Uniquement les Veterans devraient avoir le droit vote.

kahos said:
Facile de supporter des choses que l'on n'aurais pas besoin de faire soi-même.

Ils feraient quoi de leurs journées ce beau monde la? Le service millitaire obligatoire ça fais juste du sens si t'as un ennemi pratiquement a tes portes. Les pays scandinaves le font a cause de la russie. Israel a cause de ses voisins. Nous? Aucune raison de le faire.
Click to expand...

Il y a plus que etre combatant dans un service militaire modern.
L arme c est genre 90% logistique.
 
KossaK said:
Il y a plus que etre combatant dans un service militaire modern.
L arme c est genre 90% logistique.
Click to expand...

Justement. On a pas la logistique pour habiller, entrainer et trouver des choses a faire de leurs journées a des centaines de milliers de Canadiens.

On a pas les hébergements, pas les instructeurs, pas le matériel. Ça prends des bonnes raisons pour budgeter tout ça.
 
PsychoBandito said:
Maybe we should make it a minimum. Only people who pay at least 30% income tax should vote, so millionaires playing tax schemes have no say in their future as well.

Maybe unmarried people shouldn't have a say either, they obviously aren't family material, and don't have a skin in the future game.
Click to expand...

Again everyone should have a base vote but the goal of having extra voting is not to de-incentivize or discourage any particular person or group, it's to make sure the people who are engaged in society don't get drowned out by those who don't care.

Let's use your example of family. A couple with no kids might believe, "Who cares about the debt, I want my free money now and the hell with the national debt,i'll be dead anyway" whereas even a half decent parent usually tends to think about the future for their kids. In that event they will make choices beneficial to society in general instead of being selfish. Kids force them to think about it. They still might vote for the free money now but on the overall it would help.

Likewise I'm not saying only multi-millionaires should have more sway, but literally, if at the end of the year, if the government collected $1 or more from you (that's a good chunk of society) you get an extra vote. A lazy welfarite who is healthy and able bodied but doesn't want to work, I'm sure they're voting anybody who will promise them more free stuff. Meanwhile anybody who goes to work and busts their ass, even if it's for $30k a year, they are more likely to make a choice that benefits society in general when they vote.

Unless we can somehow reach perfection, where the people that are voting are educated, thoughtful, and most importantly not using their vote to gain for themselves at the expense of others, the next best thing is to give extra sway to those who'd most likely make a better decision for society simply because they're priorities are more likely to be aligned with the whole.
 
250Rocket said:
Again everyone should have a base vote but the goal of having extra voting is not to de-incentivize or discourage any particular person or group, it's to make sure the people who are engaged in society don't get drowned out by those who don't care.

Unless we can somehow reach perfection, where the people that are voting are educated, thoughtful, and most importantly not using their vote to gain for themselves at the expense of others, the next best thing is to give extra sway to those who'd most likely make a better decision for society simply because they're priorities are more likely to be aligned with the whole.
Click to expand...


That's where that plan's greatest weakness lies. People vote for their self-interest first and foremost. Giving certain subsets of the population more representative "weight" just further incentivizes them to retain that advantage at all costs and make that advantage work for themselves.

If you give each parents 1.x votes where X represents their number of kids, you're going to have a system that favors large families above all else in no time. Why? Because politicians will pander to these people to get their votes. They'd micro target to get all these "extras" even though you're left with an overall approach that's just a bunch of gifts and freebies to "those that matter most"
 
kahos said:
That's where that plan's greatest weakness lies. People vote for their self-interest first and foremost. Giving certain subsets of the population more representative "weight" just further incentivizes them to retain that advantage at all costs and make that advantage work for themselves.

If you give each parents 1.x votes where X represents their number of kids, you're going to have a system that favors large families above all else in no time. Why? Because politicians will pander to these people to get their votes. They'd micro target to get all these "extras" even though you're left with an overall approach that's just a bunch of gifts and freebies to "those that matter most"
Click to expand...

good point. and voter right are just fancy way to say mobs.
 
kahos said:
That's where that plan's greatest weakness lies. People vote for their self-interest first and foremost. Giving certain subsets of the population more representative "weight" just further incentivizes them to retain that advantage at all costs and make that advantage work for themselves.

If you give each parents 1.x votes where X represents their number of kids, you're going to have a system that favors large families above all else in no time. Why? Because politicians will pander to these people to get their votes. They'd micro target to get all these "extras" even though you're left with an overall approach that's just a bunch of gifts and freebies to "those that matter most"
Click to expand...

You missed my point. I basically said a functional society has certain parameters for being successful. Now if you align those positives with peoples selfish desires what difference does it make if they remain selfish?

I'm talking high level, get the idea going, not to actually solve the problem here and now. You're going into what-if specifics and setting up a specific example to fail. It's like saying a little bit of wine here and there is good for your health and your retort is but if you chug a box of wine it's not good for you. No shit. If I had to comment on this specifically it it would be 1 kid or 10 kids you only get an extra vote.

So again, high level:

You want a society that's working (not mooching), you need kids for the future (not childless cat ladies and incel man childs), you want people that care about where they live (not grifters ready to move if things get tough). etc....


So I maintain, if you incentivize positive social constructs, you'll get those people who will vote for someone who will best allow them to continue that. If you want a good counter example of late stage democracy just look to Venezuela (or similar) where as they enter the downwards spiral, more people are out of work so they vote for more social programs and then more people lose their jobs because of government intervention and the cycle continues from there because people's selfish tendencies (unchecked) make it worse.
 
250Rocket said:
You missed my point. I basically said a functional society has certain parameters for being successful. Now if you align those positives with peoples selfish desires what difference does it make if they remain selfish?

I'm talking high level, get the idea going, not to actually solve the problem here and now. You're going into what-if specifics and setting up a specific example to fail. It's like saying a little bit of wine here and there is good for your health and your retort is but if you chug a box of wine it's not good for you. No shit. If I had to comment on this specifically it it would be 1 kid or 10 kids you only get an extra vote.

So again, high level:

You want a society that's working (not mooching), you need kids for the future (not childless cat ladies and incel man childs), you want people that care about where they live (not grifters ready to move if things get tough). etc....


So I maintain, if you incentivize positive social constructs, you'll get those people who will vote for someone who will best allow them to continue that. If you want a good counter example of late stage democracy just look to Venezuela (or similar) where as they enter the downwards spiral, more people are out of work so they vote for more social programs and then more people lose their jobs because of government intervention and the cycle continues from there because people's selfish tendencies (unchecked) make it worse.
Click to expand...


I don't see how the family example was meant to set you up for failure in an outlandish way. I made kids a decimal. Most families have one or two kids. There are only a million families with more than 3 in Canada. A couple with two kids under the age of 18 would have a "voting weight of 2.4" vs 2 for a couple with no kids.

The main problem with kids as a metric is that as virtuous as it may be made out, it's not an indicator of ethical behavior in itself. If anything, there may be a bit of an undesirable bias between very large families and lack of professional achievements. Highly educated, successful professionals aren't as likely to have 3-4 kids whereas people that can't understand the basics of human reproduction and family planning might.

That's where you'd have the hardest time with this idea, coming up with the metrics for which you want to assign extra weight, have them hold to to scrutiny and be meaningful enough.

You can be dumber than a bag of rocks and own property. Either it was passed down to you, or it's in an area where it's simply more affordable. Do the $150 000 homeowner in the boonies deserve more electoral weight than the people that are renting $2000 a month condos in Montreal? That's lifestyle more than virtue.

Education? Liberal Arts Degree in painting with boogers vs no-nonsense skilled trade. Again, who is more virtuous?

Business owner vs employee. Should the kweffeuse's votes be more important than that of a high-level public servant on account they're submitting different forms to CRA?

Our system is already set up to encourage us to vote for "super voters" because it recognizes that direct democracy is flawed. So instead we elect people that are meant to be qualified,ethical and look out for our best interests: MLA/MPs. That was the idea anyways. Besides creating career mooches and limp dicks who spend their days flip flopping at the altar of polling data, I'm not sure it really accomplishes the intended purpose.

Venezuela's economy is in shambles because it was pretty much official foreign policy for decades of the G7/NATO to fuck with and punish socialism in South America. It's hardly a fair comparison.
 
Selon moi, juste le fait de limiter le droit de vote aux gens ayant leur secondaire 5 ce serait un pas en avant.

En tout cas ça en motiverait une gang de finir leur calisse de secondaire.

J'irais plus loin en limitant aussi l'accès a l'alcool, cannabis aux sec. 5 et plus.

Les seules exceptions devraient être les gens qui ont fait une école de métier et qui ont donc terminé leurs études en sec. 4. Il reste que tous les citoyens devraient avoir suivi le cours sur notre structure de gouvernement, le processus de vote et de nominations, partis politiques, etc.

Mais bon - on jase la.
 
lord_galathon said:
Selon moi, juste le fait de limiter le droit de vote aux gens ayant leur secondaire 5 ce serait un pas en avant.

En tout cas ça en motiverait une gang de finir leur calisse de secondaire.

J'irais plus loin en limitant aussi l'accès a l'alcool, cannabis aux sec. 5 et plus.

Les seules exceptions devraient être les gens qui ont fait une école de métier et qui ont donc terminé leurs études en sec. 4. Il reste que tous les citoyens devraient avoir suivi le cours sur notre structure de gouvernement, le processus de vote et de nominations, partis politiques, etc.

Mais bon - on jase la.
Click to expand...
Un secondaire 5 aussi pour obtenir son permis de conduire, jamais su pkoi ça n'a jamais été la base.
 
lord_galathon said:
Selon moi, juste le fait de limiter le droit de vote aux gens ayant leur secondaire 5 ce serait un pas en avant.

En tout cas ça en motiverait une gang de finir leur calisse de secondaire.

J'irais plus loin en limitant aussi l'accès a l'alcool, cannabis aux sec. 5 et plus.

Les seules exceptions devraient être les gens qui ont fait une école de métier et qui ont donc terminé leurs études en sec. 4. Il reste que tous les citoyens devraient avoir suivi le cours sur notre structure de gouvernement, le processus de vote et de nominations, partis politiques, etc.

Mais bon - on jase la.
Click to expand...

Justement but des veteran.

Le service n est pas uniquement militaire.
il y a beaucoup metier.

Moi j aime pas idee de forcer du monde.
Si quelqu un veux potter avoir un secondaire 2 et etre sur le B.S so be it.

Il va plus faire de trouble sur le marcher du travaille que etre au crochet de notre societer.
mais vue qu il ne implique pas il ne participe pas.
 
Omokocha said:
Un secondaire 5 aussi pour obtenir son permis de conduire, jamais su pkoi ça n'a jamais été la base.
Click to expand...

Parce que livreur/ chauffeur de camion c'est pratiquement l'occupation la plus commune pour les hommes? Sur le lot, tu dois en avoir une bonne gang qui ne manquent pas de talent en ce sens, mais qui sont sous-scolarisés. Fondamentalement, t'a pas besoin d'être un as de la trigonométrie ou d'ortographe pour conduire et livrer / te rendre a ton lieu de travail.

C'est sans compter le bias urbain d'une exigence en ce sens. Sans permis de conduire en région, tu fais dur plus souvent qu'autrement. Tu peux p-e même pas te rendre a l'école finir ton DES aux adultes.
 
kahos said:
Parce que livreur/ chauffeur de camion c'est pratiquement l'occupation la plus commune pour les hommes? Sur le lot, tu dois en avoir une bonne gang qui ne manquent pas de talent en ce sens, mais qui sont sous-scolarisés. Fondamentalement, t'a pas besoin d'être un as de la trigonométrie ou d'ortographe pour conduire et livrer / te rendre a ton lieu de travail.

C'est sans compter le bias urbain d'une exigence en ce sens. Sans permis de conduire en région, tu fais dur plus souvent qu'autrement. Tu peux p-e même pas te rendre a l'école finir ton DES aux adultes.
Click to expand...

C fun dans Starship trooper il a un Service qui est justement pilote de transport.
Il a une base entrainements le reste c est que du travaille dans le transport.

Le dude dans le livre fais c est livraison dans son service il a fini par etre citoyen et avoir le droit de vote.
Il a jamais tirer du guns ou travailler comme scientifique.
 
kahos said:
Parce que livreur/ chauffeur de camion c'est pratiquement l'occupation la plus commune pour les hommes? Sur le lot, tu dois en avoir une bonne gang qui ne manquent pas de talent en ce sens, mais qui sont sous-scolarisés. Fondamentalement, t'a pas besoin d'être un as de la trigonométrie ou d'ortographe pour conduire et livrer / te rendre a ton lieu de travail.

C'est sans compter le bias urbain d'une exigence en ce sens. Sans permis de conduire en région, tu fais dur plus souvent qu'autrement. Tu peux p-e même pas te rendre a l'école finir ton DES aux adultes.
Click to expand...

Il faut pas être un as de la trigonométrie ou orthographe pour avoir un sec.5. On demande pas un 538 ou 548 (cours avancés) dans toutes les matières. Des 506 de base en math c'est pas la mer a boire, pis contrairement aux cours de TI ça prend pas 80% pour passer (MSCE ou Cisco) un 60% (des fois ils t'arrondissent les 58!!!) c'est suffisant.

Pour ce qui est des paramètres régionaux ce n'est pas un problème pour 99% du monde. Techniquement si tu es au secondaire tu as accès a un autobus ou un parent pour te conduire.

La seule excuse que je pourrais voir c'est une raison de santé ou conditions comme le TDAH pis même la, avec le TDAH ils recommandent des formations professionnelles, peintre, etc. pis un sec 4 c'est suffisant car ça tombe dans les métiers.

On s'entend que la grosse majorité du monde qui ont pas leur sec 5 c'est parce qu'ils sont lâches. C'est pas un cours de chirurgie au cerveau la, on parle de math et français de base, histoire de base, gym, etc...
 
Juste ceux qui payent des impôts devraient avoir le droit de vote. Fini Québec Solidaire et le PQ.
 
Y'a du monde productifs qui n'ont pas leur secondaire 5. A priori la conduite automobile et l'école ce sont deux set d'aptitudes différentes. C'est pas en punissant du monde qui commencent a être marginalisés au début de leur vie que tu va avoir des grandes réussites de société pour autant.

Vous oubliez qu'en bas de 18 ans ça prends l'approbation parental avoir le permis. Ça implique une part de responsabilité des parents en ce sens.

Chez nous il était pas question d'avoir le permis avant de finir le secondaire. C'était non-négotiable.
 
Incroyable mais je suis d'accord avec Riffo net LG dans ce thread!

Payeurs d'impôts et secondaire 5 minimum.

Pour ma part j'enlèverais le droit de vote aux retraités. Leur vote est sur représenté parce qu'ils ont le temps d'aller voter, mais eux ne votent que pour un objectif court terme au détriment du long terme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top