Social 30-1
I went over a PowerPoint presentation today called "Political Challenges to Liberalism", which I will be sending to you this afternoon. I also gave you a reading called "The End of Democracy?" which is REQUIRED reading. Please make sure that you read this over this weekend. Also, make sure that you complete the following homework assignment prior to Thursday's class:
You must post an answer to two of the questions AND one of them MUST be an answer to question 4. You post your responses in the comment section on today's post and identify yourself by your initials (K.G. Social 30-1). You must also respond to two classmates' posts. This assignment is for DOUBLE homework check marks. Get it done! Use today's comment section for your responses. Don't forget that your Comparing American and Canadian Political System Charts are due on Thursday.
Social 20-1
My apologies to my Social 20-1 students, it's been a bad week for me. My son threw up at his daycare and I had to go pick him up. At any rate, you had some class time to work on the Unit 3 Worksheet. Your Chapter 9 Key Terms and Questions are due on Monday. Also on Monday, you have your Unit 2 Final Exam, please see the study guide here. I will also share the results of your Chapter 7-8 Test next week, if you're really curious, you could always send me an e-mail and I'll get back to you. I should be able to have your essay results by Thursday of next week (one week after you wrote them).
55 comments:
(B.P Social 30-1)
1: Should the Voting age be lowered: The Voting age should be lowered in order to get a larger representation on the overall voice of Canadian citizens and therefore become more Democratic. The voting age however, should only be lowered 1-2 years and more education prior to those years should be implemented to inform and mature citizens on the political platforms of each government. Those who feel incapable of voting have the right to exclude themselves from doing so.
4: Is the First Past the Post system Democratic: The First Past the post system is not democratic in cases where there was not a majority winner. In cases where a winner has not won a majority, the larger voice of citizens have not been met. In such circumstances, it is better to conjoin and have a government comprised of a number of governments, each with a say proportional to their popular vote, working together.
- I believe to keep a democratic system all should be allowed to vote. A majority vote will handle the issues of uninformed individuals making inappropriate voting choices.
- I believe the first past the post system is undemocratic as it unfairly assumes the candidate with the most votes is the most favoured. This is untrue as election votes may end up being very close, however this system allows the candidate with a few more to take all.
Responding to B.P:
I agree that the voting age could be lowered to 16, as there are some individuals at that age who are capable of making informed decisions that will affect their personal futures. However, there should be a test individuals are required to pass to ensure voters are mature and understand the world around them. This will limit the number of teenagers looking to fool around with the system.
Response to question 2 (should voting be mandatory?)
I feel that mandatory voting would be a detriment to the voting system. I believe this because it would force the uninformed to vote which could shift the votes away from the person most capable of leading the country.
Response to question 4 (is first past the post democratic?)
Although first past the post is democratic by the definition that people have the right to vote for a party of their choosing it is not the fairest way. This is because the winner of the election does not have to have the majority of people vote for them.
@ (B.P. Social 30-1)
I disagree with your answer to question 1. I feel that younger voters would not have been exposed to the consequences of the issues that the parties are basing their platforms off of and as such could not be informed voters even with supplementary education
Should voting be mandatory? --> I don't think voting should be mandatory because if it was, people may just vote without thinking about who or why they are really voting. This could lead to problems in that the "most suitable" party may not be chosen due to careless voting. If people just can't be bothered to vote, then they can't complain if they don't like the system of government.
Is the first past the post system democratic? --> Not all the time. If the winner of the election hasn't won the majority of the votes, but still won the election due to the first past the post system, it is not democracy because the majority of people did not vote for that party.
Response to B.P. Question 1 --> I don't think the voting age should be lowered 1-2 years because although there are people at that age who are mature enough to vote and educated enough to know about the political parties, the majority of teens at that age have not been exposed to such information at that age. You said they can exclude themselves if they don't feel ready, but there would still be some individuals who aren't ready but just vote because they can, not because they have strong opinions about the government.
Response to C.W. Question 2 --> I agree with your opinion to mandatory voting because it is true that people who are uninformed would now be forced to vote, therefore shifting to a different outcome in the election, which may not be the best option. If it's not mandatory to vote, it is easier to assume that the people who did vote put in the time to research the different parties and therefore are sure about their own opinion on who they should vote for.
only 5 comments? am i posting in the wrong section or something? ><
3. I don't think everyone should be given the opportunity to vote. This is because I don't think people who are mentally challenged :p should receive the same amount of power as those who are clearly more intellectually capable. Government should not only represent net sum of each individual's will but also the general will of the people (what is best for each individual). therefore, I don't think everyone should be given the same opportunity, or the same degree of influence to vote
4.I think first past the post is not very democratic because some parties will never be represented. Thus this voting system will eventually result into a two party system .
~claud~
@ B.P:
a government composed of many governments would be disastrous, as they will be competing with each other rather than working together. (are you talking about a government composed of many parties?)
If that is the case, coalition governments are not very democratic by nature because there are mutually assured agreement between the parties forming the coalition. Matters in which the coalition should debate about are kept in silence as a way to stay in power
~claud~
Is the first-past-the-post electoral system democratic: The first-past-the-post system is definitely not democratic. The leader does not necessarily need a majority to win the government, and, in many cases, the results of an FPTP election do not truly reflect the will of the people. For example, two liberal parties and one conservative party are running for government. The liberal parties are popular, and, if their votes were consolidated, they would certainly trump the votes won by the conservative party. However, if the conservative party, in the FPTP system, has more votes than the liberal parties (taken separately), they would, in fact, win government. . This obviously undermines the popular vote, and, therefore, democracy.
Should voting be mandatory: Definitely. Citizen participation is the very foundation of democracy, and it is, in fact, the duty of every citizen in a democracy to vote. If not paying your taxes or refusing to participate in the census is a punishable offense, why is voting an option? Some may argue that mandatory voting infringes on freedoms of the individual. However, there are certain reasonable limitations that must be placed on individual freedom in order for a society and, in this case, democracy to succeed. In our last federal elections, voter turnout was at an all-time low of 58.8%. Is this even democracy? Clearly, not everyone is being represented. Therefore to ensure that democracy is not in vain, voting should be treated as a responsibility, as well as a right.
Responding to N.R.:
I don’t think that the voting age should be lowered to 16, even if individuals can prove that they are intelligent enough to vote. If you are under the age of 18, you are shielded by various means from full criminal responsibility, as, presumably, a minor does not have the same sense of rationality as an adult should. Why should a minor, intelligent or not, have the rights (such as the right to vote) afforded to an individual over the age of 18, yet not be subject to the same consequences. This does not demonstrate equality before the law. If people under the age of 16 are that desperate to have an adult’s right, they must be prepared to give up some of the allowances that the law makes for them, due to their age.
Responding to Claud:
I don’t think a coalition government is a terrible idea. If two somewhat similar opposition parties in an FPTP system, together, had the support of the majority of the people, they could overthrow the ruling party. At least this way, the popular vote is addressed. If they do happen to stay in power, it is because the people allowed it.
1: Should the Voting age be lowered
Voting age should not be lowered because younger people lack knowledge about the world they live in and are prone to be more naive and liberal, thinking they can make a difference and save the world.
2.Is the First Past the Post system Democratic
It is the most efficient form of Democracy where many parties exist. Coalition governments would be disastrous as stated above.
likes fan's comments~
I agree, education does not substitute experience. Younger people, who live off their parents are more likely to follow the "moral" norms of society. From that they are more likely to become liberal than conservative.
As I states above government should not only represent the net sum of the people's will but should also reflect the general will. It would be disastrous to have little boys and girls voting for their idealistic nonsense :)
im done my two posts ~ makes me wonder the class reaction tomorrow when only 11 posts were made on this blog >_<
~claud~
3. Should everyone over the age of 18 be allowed to vote?
Yes, they should be allowed to vote because voting is a democratic process and by allowing everyone to vote ensures that the process is fair. People have varied beliefs and values they want to express depending on their age, gender, or cultural differences. Thus, they should all have an oppurtunity to do so.
4. Is the first past the post system democratic?
No, the FPTP system is not democratic because it doesn't need a majority to win the election and a democratic system should be based on the will of the majority. The FPTP system can change the result from the popular vote.
1. Should the voting age be lowered? No I don't think the voting age should be lowered because the average age around the world is 18 and that's the age when student usually finish secondary school are educated in the political system so they have some knowledgeable background if they are going to vote. They are also free from the stresses from secondary school.
4. Is the first past the post system democratic? I believe this a democratic way of electing officials to represent the population. Even though the person may get 20% of the vote they have the highest amount of population supporting them which means if they follow their agenda the highest population of the their constituency will be happy.
Response to: C.W. & C.J
C.W. : I believe that you are correct saying that the uninformed will just be filler votes that politicians will just be after to push them ahead of other candidates.
C.J. : Your interpretation of first past the post has made me reconsider if FPTP is really democratic since you pose a valuable position.
Response to B.P. question 1 --> I don't think the voting age should be lowered because although there are some teens who are mature enough to vote, the majority are still too uneducated to make such decisions. You said that they could exclude themselves if they didn't feel capable of voting, but I think teens would still vote, just because they can, not because they have opinions on the government.
Response to C.J. Re: mandatory voting --> I disagree with you in that voting should be mandatory because although you will have a higher voter turn out, there will be careless voters, which will lead to different results in the election. They will vote just because they have to, not because they have opinions on the government, and therefore will not have taken the time to research about the different parties and what they will do for the country.
(B.P Social 30-1)
Response to A.M.
I also agree that voting should not be mandatory. Those who are not informed or simply don't care can harm the outcome of an election
I also agree that the First Past the Post system is not democratic all the time. Unless a clear majority has chosen a winner, then the majority of citizens have not been represented
Response to fan
1: I believe the voting age SHOULD be lowered, and on another note, not all Liberals are naive, but your use of stereotypes alludes to your own personal simplicity. As displayed by your answer, not all youth embrace Liberal views, which makes your point invalid, and secondly, if one contains the knowledge, a strong sense of personal ideologies and maturity, then they should have the right to vote without age discrimination.
The first past the post system is not democratic, as the possibility of the majority not being represented. If a coalition government was formed, there isn't a definite result in failure, and if proportional voting based on popular vote was implemented then there is more representation of the entire nation rather then just a select group with ultimate power.
Should voting be mandatory?
I believe that voting should not be mandatory. Forced participation in election may result in greater apathy of the voters. There may be voters that vote randomly, with simultaneous vote that does not truly reflect on what is best for the country.
Is first past the post system democratic?
I believe that first past the post system is not democratic compared to other possible systems. The winning party may not reflect majority vote. For example, the winning party may only have 40 percent who voted for them. This means that 60 percent of the electors did not vote for the winning party.
Response to A.C.
4. I disagree about first past the post system being democratic. If the winning party only won 20 percent of the vote, it means that they may be representing only 20 percent of the population. If so, the winning party is not representing the population at all, since the rest of the population (80 percent in the example) may not agree with the winning party.
Response to B.P.
I disagree about lowering the voting age to 16. I do admit that some teenagers around the age of 16 are capable of thinking rationally. However, majority of the peers in that age range may not be interested in voting. They may in fact, may not be serious about elections at all. It will be better to educate our population about the workings of government and country affairs for 2 or more years, which will create more careful rational individuals who may make better decisions for the country.
1. Should the voting age be lowered?
No, the voting age shouldn't be lowered. Most people under 18 still lack the knowledge to know whats best for them, or their family, because most likely they will still be living in their parents house.
4. Is the first past the post system democratic?
No, first past the post is not democratic because it does represent a majority vote, it is simply if you can get one more vote then your opponent then you will win.
Response to A.S.
I agree with your comment, because over 18 is entitled to their own opinion based on voting and have the universal right to vote.
Response to C.J.
Although you post valid points, I still don't believe that voting should be mandatory. Citizens have the right to express their opinion and choose not to vote.
Should voting be mandatory?
Voting should not be mandatory because individuals who normally would disregard politics would not be any more inclined to be more involved in politics. Those individuals would only vote because they are required to, rather than to fulfill their societal responsibility. As a result, many of these votes will more often than not be arbitrarily casted or "donkey votes," and would not represent what is best for society. By making voting optional, it would express the view of only people who would care about their society, rather than just individuals who are forced to vote.
Is the "first past the post" system democratic?
The FPTP system cannot be considered democratic because it is not a fair representation of the will of the people. With the FPTP system, an individual does not need the support of the majority of the electorate to represent the people, but they just need the most votes. Because of this, an individual can still be elected even though the popular vote (i.e. will of the people) is against the individual. Therefore, the FPTP cannot be considered to be democratic because in some cases it does not accurately represent what the people want.
---------------------------------------
@ A.S.: Not everyone about the age of 18 should be able to vote because not everyone has the proficiency to make rational decisions. Yes, people should be given the opportunity to express their beliefs and values by voting regardless of gender and culture, but it is important to have a certain level of understanding in order to make their a valid expression of what is best for society. If people who lack the capability to make informed decisions are allowed to vote, those votes do not represent what is best for the society. Therefore, everyone should be given the opportunity to vote, so long as they are able to prove their proficiency to make an educated and rational decision.
@ C.J. : The importance of voting stems not from the necessity to fulfill "the duty of every citizen in a democracy," but rather for the government to accurately and effectively express what the people need and want. By making voting mandatory, it does not guarantee that the government will become a more accurate representation of the populace because those who originally would not have voted would not care for who they voted for. As well, it is invalid to place not paying taxes in the same offense category as voter apathy. Paying taxes, unlike voting, is not something which can be done arbitrarily: the presence of audits ensures this. As for voting, an individual could randomly choose anyone on the ballot simply to avoid being punished. There is no way to ensure that when people vote, they are making an informed decision and they wholeheartedly believe in that decision. Therefore, how can this possibly be an accurate representation of the will of the people? It is undeniable that voter turnout of 58.8% does not represent everyone within a society, but it is a more accurate representation than if voting was mandatory. The results from 58.8% of the populace voting represents the will of the people who care about politics and their country, and that is what is most important. If the other 41.2% has something which they want to express, then they would vote as well. Therefore, by making voting optional, it only expresses the opinion of those who actually care for their government and society and have the capability to make an informed decision, rather than expressing the opinion of people who are just fulfilling a duty to avoid being punished.
Should voting be mandatory?
Voting should not be mandatory because individuals who normally would disregard politics would not be any more inclined to be more involved in politics. Those individuals would only vote because they are required to, rather than to fulfill their societal responsibility. As a result, many of these votes will more often than not be arbitrarily casted or "donkey votes," and would not represent what is best for society. By making voting optional, it would express the view of only people who would care about their society, rather than just individuals who are forced to vote.
Is the "first past the post" system democratic?
The FPTP system cannot be considered democratic because it is not a fair representation of the will of the people. With the FPTP system, an individual does not need the support of the majority of the electorate to represent the people, but they just need the most votes. Because of this, an individual can still be elected even though the popular vote (i.e. will of the people) is against the individual. Therefore, the FPTP cannot be considered to be democratic because in some cases it does not accurately represent what the people want.
1. Should the voting age be lowered?
No, i do not believe the voting age should be lowered. Keeping it at the age of 18 is good because at the age of 18, you're going to have to make important choices that will direct you for the rest of your life. It is an important time to make decisions and voting would be one of them.
4. Is the First Past Post System democratic?
No, the First Past Post System does not reflect the ideas of a democracy because it does not take account for popular vote or the majority. As long as the one party has more seats then the other, that party wins.
Respone:
@C.J.
I agree with how he/she believes that voting should be mandatory. If only a small percentage of the total population is voting, it completely nullifies the basic principles of democracy. We have the right and freedom to vote for who to govern us and many of us don't take that into account. Why have a democratic government when nobody votes?
@J.K.
I disagree with your statement because if mandatory voting does not truly reflect what is best for the country because people are being forced to vote, then neither is having the option to vote or not. In the 2008 Canadian Federal Elections, there was a only 58.8% voter turnout, meaning that 41.2% of eligible Canadian Voters' voices were not heard. Only half of the country's voters believed that a certain party will follow the citizen's will while the other half could believe in something else. Mandatory voting would be the solution to this problem to get all eligible voters to vote on what they would think is the best.
1. Should voting be mandatory? I don't believe that voting should be mandatory because there are people that are uninformed or apathatic towards the election. Having these people vote against their will, will just cause the outcome of the election to inaccurately represent the will of the people.
2. Is the first past the post system democratic? The first past the post system isn't very democratic, in that it does not always represent what the majority of the people want. Although sometimes the vote might come out to have a large gap between parties, this doesn't happen very often. Having a small amount of votes on another candidate indicates that a large amount of the population voted elsewhere which ruins the purpose of a democracy.
@ Claud
3. I agree with you in that there are people that aren't intellectually capable of voting and shouldn't be given that power. However, I think that generalizing among the mentally challenged isn't fair, because some of them might have the capabilities to vote, just as some people that are not "mentally challenged" aren't well informed and should not have that right.
@ J.C.
I agree with you that the voting age should not be lowered, like you said, by age 18 you are finally an adult and around this time period you start taking on new responsibilities and making your own decisions. Once you are capable of making decisions for yourself, you should have the right to vote.
(A.H, 30-1)
Should everyone over the age of 18 be allowed to vote?:
No. Those that are under 18 usually have not been exposed enough to real life to make rational political decisions, because usually teenagers are unaware of what is happening in the world, and what will be beneficial for their government. Only those who that are working, and pay taxes, should be able to vote, because they are more aware of what is going on in society.
Is the First Past the Post system Democratic?: No, it is not very democratic because sometimes it does not represent the majority vote. For example, someone may have gotten 100 votes, while someone else got 99 votes, but the person with 100 votes would win.
@J.C, I agree that the voting age should be kept at 18, and not lowered because that is when people become adults so they are forced to start making more decisions that affect them.
@A.M, I agree that voting should not be mandatory because it would result in more careless votes which do not provide an accurate description of what people actually want.
1: The voting age should not be lowered. Genuine voters will be voting toward actions that will respond to their needs and problems such as health care reforms, taxes, new laws, etc. And when it comes down to it, most 16 year olds who are sheltered by their parents likely cannot comprehend those issues. It could potentially give way to thousands of uninformed youth the right to aimlessly vote. The voting age should be determined by the legal age a person must pay their own taxes, as an adult-- they will be more knowledgeable of the surrounding political, economic and social issues.
4: First-past-the-post system is not very democratic because the majority may not be represented. One party simply needs one vote more than the second place party to win. Though, it is democratic in the sense that the power to elect leaders and government is vested in the voters. The government should represent the ideals of as many people as possible and with this system it can be difficult to meet that standard.
H.H. Social 30-1
3. I don't think everybody over 18 should be allowed to vote, such as criminals, terrorist, etc. These types of people will choose the political systems that best suit their goals on destroying the peace.
4. The first past the post is not democratic. It does not reflect the support of the losing candidate or party. The leaving out of minority is possible to add up to be a majority.
Response to B.P.:
1. I disagree with your statement. I don't think 16 is the right voting age. People in 16 have only done Social 10-1 or 10-2 at most, not 30-1 or 30-2 like us. They haven't got the basic knowledge on governments and politics.
Response to C.J.:
2. I disagree with you. If voting is mandatory, that means people are forced to embrace democracy. Some people do not vote because they don't really care about their government. For example in Canadian perspectives, it is obvious that Canada will not be a authoritarian or totalitarian country. If there is a shift in government powers from a party to another, the people will still live normally. Nothing will be changed in their lives. Also, some people might support a party that is out of their choices. If voting is mandatory, it does not help in reflecting the "real" opinion of the voters.
Should everyone over 18 be allowed to vote?
Not everyone who is over 18 should be able to vote because it is necessary to have a standard competency level before one should be allowed to make such important decisions. Voting is important because it allows the government to act accordingly to the will of the people, and how to best serve the citizens. However, if an individual does not have the capability to make rational decisions, their opinion would not help to determine what is best for the people. Likewise, people who are not informed about politics should not have the opportunity to vote either. Therefore, elections can only be useful when the electorate is knowledgeable enough to understand what is best for them and their fellow citizens, and have the rationality to make those decisions.
Is the First Past the Post system democratic?
The FPTP system cannot be considered democratic because in some cases it may not be a representation of the will of the people. The will of the people would be best defined as what most of the people want. However, there are situations in the FPTP system in which the will of the people is against the individual who is elected. In the FPTP system, it is only necessary to receive more votes than everyone else. Because of this, it is not required to have support of the majority of the people and likewise, the majority of the people may have voted for the other candidates. Therefore, how can this be considered democratic? If an individual can be elected to represent the electoral district even though the most of the people may not approve of the individual, this does not accurately represent what the people want, and therefore is not democratic.
@ C.J.: The necessity of voting is for the government to represent what the people want, and how the people want to be governed, not to fulfill “a duty of every citizen in a democracy.”Therefore, the problem with voter apathy is that not enough people express their opinions, and the government may not be what the people want. While it is undeniable that mandatory voting would definitely increase the number of people voting, it does not guarantee that elections will be any more accurate at representing the will of the people. This is because people who would have not voted in the first place would most likely vote arbitrarily or even resort to “donkey votes.” As well, it is invalid to claim that not voting should be punishable like not paying taxes. Paying taxes, unlike voting, is not something that can be done arbitrarily: the presence of audits ensures this. On the other hand, there is no way to enforce that when people vote, they wholeheartedly support their decision. If there was a method to ensure proper voting, it would greatly infringe on the principle of secret ballot. As a result, an individual can simply vote at random, only to fulfill their societal need and not to honestly express what they believe in. If this is the case, how can this possibly be making democracy any better? Therefore, a more viable solution would be to have optional voting since while it may not represent everybody’s opinion, the results will still be the honest opinion of 58.8% of the electorate. If any of the other 41.2% disagrees with those results, then they have the opportunity to vote at the next elections to voice their objections.
@A.S.: While it may be true that people should be given the opportunity to express their believes and values regardless of age, gender, or culture, it is necessary to consider whether or not an individual’s opinion/vote is accurately portraying what the citizens need/want. Yes, it is true that there will be differences in opinions, and that is perfectly fine. However, the issue arises when people make decisions without fully understanding or contemplating the issue at hand. An individual’s opinion regarding the government can only be valid and useful if they fully understand what they are doing, and wholeheartedly support their decision to do so.
Should everyone over 18 be allowed to vote?
Not everyone who is over 18 should be able to vote because it is necessary to have a standard competency level before one should be allowed to make such important decisions. Voting is important because it allows the government to act accordingly to the will of the people, and how to best serve the citizens. However, if an individual does not have the capability to make rational decisions, their opinion would not help to determine what is best for the people. Likewise, people who are not informed about politics should not have the opportunity to vote either. Therefore, elections can only be useful when the electorate is knowledgeable enough to understand what is best for them and their fellow citizens, and have the rationality to make those decisions.
Is the First Past the Post system democratic?
The FPTP system cannot be considered democratic because in some cases it may not be a representation of the will of the people. The will of the people would be best defined as what most of the people want. However, there are situations in the FPTP system in which the will of the people is against the individual who is elected. In the FPTP system, it is only necessary to receive more votes than everyone else. Because of this, it is not required to have support of the majority of the people and likewise, the majority of the people may have voted for the other candidates. Therefore, how can this be considered democratic? If an individual can be elected to represent the electoral district even though the most of the people may not approve of the individual, this does not accurately represent what the people want, and therefore is not democratic.
2. Should voting be mandatory?
No voting should not be mandatory. I think mandatory voting could result in an poor representation of what the people want. This is because people will be voting who have no idea what they are voting for, they are not educated on the election and vote for a candidate at random. When people are voting with no prior knowledge its not an accurate representation.
4. Is first past the post system democratic?
Yes first past the post incorporates all aspects of a democracy. Each eligible citizen has one vote for the party they choose and the majority vote wins. Those are the key elements of a democracy, the people decide and majority wins.
Response to Anonymous:
I disagree if one party receives 100 votes and the other receives 99 that is representing the majority. More people wanted the first candidate, yes it might be only by one vote, but that still is the majority.
Response to A.S.
I disagree, I dont feel that the voting age should be lowered. At 18 you have learned the knowledge for school that you need to understand politics. Im currently 17 and I do not feel that I should be aloud to vote because I don't feel I have the knowledge that is needed to vote.
2)I Think voting should be increasingly encouraged but not be mandatory because forcing apathetic and or uninformed citizens to vote will alter election results, and may not reflect what is best for the future of the country.
4)In my opinion, first past the post system is not democratic. Since the winner does not need majority support, results do not necessarily reflect the will of the majority.
S.K 30-1
1. No,I don't think the voting age should be lowered. I believe that people who are under 18 are not mature enough or are not educated enough to vote.
4. I don't think first past the post system is democratic. The election results may be very close, so the winner does not truly represent the majority of the people. The winner just had a couple more votes than the other candidate.
Response to KM:
I agree with your answer to question number four, because yes this system is still democratic because the person with the most votes wins, but this does not represent the majority of the population. I agree wiht you saying it's hard to represent the whole population, because everyone has such different views.
Response to A.M
1. I disagree with you. I think that voting should be manditory because then thoes people who are not informed or don't care will them become more educated. I think voting is a great freedom and everyone should vote.
2) No, voting should not be mandatory. While it would obviously increase the percentage of voter-turnout, many of the people who participate would not be informed voters. They would vote out of a sense of obligation, and not because it is their democratic right.
4) Yes, it is. While it may not demonstrate the majority vote, it is still a representation of what the people want.
Answer to Question 3:
No, certain people in a society, even those above the mandatory voting age, should not be allowed to vote; there must be some sort of limit to whose voice is heard and assumed the "will of the people." There are some who not actually be mentally capable of making an informed political decision, those with severe mental handicaps for example, and it is not in the interest of the society to allow those people to vote. In addition to this, perpetrators of certain felonies should also have their right to vote forfeited. Those who commit crimes like murder and rape should not be seen as people whose voices are equal to your average citizen; there is not a single reason why the Pickton's and Manson's of the world should have any voice at all, let alone contribute their opinion on who should become a country's Prime Minister or President. This is not, by any means, a promotion of discrimination; it is, and should be seen as, a method of ensuring the most accurate results possible for an election.
Answer to Question 4:
Yes, the First Past The Post system is, by definition, democratic. Every person has their voice heard and every person has a vote which counts. It is quite easy to be critical of voting systems such as First Past The Post, claims that the majority votes not for the winner but the other parties. This criticism should not be taken lightly, there are flaws within the First Past The Post system but none of which are severe enough to actually discredit the system itself; there are reasons that such a system is used widely throughout the world.
Response to A.S. on Question 3:
I disagree with your statement. When you say that everyone over the age of 18 should have the right to vote, you are making a blanket statement which is venerable to retaliation. What about those not capable of voting? Should a mentally handicapped man - someone who is barley able to understand his own life, let alone the complexities of basic politics - have as much a right to vote as you or I, people capable of understanding the intricacies and consequences of certain votes, policies and parties? By giving every person over the age of 18 the right to vote, you are effectively taking the democratic element out of voting; all those votes are just going to skew the results of an election. The majority of people in a democratic society deserve the right to vote but not everyone over an arbitrary age should be given that right.
Response to B.P. on Question 1:
I disagree with your statement. A voting age, in and of itself, is an arbitrary number defined to be an age at which most people should be capable of making decisions in an intelligent and responsible manner. Lowering the voting age may allow a larger representation of the Canadian public but your argument that this would make Canada "more" democratic is a non-sequitur; just because more people are voting, this could also be debated, does not make a system any "more" democratic, just as a system with a low voter turnout is "less" democratic. Currently, a voting age of 18 does make sense in Canada as that is the point at which one becomes a legal "adult" i.e. someone who is, by government standards, mature enough to gain all the rights and privileges of of the majority of society.
Answer to Question 3:
No, certain people in a society, even those above the mandatory voting age, should not be allowed to vote; there must be some sort of limit to whose voice is heard and assumed the "will of the people." There are some who not actually be mentally capable of making an informed political decision, those with severe mental handicaps for example, and it is not in the interest of the society to allow those people to vote. In addition to this, perpetrators of certain felonies should also have their right to vote forfeited. Those who commit crimes like murder and rape should not be seen as people whose voices are equal to your average citizen; there is not a single reason why the Pickton's and Manson's of the world should have any voice at all, let alone contribute their opinion on who should become a country's Prime Minister or President. This is not, by any means, a promotion of discrimination; it is, and should be seen as, a method of ensuring the most accurate results possible for an election.
Answer to Question 4:
Yes, the First Past The Post system is, by definition, democratic. Every person has their voice heard and every person has a vote which counts. It is quite easy to be critical of voting systems such as First Past The Post, claims that the majority votes not for the winner but the other parties. This criticism should not be taken lightly, there are flaws within the First Past The Post system but none of which are severe enough to actually discredit the system itself; there are reasons that such a system is used widely throughout the world.
Response to A.S. on Question 3:
I disagree with your statement. When you say that everyone over the age of 18 should have the right to vote, you are making a blanket statement which is venerable to retaliation. What about those not capable of voting? Should a mentally handicapped man - someone who is barley able to understand his own life, let alone the complexities of basic politics - have as much a right to vote as you or I, people capable of understanding the intricacies and consequences of certain votes, policies and parties? By giving every person over the age of 18 the right to vote, you are effectively taking the democratic element out of voting; all those votes are just going to skew the results of an election. The majority of people in a democratic society deserve the right to vote but not everyone over an arbitrary age should be given that right.
Response to B.P. on Question 1:
I disagree with your statement. A voting age, in and of itself, is an arbitrary number defined to be an age at which most people should be capable of making decisions in an intelligent and responsible manner. Lowering the voting age may allow a larger representation of the Canadian public but your argument that this would make Canada "more" democratic is a non-sequitur; just because more people are voting, this could also be debated, does not make a system any "more" democratic, just as a system with a low voter turnout is "less" democratic. Currently, a voting age of 18 does make sense in Canada as that is the point at which one becomes a legal "adult" i.e. someone who is, by government standards, mature enough to gain all the rights and privileges of of the majority of society.
Response to question 2: Should voting be mandatory?-
Yes it should be made mandatory. Voting is essential for a Democratic political structure to function. Without this process, this freedom, there would be anarchy throughout or better yet Communism. Because so many have fought for Universal suffrage, there needs to be a distinct sensitivity for individuals to take the responsibility and choose how they wished to be governed. So many activists have fought for this right and it should be exercised by everyone to the maximum potential. In Canada, for example, there is universal suffrage where individuals are allowed to vote and encouraged to do so. However, it is seen repeatedly that the voter turnout is low, that citizens do not seem to bother if they have a say in how they are governed. There are numerous factors that may play role in this dilemma, however, making voting mandatory is a step in increasing voter turnout thus representing more people rather than a mere half of the population. It is important however to address the more serious issues facing citizens in respects to voting. Voting should be made mandatory; however education should also be provided to those unsure of the democratic process. Without providing education, it could almost be said that there is infringement on an individual’s rights. It is necessary that citizens are educated about the form of government and how it works and then only can voting be made mandatory because before this point, all eligible voters who are voting for the sake of voting should be seen as undemocratic. A democratic society is not meant to be based upon apathetic individuals trying to dodge the bullet of a hefty fine.
Response Question 4: Is first past the post system democratic?
First past the post is not democratic because it solely relies on the winner takes all vote. It is based on who can get just a few more votes than the other candidates and this is not exactly democratic. It relies on plurality vote and this can be heavily influenced through media. As the media anticipates a winner candidates can easily win off the publicity because of a common name rather than the actual policies and ideas they have to bring forward.
@H.H- I disagree. I think everyone should be allowed to vote. It is necessary even if they are criminals. Everyone has this right and it has been established that these individuals are people too and the government that will govern them will affect their daily lives. They have a right and it should be respected because if they were not allowed to vote not only would their rights be broken but also the decision could easily be seen as undemocratic.This also goes for handicapped individuals too as the government chosen will affect them dramatically in forms of services, disability pensions etc.. However, due to lack of knowledge and different methods of learning may be there could be courses explaining or different methods in targeting that audience too.
H.H.
2)Voting should not be mandatory because there are people who do not care about politics and people should have the freedom of choice to vote or not.
4)I dont think first past the post is democratic because it represents a part of the population but not majority.
S.A.
Should voting age be lowered? No, i personally think the voting age should be raised to at least 21. It is important to have only well informed citizens voting, that know exactly what is going on in their country.
Is the first past the post system democratic? Not entirely. Democracy is mainly about majority, and the first past the post system does not represent the majority. It only represents a minor population, while the majority is not heard.
Response to BP: If the voting age were lowered, it could undoubtedly harm the country. Yes, there may be some young citizens who are well informed and can make reasonable decisions, but i'm sure many can agree that the majority of young ones are not fully aware what is going on in the world around them, or just simply do not care.
Response to CJ: Voting should definitely not be mandatory. Although it may encourage full citizen participation, it will also allow those who are uninformed to participate, which can harm the country.
@CJ - I disagree, voting should not be mandatory. People who have the right to choose whether to vote or not. I do agree that something needs to be done to improve voter turnout.
@HH- I do not completely agree with your statement. Criminals should not be dehumanized no matter what means. We cannot ignore that these people are also citizens of the country and that voting is a fundamental right.
Question: Should voting be mandatory...
Yes, because it is an opportunity to express society's needs by electing a representative. The society should be responsible and informed about the political system if they don't already know about it. By voting, the outcome is based on the majority of society's opinion instead of just a few people.
The first past-the-post system is not a form of democracy because it doesn't really represent the whole population. Other popular parties may not be represented, especially the minority and marginal ones.
resppnse to h.h= i agree that not everyone should receive privilege to vote ie) criminals or not properly educated people
R.S.
4- I would say that voting is indeed democratic if you believe that the majority should rule. Those who are voting are exercising their democratic right to vote. If one party has more votes than the next party, they are winning by the vote of the people which is democratic. Those who don't vote have no right to complain because they did not exercise their right to vote. FPTP works that as long as you have more votes than the next party you win. So the party with the most votes win, that is how all elections work. The party with the most votes win.
If FPTP is not democratic, Canada is not a democracy.
3. I think that everyone over the age of 18 should be allowed to vote. Even if they are not an intellectual they still have opinions and reasoning behind those opinions just as everyone else. In order for it to be a democracy all must have the opportunity to vote.
@B.L
I disagree with the answer to your first question because making voting mandatory does not change the fact that there are still going to be apathetic and uninformed people, and by forcing them to vote, the outcome will not reflect society's true and most important needs. Instead, voting should be left to those who actually care enough to do some research and show up on election day.
@H.H- I disagree with your answer regarding who can vote. Voting is a fundamental freedom within a democracy, and without the voice of certain individuals, it isn't a democracy anymore. In my opinion, by denying the right to vote and ranking individuals as a lower class, it ressembles a form of contemporary "elitism".
Response @ B.P.:
I disagree that the voting age should be lowered because 18 is a reasonable age when people become mored developed mentally and become more concerned and addressed about national issues.
Response @ B_Lee_:
I disagree that voting should be mandatory because people should have the freedom to choose whether they want to vote or not. If the people are being forced to participate in elections, they may not necessarily vote for what they are really concerned with and the results would not be best reflected as opposed to just letting the people who actually care about the issues vote.
R.S.
@H.H.
I would agree that by breaking the law you are fore fitting your right to vote but other than that all individuals should have the right to vote.
@SA
I would agree that the voting age should not be lowered and, if anything, should be raised. I would say that 21 is a reasonable age to have it raised to. As you mature and have life experiences your opinion with be influenced for what you more strongly believe in. Even if you are mature at the age 16 by the time you are 21, if you have not matured anymore you will come across experiences that with either enforce what you previously believed or change your opinion.
Answer to Question 3:
No, certain people in a society, even those above the mandatory voting age, should not be allowed to vote; there must be some sort of limit to whose voice is heard and assumed the "will of the people." There are some who not actually be mentally capable of making an informed political decision, those with severe mental handicaps for example, and it is not in the interest of the society to allow those people to vote. In addition to this, perpetrators of certain felonies should also have their right to vote forfeited. Those who commit crimes like murder and rape should not be seen as people whose voices are equal to your average citizen; there is not a single reason why the Pickton's and Manson's of the world should have any voice at all, let alone contribute their opinion on who should become a country's Prime Minister or President. This is not, by any means, a promotion of discrimination; it is, and should be seen as, a method of ensuring the most accurate results possible for an election.
Answer to Question 4:
Yes, the First Past The Post system is, by definition, democratic. Every person has their voice heard and every person has a vote which counts. It is quite easy to be critical of voting systems such as First Past The Post, claims that the majority votes not for the winner but the other parties. This criticism should not be taken lightly, there are flaws within the First Past The Post system but none of which are severe enough to actually discredit the system itself; there are reasons that such a system is used widely throughout the world.
Response to A.S. on Question 3:
I disagree with your statement. When you say that everyone over the age of 18 should have the right to vote, you are making a blanket statement which is venerable to retaliation. What about those not capable of voting? Should a mentally handicapped man - someone who is barley able to understand his own life, let alone the complexities of basic politics - have as much a right to vote as you or I, people capable of understanding the intricacies and consequences of certain votes, policies and parties? By giving every person over the age of 18 the right to vote, you are effectively taking the democratic element out of voting; all those votes are just going to skew the results of an election. The majority of people in a democratic society deserve the right to vote but not everyone over an arbitrary age should be given that right.
Response to B.P. on Question 1:
I disagree with your statement. A voting age, in and of itself, is an arbitrary number defined to be an age at which most people should be capable of making decisions in an intelligent and responsible manner. Lowering the voting age may allow a larger representation of the Canadian public but your argument that this would make Canada "more" democratic is a non-sequitur; just because more people are voting, this could also be debated, does not make a system any "more" democratic, just as a system with a low voter turnout is "less" democratic. Currently, a voting age of 18 does make sense in Canada as that is the point at which one becomes a legal "adult" i.e. someone who is, by government standards, mature enough to gain all the rights and privileges of of the majority of society.
Response to A.S. on Question 3:
I disagree with your statement. When you say that everyone over the age of 18 should have the right to vote, you are making a blanket statement which is venerable to retaliation. What about those not capable of voting? Should a mentally handicapped man - someone who is barley able to understand his own life, let alone the complexities of basic politics - have as much a right to vote as you or I, people capable of understanding the intricacies and consequences of certain votes, policies and parties? By giving every person over the age of 18 the right to vote, you are effectively taking the democratic element out of voting; all those votes are just going to skew the results of an election. The majority of people in a democratic society deserve the right to vote but not everyone over an arbitrary age should be given that right.
Response to B.P. on Question 1:
I disagree with your statement. A voting age, in and of itself, is an arbitrary number defined to be an age at which most people should be capable of making decisions in an intelligent and responsible manner. Lowering the voting age may allow a larger representation of the Canadian public but your argument that this would make Canada "more" democratic is a non-sequitur; just because more people are voting, this could also be debated, does not make a system any "more" democratic, just as a system with a low voter turnout is "less" democratic. Currently, a voting age of 18 does make sense in Canada as that is the point at which one becomes a legal "adult" i.e. someone who is, by government standards, mature enough to gain all the rights and privileges of of the majority of society.
Answer to Question 3:
No, certain people in a society, even those above the mandatory voting age, should not be allowed to vote; there must be some sort of limit to whose voice is heard and assumed the "will of the people." There are some who not actually be mentally capable of making an informed political decision, those with severe mental handicaps for example, and it is not in the interest of the society to allow those people to vote. In addition to this, perpetrators of certain felonies should also have their right to vote forfeited. Those who commit crimes like murder and rape should not be seen as people whose voices are equal to your average citizen; there is not a single reason why the Pickton's and Manson's of the world should have any voice at all, let alone contribute their opinion on who should become a country's Prime Minister or President. This is not, by any means, a promotion of discrimination; it is, and should be seen as, a method of ensuring the most accurate results possible for an election.
Answer to Question 4:
Yes, the First Past The Post system is, by definition, democratic. Every person has their voice heard and every person has a vote which counts. It is quite easy to be critical of voting systems such as First Past The Post, claims that the majority votes not for the winner but the other parties. This criticism should not be taken lightly, there are flaws within the First Past The Post system but none of which are severe enough to actually discredit the system itself; there are reasons that such a system is used widely throughout the world.
Response to question 2: Should voting be mandatory?-
Yes it should be made mandatory. Voting is essential for a Democratic political structure to function. Without this process, this freedom, there would be anarchy throughout or better yet Communism. Because so many have fought for Universal suffrage, there needs to be a distinct sensitivity for individuals to take the responsibility and choose how they wished to be governed. So many activists have fought for this right and it should be exercised by everyone to the maximum potential. In Canada, for example, there is universal suffrage where individuals are allowed to vote and encouraged to do so. However, it is seen repeatedly that the voter turnout is low, that citizens do not seem to bother if they have a say in how they are governed. There are numerous factors that may play role in this dilemma, however, making voting mandatory is a step in increasing voter turnout thus representing more people rather than a mere half of the population. It is important however to address the more serious issues facing citizens in respects to voting. Voting should be made mandatory; however education should also be provided to those unsure of the democratic process. Without providing education, it could almost be said that there is infringement on an individual’s rights. It is necessary that citizens are educated about the form of government and how it works and then only can voting be made mandatory because before this point, all eligible voters who are voting for the sake of voting should be seen as undemocratic. A democratic society is not meant to be based upon apathetic individuals trying to dodge the bullet of a hefty fine.
Response Question 4: Is first past the post system democratic?
First past the post is not democratic because it solely relies on the party with the most votes, and it completly disregards the other half of the people who did not vote with the majority. In this type of system, media outlets can have a tremendous impact on the outcome of the results. Anticipation for one candidate to win boosts their publicity and can sway voters votes to the presumed majority easily. This method is definitley not democractic because people may just vote for who they think will already win.
@JC:
I agree I believe that the voting age should be kept the same becuase 18 is an important time for teenagers to realize their responsibilty in society and how their opinion can be expressed peacefully. It is a good time because this is a segway into real life where they will be affected by policies and the government in everyday life.
Post a Comment