Should People With Low IQ's Be Allowed To Vote?

A._Badger

BertieUK wrote: »

The Conservative pattern never really changes, they are so committed to making negative points and views about the Opposition that they forget that it is they who are Governing our country at the moment and should put all positive effort into worrying about how to convince the Electorate in 2015 that they should vote for them instead of giving these negative comments otherwise...

...The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese...

Were you asleep while Bliar and 'no more boom and bust' Brown were in power?

There is no discernible difference between the way one lot plays the blame game and how the other does.

CLAPTON

Hooloovoo wrote: »

I agree, in a local election. But we were discussing a yes/no referendum.

I agree, in a local election. But we were discussing a yes/no referendum.

Then abstain.

Whichever party proposed it is irrelevant. Very very intelligent people will understand that voting yes or no in a referendum just because you like or dislike the party that made the proposal is utterly ridiculous. You either think it's a good idea or not, and should vote accordingly.



Good. That's the idea.

Then abstain.

Voting "no" against a policy change that would be a good idea just because you dislike the party or person that proposed it is so moronically idiotic I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to discuss it.

Unbelievable arrogance.


Which holy book or Machiavellian text book says it is OK in local election but not in a referendum? Is it simply because you do it?

Which holy book tells you that abstaining is better than voting?

If an elector considers that abstaining, voting for or voting against or spoiling the voting paper sends, in their view the most meaningful message then that's what I call democracy and is rational and intelligent.

It is perfectly possible that some-one may feel that protesting against a totally and utterly cynical leader of a corrupted political party is more important that the specific issue of AV.

GeorgeHowell

A._Badger wrote: »

Were you asleep while Bliar and 'no more boom and bust' Brown were in power?

There is no discernible difference between the way one lot plays the blame game and how the other does.

I'm afraid when they are that dyed in the wool you could put up a mangy sheep wearing a red rosette as the candidate and they would vote for it.

BertieUK

A._Badger wrote: »

Were you asleep while Bliar and 'no more boom and bust' Brown were in power?

There is no discernible difference between the way one lot plays the blame game and how the other does.

With due respect to you I had hoped that this was history and we do get a bit fed up with hearing it so often to be truthful but I agree that it stirs debates no end.

'no more boom and bust' must be their morning 'bird song' when the wake up every morning with regret that they said it.

BertieUK

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I'm afraid when they are that dyed in the wool you could put up a mangy sheep wearing a red rosette as the candidate and they would vote for it.

George.. Nothing would please me more than to be able to say to you at the next Election result that your assumption was wrong for the first time when the Electorate voted with their heads for the first time.;)

A._Badger

BertieUK wrote: »

With due respect to you I had hoped that this was history and we do get a bit fed up with hearing it so often to be truthful but I agree that it stirs debates no end.

'no more boom and bust' must be their morning 'bird song' when the wake up every morning with regret that they said it.

Thank you for the complete non-answer. Issue duly avoided.

GeorgeHowell

BertieUK wrote: »

With due respect to you I had hoped that this was history and we do get a bit fed up with hearing it so often to be truthful but I agree that it stirs debates no end.

'no more boom and bust' must be their morning 'bird song' when the wake up every morning with regret that they said it.

How can it be consigned to history ? It happened just a few years ago. Many of the same cast of characters -- eg Balls, Byrne -- will be back in government if Labour gets in again. To assume that the same dire mistakes could not happen again is just denial.

BertieUK

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

How can it be consigned to history ? It happened just a few years ago. Many of the same cast of characters -- eg Balls, Byrne -- will be back in government if Labour gets in again. To assume that the same dire mistakes could not happen again is just denial.

My remark about it being history and in the past is what happened must never be repeated by Labour and lessons must be learned by it, and if they get in and have the same cast of players, we will have greater regrets but these 'clowns' cannot be there to represent the Labour Party at the next election, well I hope not anyway, they would not get my vote.

System

Just as a matter of interest, is there any kind of test of capability at the lowest end of the intelligence spectrum? Can a person with such severe learning difficulties as to be barely capable of understanding what voting means, none the less insist on a right to vote?

On what grounds do we not give the vote to people aged 16? 14? 12?
The fact that at some point we decide that someone does not possess enough understanding or capability to be given the vote surely means that in principle we accept that the majority has the right to deny voting rights to a minority?


Is a completed postal vote still valid if someone then suffers an accident and has brain damage on the day of the poll?

PaulF81

BertieUK wrote: »

With due respect to you I had hoped that this was history and we do get a bit fed up with hearing it so often to be truthful but I agree that it stirs debates no end.

'no more boom and bust' must be their morning 'bird song' when the wake up every morning with regret that they said it.

You could argue the same about labourite scum whining on about how Maggie killed up naaaath and destroyed the third world mining industry.