We have 4 years to get canadians away from Twitter and Facebook to Mastodon and Friendica to reduce the amount of influence the oligarchs have on our comms.
Lets bring back the vote subsidy, limit the contribution limits to $100 a year, lower the voting age to 16 and pass proportional representation!
I don’t agree with this, mostly because that age range is perhaps the most influenced by social media and “misogynist male influencers”.
They are too young to know better at that age, and to throw away their future because Joe Rogan or Andrew “The Rapist” Tate manipulated them is just not what this country needs.
But an overhaul of our election system is needed, and laws need to be made that protect people from the barrage of misinformation we are seeing more of every day.
Also, setting the age to 16 pretty much means the average person won’t vote until 18 based on election timing. If government is elected when you’re 17, you might not vote until you are 21.
Some countries allow you to vote in primaries if you will be at voting age by the time of the main elections. It also helps when they have consistent voting days, and alternate elections every 2 years (federal/province for example).
If the provinces and cities also lower the voting age, they will be able to vote much sooner than 18/21.
Is this really your experience with +16 years old? If so, you should get your province to invest more in education.
That’s the problem, though. Young males voters are swaying heavily to right-wing parties, and it’s thought that this is because of the online influence of bad actors.
Of course, any age can be manipulated, but far fewer are being swayed by these “influencers” as age increases.
And a lack of education ties in with voting Conservative, so there’s no incentive for the Cons to change this. They benefit from young, naive, undereducated voters.
They(16yo) can drive, they can enlist.
I’m against that, too. Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving, and have poor judgment on the road.
In most provinces, they are choosing their career, trade, university, and with fresh knowledge of history and geopolitics they get from schools.
Yes, of course. It’s a transition age.
Many countries already allowed 16 years old people to vote, for more than 20 years, and they did not become a misogynist hell-hole.
Other countries may not (at least, not now) have a problem with social media influencing their young voters. So, it may “work” for them, but not for North Americans.
I’m not trying to throw this age group under the bus. It’s THEIR future that we vote for, and they really should be playing a role in shaping that future.
But I’d want them to be making an informed vote, without the voice of right-wing extremists in their heads. At this present time, I don’t think that could happen, because these influencers run unchecked, and it DOES impact how our youth think and act.
No rights for a whole group because you do not agree with the political leaning of ~1/4 of them (poor young folks that vote centre and left).
Add to this that younger men have a lower turnout voting, than any other age group.
A while we are at it
Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving,
With this logic, I imagine you also want to remove the license from people +50yo. Maybe their voter card as well.
Given their turnout and right-wing tendencies. Also, how bad they drive, given the number of accidents.
Hey, I all for a walkable city, possibly you are right with this license takeover.
but not for North Americans
Oh, yes, we are different because we live on this arbitrary piece of land.
Other countries have internet (better than here) and right-wing pundits as well.
I don’t think irrational fear of what others might do should be the gatekeeper of their rights.
I also do not agree with them paying taxes with no representation.
It’s THEIR future that we vote for
Given that you want to reduce the rights of a group that are active members of the society, can join the workforce and pay taxes, and studied for most of their lives. Just because you do not agree with what a fraction might do.
I don’t think you have their best interest in mind.
Just because you do not agree with what a fraction might do.
Nils, if you cannot explain how this voting-age change is guaranteed to move the country in a Progressive direction, then I am not interested in your whinging.
American ICE is coming to deport you from your country next. You had better have the upper hand when they do. Tick tick.
remove the license from people +50yo. Maybe their voter card as well.
Given their turnout and right-wing tendencies.
Nils, if you cannot explain how this voting-age change …
I guess my first paragraph could be a bit more detailed, so all could understand.
It is hard to imagine you ignored it just to throw a tantrum.
So let me go more in depth, and please let me know if you need further assistance.
Context,
The news in Canada reported that young males might vote conservative, from polls, to schools simulations where the conservatives formed a minority government. I imagine this was part of the reason our friend was afraid of young voters - ironically, just as the right-wing voters, victim of their own unfounded fears.
People that took the time to open past the headlines would see a few things, the percentage of males voting conservative is still minimal compared to the total of other parties, and less than other age group. Young women avoid conservatives more than any other group.
The simulations involved kids as young as elementary, depending on the province here in Canada, they might be as young as 5 years old. And even there, the conservatives got only 36% of the votes across all age groups from elementary to high school.
Last, election turnover is very low with the younger audiences.
There are a bunch of “ifs” and stars to align. It is a fraction (16 and 17 years old), of a fraction (males), of a fraction (that lean conservatives) of a fraction (that would go vote), that you and our friend do not want to have the right to vote. And because of that, everyone else from the 16 and 17 years old age group would not be allowed as well.
It is funny that people like you want to limit other group rights because of what a small fraction of the constituents might do, and call it for the good of “progressive initiatives”.
Suppressing voters is not Progressive. As far as I can compare around, places where people have more rights and power, (more democracy) are more progressive.
Lowering the voting age is usually a Progressive instance, in most cases brought up by progressive parties, just look around the globe. Here we have the examples of FairVote and Sunshine.
Progressive does not mean “things I don’t like must go”.
Well, to be fair, I wrote this for others. By the way that you behave, it does not seem like you are interested in understanding, and just went crazy with slogans. I am not sure if you are a troll or a toddler throwing a tantrum.
I find it hilarious users claim progressiveness, while curbing people’s rights.*
American ICE is coming to deport you
Sadly, we already have other groups coming here to kidnap or murder inhabitants, and I am not sure if I will be alive long enough to give ICE a chance to get rid of me.
* You see how I repeat that a few times in the text, I noticed some people like slogans. So I will put in bold here.
Both the ndp and the bloc are pretty weak now, they’ll need quite a bit of time to fundraise, for ndp to get a new leader and to figure out a response to carneys new governance style. Both of them need to be willing for an election to happen before it will happen. I think this will be a fairly long minority government unless carney does something truly awful or there is yet another change in the global order.
I have mixed feelings about Proportional Representation, I’m worried it would lessen the “local candidate” element of the election. I like the concept of voting for a local representative from my area in Parliament, no matter their party affiliation.
Then again, I like the theory behind Ranked Ballots, but unfortunately in practice they tend to just funnel third party votes to the main parties, which is not right either.
I suppose we could go with PR/STV and triple the amount of representatives to still have some sort of local area representative scheme… but that could get expensive and unwieldy very quick.
Could we get rid of the Senate and have two houses? One house small riding FPTP for local area representation, and one house be party based PR by province?
I used to think like that, until I realized that I never met the past 3 representatives from my riding. They sent representatives to knock on my door during the campaign saying yes to any issue I brought up, they never hold town halls, and only returned generic messages when we tried to contact them - when they answer.
The person elected this time does not live in my riding.
All of them voted with the party, and never proposed anything useful.
That was one of the questions I had for the candidates knocking this time, would you vote against the party if their decision would harm “us”(the riding)?
Today, I rather vote for anyone (or party/independent list) in Canada that would relate to my expectations. I do not care where they live, only that they do a good job.
If you really like the local representation that could be for you. The only recent time I can think regional MPs actually coming into play is the heating oil exemption, though.
I haven’t, that’s really interesting, slightly on the complicated side to sell to people though.
So you vote both for candidate and party seperately and then once all the candidates are put in seats, they add more representatives designated by the parties to balence the party representation?
Local representation is not great for passing laws, but it is amazing to get things fixed that got bound up in the bureaucracy. Like expedite a passport, or figure out why a pension didn’t come. Having your MLA or MP speak for you often has a greater impact than going solo. And it nice that your repw usually has a local office in reasonable travel distance, if you want to speak to them in person.
I have mixed feelings about Proportional Representation, I’m worried it would lessen the “local candidate” element of the election. I like the concept of voting for a local representative from my area in Parliament, no matter their party affiliation.
That is a misnomer as proportional representation is a family of electoral systems. The party-lists is the electoral system that lacks the local representation however Mixed-Member Proportional & Single Transferable Vote both retain it.
I suppose we could go with PR/STV and triple the amount of representatives to still have some sort of local area representative scheme… but that could get expensive and unwieldy very quick.
The elections would cost the same as it would only cost money at first to convert the system from first-past-the-post to the single transferable vote / mixed-member proportional.
We have 4 years to get canadians away from Twitter and Facebook to Mastodon and Friendica to reduce the amount of influence the oligarchs have on our comms.
Lets bring back the vote subsidy, limit the contribution limits to $100 a year, lower the voting age to 16 and pass proportional representation!
I don’t agree with this, mostly because that age range is perhaps the most influenced by social media and “misogynist male influencers”.
They are too young to know better at that age, and to throw away their future because Joe Rogan or Andrew “The Rapist” Tate manipulated them is just not what this country needs.
But an overhaul of our election system is needed, and laws need to be made that protect people from the barrage of misinformation we are seeing more of every day.
Is this really your experience with +16 years old? If so, you should get your province to invest more in education.
They(16yo) can drive, they can enlist.
In most provinces, they are choosing their career, trade, university, and with fresh knowledge of history and geopolitics they get from schools.
And there is no magical switch that flips when you turn 18. The sooner they start thinking about their future, the better.
Many countries already allowed 16 years old people to vote, for more than 20 years, and they did not become a misogynist hell-hole.
Also, setting the age to 16 pretty much means the average person won’t vote until 18 based on election timing. If government is elected when you’re 17, you might not vote until you are 21.
Some countries allow you to vote in primaries if you will be at voting age by the time of the main elections. It also helps when they have consistent voting days, and alternate elections every 2 years (federal/province for example).
If the provinces and cities also lower the voting age, they will be able to vote much sooner than 18/21.
That’s the problem, though. Young males voters are swaying heavily to right-wing parties, and it’s thought that this is because of the online influence of bad actors.
Of course, any age can be manipulated, but far fewer are being swayed by these “influencers” as age increases.
And a lack of education ties in with voting Conservative, so there’s no incentive for the Cons to change this. They benefit from young, naive, undereducated voters.
I’m against that, too. Young drivers are notoriously bad at driving, and have poor judgment on the road.
Yes, of course. It’s a transition age.
Other countries may not (at least, not now) have a problem with social media influencing their young voters. So, it may “work” for them, but not for North Americans.
I’m not trying to throw this age group under the bus. It’s THEIR future that we vote for, and they really should be playing a role in shaping that future.
But I’d want them to be making an informed vote, without the voice of right-wing extremists in their heads. At this present time, I don’t think that could happen, because these influencers run unchecked, and it DOES impact how our youth think and act.
No rights for a whole group because you do not agree with the political leaning of ~1/4 of them (poor young folks that vote centre and left). Add to this that younger men have a lower turnout voting, than any other age group.
A while we are at it
With this logic, I imagine you also want to remove the license from people +50yo. Maybe their voter card as well.
Given their turnout and right-wing tendencies. Also, how bad they drive, given the number of accidents.
Hey, I all for a walkable city, possibly you are right with this license takeover.
Oh, yes, we are different because we live on this arbitrary piece of land.
Other countries have internet (better than here) and right-wing pundits as well.
I don’t think irrational fear of what others might do should be the gatekeeper of their rights.
I also do not agree with them paying taxes with no representation.
Given that you want to reduce the rights of a group that are active members of the society, can join the workforce and pay taxes, and studied for most of their lives. Just because you do not agree with what a fraction might do. I don’t think you have their best interest in mind.
Nils, if you cannot explain how this voting-age change is guaranteed to move the country in a Progressive direction, then I am not interested in your whinging.
American ICE is coming to deport you from your country next. You had better have the upper hand when they do. Tick tick.
Fuck it, sure.
I guess my first paragraph could be a bit more detailed, so all could understand.
It is hard to imagine you ignored it just to throw a tantrum.
So let me go more in depth, and please let me know if you need further assistance.
Context,
The news in Canada reported that young males might vote conservative, from polls, to schools simulations where the conservatives formed a minority government. I imagine this was part of the reason our friend was afraid of young voters - ironically, just as the right-wing voters, victim of their own unfounded fears.
People that took the time to open past the headlines would see a few things, the percentage of males voting conservative is still minimal compared to the total of other parties, and less than other age group. Young women avoid conservatives more than any other group.
The simulations involved kids as young as elementary, depending on the province here in Canada, they might be as young as 5 years old. And even there, the conservatives got only 36% of the votes across all age groups from elementary to high school.
Last, election turnover is very low with the younger audiences.
There are a bunch of “ifs” and stars to align. It is a fraction (16 and 17 years old), of a fraction (males), of a fraction (that lean conservatives) of a fraction (that would go vote), that you and our friend do not want to have the right to vote. And because of that, everyone else from the 16 and 17 years old age group would not be allowed as well.
It is funny that people like you want to limit other group rights because of what a small fraction of the constituents might do, and call it for the good of “progressive initiatives”.
Suppressing voters is not Progressive. As far as I can compare around, places where people have more rights and power, (more democracy) are more progressive.
Lowering the voting age is usually a Progressive instance, in most cases brought up by progressive parties, just look around the globe. Here we have the examples of FairVote and Sunshine.
Progressive does not mean “things I don’t like must go”.
Well, to be fair, I wrote this for others. By the way that you behave, it does not seem like you are interested in understanding, and just went crazy with slogans. I am not sure if you are a troll or a toddler throwing a tantrum.
I find it hilarious users claim progressiveness, while curbing people’s rights.*
Sadly, we already have other groups coming here to kidnap or murder inhabitants, and I am not sure if I will be alive long enough to give ICE a chance to get rid of me.
* You see how I repeat that a few times in the text, I noticed some people like slogans. So I will put in bold here.
Curbing people’s rights is not progressive
Its a minority government. Four years is optimistic.
The last one lasted pretty long.
tbh the last one did have an agreement with the ndp
Both the ndp and the bloc are pretty weak now, they’ll need quite a bit of time to fundraise, for ndp to get a new leader and to figure out a response to carneys new governance style. Both of them need to be willing for an election to happen before it will happen. I think this will be a fairly long minority government unless carney does something truly awful or there is yet another change in the global order.
I have mixed feelings about Proportional Representation, I’m worried it would lessen the “local candidate” element of the election. I like the concept of voting for a local representative from my area in Parliament, no matter their party affiliation.
Then again, I like the theory behind Ranked Ballots, but unfortunately in practice they tend to just funnel third party votes to the main parties, which is not right either.
I suppose we could go with PR/STV and triple the amount of representatives to still have some sort of local area representative scheme… but that could get expensive and unwieldy very quick.
Could we get rid of the Senate and have two houses? One house small riding FPTP for local area representation, and one house be party based PR by province?
I used to think like that, until I realized that I never met the past 3 representatives from my riding. They sent representatives to knock on my door during the campaign saying yes to any issue I brought up, they never hold town halls, and only returned generic messages when we tried to contact them - when they answer.
The person elected this time does not live in my riding.
All of them voted with the party, and never proposed anything useful.
That was one of the questions I had for the candidates knocking this time, would you vote against the party if their decision would harm “us”(the riding)?
Today, I rather vote for anyone (or party/independent list) in Canada that would relate to my expectations. I do not care where they live, only that they do a good job.
Had you not heard of mixed-member proportional rep?
If you really like the local representation that could be for you. The only recent time I can think regional MPs actually coming into play is the heating oil exemption, though.
Let’s throw a wrench into things: Dual Member Proportional, a system that doesn’t send people who haven’t directly stood for election to Ottawa.
Huh, that one’s new to me as well! Interesting.
It’s what got pp ousted from his riding just two days ago.
That’s true, although it’s more down to FPTP in general than anything to do with the specific area he ran in.
I haven’t, that’s really interesting, slightly on the complicated side to sell to people though.
So you vote both for candidate and party seperately and then once all the candidates are put in seats, they add more representatives designated by the parties to balence the party representation?
Local representation is not great for passing laws, but it is amazing to get things fixed that got bound up in the bureaucracy. Like expedite a passport, or figure out why a pension didn’t come. Having your MLA or MP speak for you often has a greater impact than going solo. And it nice that your repw usually has a local office in reasonable travel distance, if you want to speak to them in person.
Have you actually managed that? I’ve sent correspondence but I assume it all just goes in the trash.
People in Germany do not find mixed-member proportional complicated. It’s only from our frame of reference that we believe it as such.
That is a misnomer as proportional representation is a family of electoral systems. The party-lists is the electoral system that lacks the local representation however Mixed-Member Proportional & Single Transferable Vote both retain it.
The elections would cost the same as it would only cost money at first to convert the system from first-past-the-post to the single transferable vote / mixed-member proportional.