Pencil wrote:Ooh drama, politics, suspense in the IH forums
Look, regardless of your political agenda, the EU brings something that the world desperately needs: some semblance of cooperation and union.
Also Ale.
Juice Box wrote:I don't know much about this, so excuse me for my lack of knowledge, but can someone explain to me why some people want GB to move away in the first place?
Also, who is Jo Cox and why did she die?
Zonoro13 wrote:Old people have a human right to vote just as all people do. They have opinions too.
The Kingmaker wrote:Afaik (I'm not in their mindset) the pro-leave people are either politically minded rich people who don't want regulations from people in the EU who they can't payoff, the closet racists and xenophobes of UKIP and the conniving little snakes that want to be stories to be united Tories but don't want to be United with Europe.
Juice Box wrote:
I'm not really one to believe in claims like that? Like, okay, sure, maybe some people in Pro-Leave are bigots, as you say. But why do they want to leave? What benefits does it give? And how can it outweigh the benefits of staying?
Juice Box wrote:Zonoro13 wrote:Old people have a human right to vote just as all people do. They have opinions too.
I don't think it's a question of whether they have opinions or not, it's a question of whether they have informed opinions or not. Because let's face it, having opinions does not mean you are automatically eligible to vote, because no, you are not and should not be entitled to your opinion. You are entitled only to your informed opinion, an opinion that is based on real facts and valid evidence.
Zonoro13 wrote:That's not how voting works. In a democracy, each citizen is given one vote. Having opinions does not make you automatically eligible to vote, but living in the country sure does. People are entitled to vote based on their opinions whether they are informed or not, whether you agree with them or not. It is a basic right.
Informed voting should be encouraged, but you can't ban people from voting based on age or quality of opinion. That sounds eerily like literacy tests.
Juice Box wrote:Zonoro13 wrote:That's not how voting works. In a democracy, each citizen is given one vote. Having opinions does not make you automatically eligible to vote, but living in the country sure does. People are entitled to vote based on their opinions whether they are informed or not, whether you agree with them or not. It is a basic right.
Informed voting should be encouraged, but you can't ban people from voting based on age or quality of opinion. That sounds eerily like literacy tests.
That's always been a major flaw in democracy, in my opinion. You give literally anyone the power to vote on behalf of his country just because he lives there. Sugarcoating it with petty words like "it is a basic right" doesn't make it any better. You can never guarantee for sure that someone's vote is of sound reasoning; he could just be a racist who doesn't like black candidates or a sexist who doesn't like female candidates. Granted, there are bound to be decent men with valid opinions and decent research to back their claims, but you can never truly get rid of the bigots. Giving the power of choice to an uninformed majority is a horrible thing.
I've always thought countries should be run by the opposite: an informed minority, like maybe a small group of people who know in detail what they're voting on and what it means for the country as a whole. Making ten thousand informed individuals decide an important matter is better than making millions of uninformed ones.
And honestly, I think people should be banned from voting based on their reasoning/quality of opinion/whatever. Votes should be as valid as possible, and if there is sufficient, legal evidence that suggests someone may not be capable of voting for a country's best interests, then by all means, remove his eligibility. A basic right like that can and should be ignored if it is for the benefit of a country as a whole.
Juice Box wrote:I've always thought countries should be run by the opposite: an informed minority, like maybe a small group of people who know in detail what they're voting on and what it means for the country as a whole. Making ten thousand informed individuals decide an important matter is better than making millions of uninformed ones.
Manijure wrote:As much as I disagree with Zonoro on Brexit, I completely agree with him on voting. Opinions are opinions, meaning that "reasoning" and "informed" means differently to certain people. As much as some people's political opinions confuse and irritate me, I know they have their own form of reasoning and are in a way informed, whether I understand it or not. Everyone legal to vote has the right and deserves to vote. Democracy works because no one feels inferior to anyone else. If only a select minority has the right to vote, there would be so much unrest. Besides, how can you determine if someone is "informed" or not?
Zonoro13 wrote:It is unfair to have a
government rule over people who do not have a say in that government. Democracy has been the backbone of civilization since ancient Greece. It is the only system that works well while remaining fair to its people.
Your post is basically saying that people should be banned from voting for thinking the wrong things.
Thanks Manijure for backing me up.
Juice Box wrote:Politics isn't about giving people what they want because it's "fair," it's about finding the best solution for the most people applicable for the longest amount of time.
Juice Box wrote:Yes, voting eligibility should be removed from people who "think wrong."
Juice Box wrote:Simple peasantries like "basic human rights" and "the freedom to vote" should be altered, or even outright ignored, against something of such importance.