2015 Election

[Garacesh]

I'm fairly certain I just walked past Nigel Farage on my way home from the post office...

[Sagima]

I'm fairly certain I just walked past Nigel Farage on my way home from the post office...

 

I hope so - I wouldn't like to think he was being cloned and sent out into an unsuspecting public

[elsiegee40]

I'm fairly certain I just walked past Nigel Farage on my way home from the post office...

 

He was in Rochester yesterday. Were you?

[Garacesh]

Not even close!

 

That's a rather unfortunate doppelgänger then D:

[sparkeh]

Not even close!

 

That's a rather unfortunate doppelgänger then D:

Did you actually see Sam the Eagle instead?

Edited April 22, 2015 by sparkeh

[witch]

Elections will all be managed locally. Since each local campaign will will be based on different issues/people/location then all the posters will be done created and managed locally, mostly by volunteers and known to the person up for election.

Hardly surprising that mistakes will creep in. Im not so anal to hold that against them personally, but some people are that wired up in such a way that it does. Life moves on.

 

At the very least, the people writing the posters should realise that a lot of people WILL be upset by misspellings and mistakes, and therefore take a bit more care so as not to alienate the electorate?

[Andrew_C]

That's a rather unfortunate doppelgänger then D:

I hope you are going to apologise to whoever it was, for whatever you called him...

[Novalee]

Haven't read the whole thread. But interested to see the Greens have a higher % on here than lib-dems.

[tmcd35]

Haven't read the whole thread. But interested to see the Greens have a higher % on here than lib-dems.

 

At the beginning of the thread we were taking the political compass quiz and it seems most of us are Ghandi re-incarnated. Basically a more fascist version of the Greens, but still closer to them as we're generally a lot more socialist and more liberal than the, er, Liberal Democrats.

[caffrey]

Social media could play a factor especially when things like #milifandom is top trend at the mo....

[sparkeh]

Social media could play a factor especially when things like #milifandom is top trend at the mo....

Yeah that's an interesting one. Although the voting intention polls haven't moved, Milliband's and Labour's ratings are getting quite a boost which might help edge them up in the next two weeks.

 

There is also a fair bit of negativity about the Tory campaign now: old Tory grandees coming out against the party strategy (and even telling Scottish voters to vote Labour!), Grant Shapps allegedly altering his colleagues Wikipedia pages, US Republican students being parachuted in to canvass marginal seats etc.

[localzuk]

Just discussing the election in the office and one of the staff said that he'd like to see people claiming benefits prevented from voting! "If they don't work, they shouldn't vote!"

 

What a concept! I'm of the opposite view - everyone should be forced to vote, and the voting age should be extended down to 16.

 

But it does bring the question to one that has been in the news over the last few years - should prisoners have the vote?

[tmcd35]

I like the American Revolution phrase - not taxation without representation. Start with that - if you pay taxes in this country, regardless of citizenship, you should have the right to vote or we shouldn't have the right to demand taxes from you.

 

However taxation isn't the basis of voting - if you're a citizen you should have the right to vote, regardless of whether or not you are in employment

 

Prisoners - I tend to the view that they have lost their liberty until released, therefore they forfeit right to vote.

 

Voting age - I wonder if we are driving the age of majority a little to low. Let renew a focus on education until 21 (thinking apprenticeships in place of university were appropriate). Maybe the age of majority, and with it the voting age (and thus taxation) should be set at 21? Just a thought (that will be unpopular with young people - but then they can't vote so it don't matter )

 

Just my 2c on the subject

Edited April 22, 2015 by tmcd35

[Garacesh]

should prisoners have the vote?

No. I don't think they should, personally. You lost your rights when you started encroaching on others'.

[Sagima]

I personally think if a prisoner is to be released/parolled within a parliament then they should get to vote but if they are going to be inside during the entire term then I don't think so.

[Sagima]

But then if I got to change the way things worked based on my own views I'd have an election for 20% of parliament every two years, voting would be reduced to 15+, made compulsory and be only for people who could demonstrate understanding of how the whole thing works (there would be lessons on it in school). I'm also quite keen on the idea of having no parties so everyone stands as an independent and works for their constituency rather than the party/themselves.

 

and all laws would have a sunset date in and a reason for being so that after 6 years or what-have-you it would be reviewed by an independant body so parliament would see if a law was being effective / being used for what it was intended and if not just let it lapse or amend it to do so.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Sagima
added last line

[Garacesh]

They have been denied there freedom but still have human rights.

They have been denied their freedom (if we are to believe in the judicial system) with just cause, because they are not fit to be active members of our society. Why, then, if they are not fit to be active members of our society, should they be able to influence the way it is run?

 

Voting should not be a human right (at least not in my eyes). It is a privilege bestowed upon you by the government* that should be revoked if certain criteria are met.

 

* It's an odd one, looking at it.. Obviously I'm against dictatorships, but I don't think voting is a 'human right', nor should it be mandatory. I do think everyone should have the option 'as standard', but if you're in jail or, say, permanently living abroad, you shouldn't get the vote.

 

Edit: Huh.. There is a 'Right to Reproduce'. Did not know that. Doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be, I guess, but it's not one that's really talked about much.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Garacesh

[tmcd35]

I've just scan-read the wiki article on human rights and didn't notice a - 'right of suffrage'. Did notice a 'Freedom of Movement' though, mmm, could cause problems if we have to apply human rights in their totality to convicted criminals. Maybe the Rutger Hauer film 'Wedlock' posses a solution to the problem?

[sonofsanta]

There's two ways of looking at prison time.

 

One: it's a punishment enacted by society. Civilised revenge on behalf of the wronged. Sentence length is (theoretically) proportional to the severity of the crime. The hope is that people feel suitably punished that they do not re-offend, and those who have not yet offended are dissuaded by the threat of the punishment.

 

Two: it is time away from society to allow the offender to be rehabilitated and eventually reintegrated. Sentence length is related to how long the rehabilitation should take, which may well be related to the severity of the crime - that is, an urge to murder will likely take longer to "fix" than the urge to shoplift.

 

In the first case, you could take away the vote as part of the punishment. In the second, you might take it away if you judge the person unfit to vote - that is, if they can't meaningly take part in society on a day to day basis, how can we expect them to take part democratically on the big picture basis?

 

The US is unabashedly the former system, where the Nordic countries are the latter. In the UK, I fear we're neither here nor there, and thus our prison system serves neither purpose - people aren't adequately punished, nor rehabilitated in any meaningful way. This may be why our re-offence rates are higher (certainly than the Nordic countries, not sure on stats vs. America).

[localzuk]

But then if I got to change the way things worked based on my own views I'd have an election for 20% of parliament every two years, voting would be reduced to 15+, made compulsory and be only for people who could demonstrate understanding of how the whole thing works (there would be lessons on it in school). I'm also quite keen on the idea of having no parties so everyone stands as an independent and works for their constituency rather than the party/themselves.

 

Ah, so we should discriminate against people with low IQs? Seems a little unfair. Who decides if they understand it? The government of the day? What if they make such a determination based on the political views of the person being questioned? "Ah, you think wealth should be redistributed, you're obviously too stupid to vote".

 

I believe the right to decide that has been deferred to the EU under the human rights issues. It has been argued that we should have the right to overrule the EU in this matter but so far I think the EU rules on human rights trumps our ability to opt out but I could be wrong.

 

Personally I don't see any reason to prevent them from voting. They have been denied there freedom but still have human rights.

 

I think the same - a prisoner still has the right to influence how they are treated. Remember, people didn't choose to be born, or choose where they were born, but they non-optionally are restrained by the laws in place. Therefore, regardless of their crime, voting should be afforded to all. We'd never get to the situation where prisoner votes could vote in a party that wants to legalise murder but we could have a situation that their votes could aid a party into power that alters a law that put them in prison. There's plenty of things that have historically been crimes which now aren't.

Edited April 22, 2015 by localzuk

[sonofsanta]

A prisoner still has the right to influence how they are treated. Remember, people didn't choose to be born, or choose where they were born, but they non-optionally are restrained by the laws in place. Therefore, regardless of their crime, voting should be afforded to all. We'd never get to the situation where prisoner votes could vote in a party that wants to legalise murder but we could have a situation that their votes could aid a party into power that alters a law that put them in prison. There's plenty of things that have historically been crimes which now aren't.

 

I'd not considered it that way before, particularly the final point. I am convinced by your logic.

[sparkeh]

Denying prisoners the vote is a relic of the Forfeiture Act of 1870 when the notion of Civil Death was used in society. There's no place for it in a modern society, its just an overhang from a bygone age.

 

What does it actually achieve? Prisoners are still members of society, removing their civil rights is just another barrier to rehabilitation and reintegration.

[Garacesh]

There's plenty of things that have historically been crimes which now aren't.

That doesn't absolve them of actually committing a crime, though. Whether you agree with the law or not, the law is the law. And acting contrary to the law lands you in prison. (Simplified explanation, granted)

 

Laws should be changed by people that have proven themselves able to follow them (or, more accurately, I guess, people that haven't been caught not following them).

 

Prisoners are not members of society. Prisoners are certainly citizens of the country (in most cases) but they are not members of society as they have been excluded from society for their crimes.

[tmcd35]

It goes back to what @sonofsanta said about the two reasons behind the criminal justice system. My view is punishment first, rehabilitation second. Being sent to prison in my eyes is a loss of liberty, and that includes suffrage. But then I also believe in fixed term sentences without parole. Rehabilitation is what should happen towards the end of the sentence to prepare for reintegration with society, not the raison d'etre for prisons.

[localzuk]

That doesn't absolve them of actually committing a crime, though. Whether you agree with the law or not, the law is the law. And acting contrary to the law lands you in prison. (Simplified explanation, granted)

 

Laws should be changed by people that have proven themselves able to follow them (or, more accurately, I guess, people that haven't been caught not following them).

 

Prisoners are not members of society. Prisoners are certainly citizens of the country (in most cases) but they are not members of society as they have been excluded from society for their crimes.

 

That sort of thinking only works if you think there is such a thing is absolute morality though, and that the law is infallible. The law is often wrong, and therefore you as a subject of it should always, no matter the crime, be able to challenge it by voting.

 

There is no "proving" yourself able to follow laws. People get to vote when they are old enough. There's no process of proving they will follow the law, they just get that right. As such, it is arbitrary to later add a new condition to that right because you've done something that the current law says is wrong.

 

Prisoners are members of society, they just aren't allowed to walk around in public.