get a multiple of three, senior managers and professionals a multiple of two and ordinary workers just one.

Proposals to abandon “one man, one vote” recall the early 20th-century infatuation with the eugenics movement, which treated groups differently depending on their perceived ability to develop in ways pleasing to the ruling class. Eugenicists believed the gene pool would be improved by sterilizing those deemed unfit to reproduce, based of course on the assessment of “scientific evidence” by political and scientific elites.

Today, some elites propose similar undermining of equality, this time by suppressing the votes of older people in a misguided attempt to improve our supposed political fitness. Weighting youth votes more is eugenics in reverse, however: it would degrade our political genetic code. Youths are the least-qualified voters. Their still not fully-formed brains are dominated by the part associated with seeking pleasure. The result is voters swayed by such issues as legalized pot and ensuring easy access to friends on continental Europe. This is hardly a recipe for improved governance over the long term.

The idea of privileging some groups in our democracy over others reverses one of the 20th-century’s greatest achievements — the enfranchisement of all people, including the working class, women and non-white voters. The First World War’s senseless slaughter discredited the political and military elite’s privileged claim to power, leading to the emancipation of the masses.

Winston Churchill demonstrated the importance of leadership in rallying people to a cause while deferring to their collective judgment. After years of watching its aristocracy and Royal Family sympathize with Germany and appeasement, the British working class was unwilling to make the sacrifices to win the war — not until Churchill became prime minister, that is. His first step was to assure the public that its sacrifices would not be in vain by declaring in terms impossible to misunderstood that his policy was “to wage war” with the sole aim of “victory.” Soon after taking power, Churchill appealed to ordinary people for help in forming the flotilla of small boats that resulted in the miracle of Dunkirk. A year later, in as trenchant a statement of the democratic principle there is, he acknowledged the bargain made with the overwhelmingly lower middle-class flyers who won the Battle of Britain, saying “They have saved this country; they have the right to rule it.”

 

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/philip-cross-some-political-elites-want-to-abandon-one-man-one-vote-and-suppress-the-votes-of-older-people?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1573646288

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

Most neutral observers agree Canada’s recent election was the most abysmal in recent times.

No question about it. We may have even set an all time record. Only those with a narrative thought it covered the issues.

49 minutes ago, Jaydee said:

“to wage war” with the sole aim of “victory.”

Clausewitz was of the opinion that war is simply politics by other means; I think he was (is) right and it needs to be viewed in that context.

 If we are then to assume that politics and waging war are cousins, what the quote says to me is "do the work, earn the win."  The politics of appeasement didn't work then, they didn't work for Rome and they won't work now either.... human nature and historical precedent assures it.

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ottawa’s budget watchdog downgrades economic outlook and warns of deeper federal deficits

Economic downshift will drive up annual deficit by $1.6 billion — and that’s without campaign promises

OTTAWA — Parliament’s budget watchdog is warning of rougher economic waters ahead that will likely send the federal budget deeper into deficit.

In a new report this morning, the parliamentary budget office downgrades the country’s economic outlook compared to its projections from June, citing weaker exports because of trade disputes and protectionism.

Also factored into the downward economic outlook are spending cuts by Premier Jason Kenney’s government in Alberta.

The budget office’s report predicts the economic downshift will drive up the annual deficit by $1.6 billion, on average, through to 2025 — a number that doesn’t include any new policy decisions, or reflect promises made during this fall’s election campaign.

The worsened shortfall is the result, the budget office says, of lower tax revenues and higher operating expenses than had been expected.

 

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/pbo-forecasts-slower-growth-and-deeper-federal-deficits?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1573751037

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "weighted" vote system is not a bad idea - the criteria should be; how much each person contributes to society.   I am often reminded of Heinlein's book Starship Troopers.  It's been made into a Hollywood movie that focuses on the sci-fi action but the book itself is more about politics and society.  In the imagined society there are two classes; civilians and citizens.  Both have rights but only the citizens get to vote and anyone can earn citizenship by public or military service.  So those who are willing to contribute to society are the ones who get a say in how and where it goes.  Seems like a good starting point.

I've posted here before my feeling that only those who pay taxes should be able to vote.  The British system used to be that only land-owners voted.  Why should some person who never pays any tax but enjoys the benefits of a tax-payer supported life also get a vote in deciding anything?

Perhaps a system where if you own property you get a vote, if you're a net-payer of tax you get a vote and if you're unable to meet either of these due to whatever reason you can earn your vote by public or military service.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago in Vancouver, businesses got a separate vote in municipal elections.  Since my dad was the local head of a company he got two ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, seeker said:

I've posted here before my feeling that only those who pay taxes should be able to vote. 

I'm sure the stay at home moms (and dads) would say 'that's about right, go for it'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, seeker said:

A "weighted" vote system is not a bad idea - the criteria should be; how much each person contributes to society.   I am often reminded of Heinlein's book Starship Troopers.  It's been made into a Hollywood movie that focuses on the sci-fi action but the book itself is more about politics and society.  In the imagined society there are two classes; civilians and citizens.  Both have rights but only the citizens get to vote and anyone can earn citizenship by public or military service.  So those who are willing to contribute to society are the ones who get a say in how and where it goes.  Seems like a good starting point.

I've posted here before my feeling that only those who pay taxes should be able to vote.  The British system used to be that only land-owners voted.  Why should some person who never pays any tax but enjoys the benefits of a tax-payer supported life also get a vote in deciding anything?

Perhaps a system where if you own property you get a vote, if you're a net-payer of tax you get a vote and if you're unable to meet either of these due to whatever reason you can earn your vote by public or military service.

 

 

By saying that those who pay taxes, and/or own property should be the ones able to vote, won't that cut off the 1% from being able to vote as usually they don't pay tax and any properties they occupy are held by 'holding companies' to shield them from tax liabilities?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deicer said:

By saying that those who pay taxes, and/or own property should be the ones able to vote, won't that cut off the 1% from being able to vote as usually they don't pay tax and any properties they occupy are held by 'holding companies' to shield them from tax liabilities?

You've been misinformed by your Liberal tribe - the 1% pays more than their fair share of taxes.  Obviously my 2 sentence description of some sort of contribution-to-earn-a-vote is not meant to be taken as a full plan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Airband said:

I'm sure the stay at home moms (and dads) would say 'that's about right, go for it'.

Did you read to the end of my post?  Maybe we consider volunteering at the school as "public service", maybe raising a family is public service or maybe it isn't  - I hardly know the answer.  My point is that society has too many "takers".  Encouraging and rewarding those who step up would be a good thing - no?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, seeker said:

 Encouraging and rewarding those who step up would be a good thing - no?

Yes, I understand the sentiment but I would need further convincing that disenfranchising some portion of the citizenry and denying them the right of representation they are currently guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would go any distance in lighting a fire under the butts of undefined 'non-contributors'. Who qualifies/who doesn't - there's a bureaucracy in the making. One person-One vote is a long sought goal around the world - why would we choose to go backwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Airband said:

Yes, I understand the sentiment but I would need further convincing that disenfranchising some portion of the citizenry and denying them the right of representation they are currently guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would go any distance in lighting a fire under the butts of undefined 'non-contributors'. Who qualifies/who doesn't - there's a bureaucracy in the making. One person-One vote is a long sought goal around the world - why would we choose to go backwards?

Well, my posts on this topic are in response to the article posted by Jaydee.  The idea of giving "the youth" 2 or 3 votes while others get one is crazy.  If anything it should go the other way.  Very few people pay the tab for their public education, healthcare, etc until well into their 40s and many never do at all.  I was a "youth" once and now no longer am.  If I look back at myself when I was young I can clearly see that, although I was ambitious and (relatively) hard-working, I honestly had no real understanding of the issues.  Can anyone truly understand what "deficit" means until they have a mortgage, a maxed-out line of credit and bills to pay and are facing an economic recession?  I have voted in every Federal election since I turned 18 - did any of those votes I cast before I knew what I was doing, and what I was voting for, help the country move to a better place?  It's quite probable that my vote, and others of my generation, reduced the ability of those who really did understand to elect an effective and responsible government.

So, yes, I agree, disenfranchising a portion of the population isn't feasible but the opposite is also true - giving them "extra" voting power would be a disaster.  As would following May's proposal of lowering the voting age to 16.  Haha, you think it's bad now - we'd see political platforms including; "free" cellphone data packages and "free" pizza in school cafeterias (which isn't actually that far off what we have already seen).  

Compare the difference between Herbert Hoover saying that Republican prosperity meant "a chicken in every pot and a car in every backyard" vs Jagmeet Singh saying the NDP will "cap your cellphone bill and give you free tuition".  

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this