• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Voting Age 16?

God, no. If anything the voting age should be increased to the thirties or forties. :lol: Teenage brains aren't even finished developing yet, to say nothing of the absolute lack of experience. We confuse 'voting' with 'self-determination' when they are very much not the same thing.
New plan we just don't let Americans vote
 
In the US less than 50% of those eligible vote. We need to figure out how to get the non voters to vote before we go after teens.
Might be because of:

Voting on a Tuesday

with a bunch of dumb rules preventing people from voting early, voting absent or voting postal

with enrolment rules often being weird, bureaucratic, opaque and hostile

with voters facing long queues at many urban or mostly minority polling places

with most seats being gerrymandered or naturally drawn into being single member districts where the result is never in doubt...

Just maybe
 
None of which would matter if we just took the franchise from Americans I guess
 
The adult brain is no guarantee of intelligent voting. I'm just taking a break from posting on CBC.ca, on an article about how the premier of my province and her loyal sychophants intend to threaten the feds (Trudeau specifically) that Alberta will separate from Canada if Trudeau doesn't give the government everything they want.

They're trying to peddle this BS as something Albertans in general want, and it's a flat-out lie. Jason Kenney didn't run on this, and Smith is merely his replacement after he stepped down after failing a leadership review. She has not won a provincial election and therefore has NO mandate to even think of babbling the half-baked garbage she and her people pushed through last night in the Legislature.

Somehow I don't think the teenagers of this province would be this stupid.

Anybody who wants to get away from Trudeau is savvy in my book. ;-)
 
New plan we just don't let Americans vote

Hey, if we could go back to the arrangment in 1789 where almost no one could vote but no one cared because the only thing the government did was collect tariffs and make foreign treaties, that'd be swell in my book.
 
Anybody who wants to get away from Trudeau is savvy in my book. ;-)
Ah, so we're discussing removing voting privileges from people we disagree with politically (because people that signal things we approve of count as savvy). Ace! There's a small problem of how your politics might not intersect with mine, but so long as I set the rules according to mine, it'll be no problem. For me :)
 
Ah, so we're discussing removing voting privileges from people we disagree with politically (because people that signal things we approve of count as savvy). Ace! There's a small problem of how your politics might not intersect with mine, but so long as I set the rules according to mine, it'll be no problem. For me :)

Vote Zardy 1 man 1 vote (mine). Last vote you'll ever get!!!!!
 
Anybody who wants to get away from Trudeau is savvy in my book. ;-)
This is not even slightly funny.

The premier of Alberta is stark-raving NUTS. She just rammed legislation through called the "Sovereignty Act" that allows her to disregard any federal law that she thinks "isn't in the best interests of Albertans."

As I pointed out in the comment section on CBC.ca last night, that could possibly mean overriding the Election Act if she thinks the possibility that some Albertans might vote Liberal wouldn't be in the province's best interest.

Here's one article that had my jaw dropping on the floor and enraged that it wasn't open for comments:

Change the Constitution or face Alberta independence referendum, says architect of Sovereignty Act

article said:
Canada's Constitution is not a legitimate document, and has not safeguarded Alberta's interests within federation, says one of the architects of that province's newly passed Sovereignty Act.

"I want the Constitution to be changed, or we'll have another referendum," said Barry Cooper, referring to independence referendums in Quebec in the 1980s and 1990s.

Cooper is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary and one of the authors of a policy paper called the Free Alberta Strategy, seen as the unofficial blueprint for the Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act, also known as the Sovereignty Act.

Speaking to Matt Galloway on The Current, Cooper said that Canada is a federation, but has never acted as such.

"It's time to change it, to turn it into a federation," he said.

"If Canada doesn't want to do that, then the only alternative we have — in order to defend our interests — is to make sure that Canada does negotiate. And that means the threat of leaving."

The Sovereignty Act, Bill 1, gives Premier Danielle Smith and her cabinet the authority to redress any federal policy, law or program that her cabinet deems harmful to Alberta. It was a campaign cornerstone for Smith, who took control of the province in October after replacing Jason Kenney as leader of the United Conservative Party.

In its proposed form, the bill was criticized as unconstitutional and undemocratic, while the Calgary Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns that it could "impede new investment … and create challenges for businesses to attract and retain talent."

The act passed in the early hours of Thursday morning, after adjustments that stripped out cabinet powers to bypass the legislature and rewrite laws as it saw fit.

"The legislation is basically a political announcement to the rest of Canada that we're not going to be taken advantage of anymore. And I think it's long overdue," said Cooper.

If that warning isn't heeded by the federal government, he said Albertans could face a question: "in or out?"

By leaving federation, he said the province could run its energy sector and build pipelines without interference, and Albertans would no longer be contributing to the general federal revenue that funds equalization payments to lower-income provinces.

Speaking in the provincial legislature during the bill's third reading, Smith said she wanted to reset Alberta's relationship with the federal government.

"It's not like Ottawa is a national government," said Smith.

"The way our country works is that we are a federation of sovereign, independent jurisdictions. They are one of those signatories to the Constitution and the rest of us, as signatories to the Constitution, have a right to exercise our sovereign powers in our own areas of jurisdiction."

1 in 3 Albertans think legislation necessary: poll​

According to a poll released by Leger last week, 32 per cent of Albertans agree the Sovereignty Act is necessary to stand up to the federal government.

Cooper said it's up to Smith and her leadership team to gain more support for the idea, but added that "if Canada does not show some understanding, then their rejection of Alberta will be obvious and the numbers will change."

Asked whether he thought Albertans would vote for independence, he said "that would depend on how stupid the government of Canada is, in rejecting this rather moderate call [the Sovereignty Act] to change the terms by which Alberta has been exploited."

On Wednesday the Assembly of First Nations demanded the withdrawal of Bill 1, saying it infringes on treaty rights.

The proposal has also received sharp criticism from within the ranks of the United Conservative party itself. During Smith's leadership campaign, then-premier Jason Kenney called it "risky, dangerous [and] half-baked." The energy minister at the time, Sonya Savage, said it posed as much harm to Alberta's future as she believes Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's policies have done to the province's past.

Cooper acknowledged that people have concerns, but said "everything that Ottawa has done to Alberta in the last generation has been damaging to the economy of the province."

Most Albertans are proud to be Canadian, and recognize the benefits of being part of the country, said Opposition and Alberta NDP Leader Rachel Notley.

"Sometimes we have to stand up and raise our voices to make sure that our role in [Canada] is well-established. But I think that overall, we've done a good job on that front," she told The Current.

"Barry Cooper and many people who support Danielle Smith speak for a very extreme fringe of the Alberta population," she said.

The Current sent several requests for an interview to Smith, but did not receive a response. A request to interview Tyler Shandro, Alberta's minister of justice who is responsible for the legislation, was declined.

Notley said there are wide-ranging issues with the legislation, and her party will scrap it if they win the next provincial election in May.

"It is a thoughtless, thoughtless legal collection of mumbo jumbo," she said.

"This act creates nothing but uncertainty — and through that: economic uncertainty — at a time when Albertans are desperately looking for economic recovery."


Notley said there is "absolutely an argument for giving Alberta greater control over its economic destiny," but "this bill is completely and entirely disconnected from that object."

While they may not "agree on all things," Notley said there are many people in Ottawa, and across Canada, who understand Alberta's important role and economic contributions.

"I do believe that we can come together, recover our economy, stand up for Alberta — get a better deal for Alberta from Ottawa, for sure, but do it like grown ups," she said.

"Let's actually get to the point where we start doing the hard work to get to a stable, predictable solution. Rather than doing all this performative stuff and getting absolutely nowhere close."

First off, this is the first I've heard that anyone is talking about a referendum to separate. Danielle Smith has NO mandate for this. NONE. She is premier only because Jason Kenney stepped down and she narrowly squeaked out a win in the leadership race after 5 ballots. Then she won a byelection in Medicine Hat, but is too cowardly to call byelections in two other vacant ridings, lest the NDP win those seats. She's fine with all those people going unrepresented in the Legislature. She has not won a provincial election where all the eligible voters had a chance to evaluate her platform and vote accordingly.

She has no legitimacy to speak for anyone but her own party and the riding she represents. She does not speak for me. I do not give her that permission. She has no business acting as though she has more right than I do to decide what I think is in my best interests when it comes to federal matters.


Secondly, this notion that anyone can demand that Trudeau wave a hand and change the Constitution? That's not how it works. It's damn difficult to change the constitution, what with having to get so many provinces to agree. And that doesn't take into consideration all the treaties and other agreements pertaining to the First Nations. They don't like this.


Thirdly: Our premier said this:
"It's not like Ottawa is a national government," said Smith.
Okay, I have to assume she failed social studies in elementary, junior high, and high school. While it is true that there are PMs who don't pay a lot of attention to certain regions of the country (Alberta was left out of Trudeau's speech about the 150th anniversary in 2017 when he listed the provinces and territories), Ottawa is the national capital, it's where Parliament is, it's where federal laws are enacted...

We have a bunch of BS!C morons running this province, pretending to speak for everyone. Personally I'm looking forward to my MLA banging on my door next spring to ask for my vote. She is going to get told off, and then she is going to have the door slammed in her vapid, idiotic face.

And speaking of vapid and idiotic, I am already way past over seeing gigantic photos of Danielle Smith on the news sites.
 
Last edited:
With your thinking, stay at home parents, retired people, poor people, unemployed people, and disabled people would all lose the right to vote.
some of those, but not all. the "net" part implies that they pay more than they receive, and there are taxes other than income tax.

lots of people with disabilities make more than you or me (depends what you mean by disability though).

i have also already pointed out reasons this isn't necessarily a good idea for practical implementation too, just that a case can be made for it (people who are paying are the ones deciding where money goes).
 
Last edited:
Given that people in the US can generally work and drive at age 16, I don't think lowering the voting age to 16 is necessarily a bad idea. But I don't have strong feelings either way. Also, in some states you can vote in a primary election if you will be 18 by the time of the general election, so some 17-year-olds can sometimes vote in the U.S. I wouldn't want to lower the voting age any younger than 16, tho, as kids under that age tend to be a lot less mature, IME.
 
Given that people in the US can generally work and drive at age 16
the scale of burden with working + driving vs policy implications that control others is quite different. i'm not saying that 16 is necessarily better or worse than 18, just that this isn't a measuring stick that can reasonably determine how good someone is at evaluating policy.
 
Top Bottom