Should long-term unemployed people be allowed to vote!

14dMoney

Excluding genuine reasons such as I'll health.

Lackadaisical

We've a strong belief in universal suffrage in this state and we have seen the results of disenfranchisement in our own pre independence history and in more recent history in Northern Ireland.

Adding preconditions to voting rights is a terrible idea and this is just another dole bashing thread.

14dMoney

Lackadaisical wrote: »

We've a strong belief in universal suffrage in this state and we have seen the results of disenfranchisement in our own pre independence history and in more recent history in Northern Ireland.

Adding preconditions to voting rights is a terrible idea and this is just another dole bashing thread.

No it's not, it's a question about whether or not those that contribute to society, should have more of a say in how it's run, than the bottom-feeders.

pawrick

Should people who are statistically not likely to be alive for the duration of the government term be allowed to vote as their choice wont affect them? Blanket ban on people in nursing homes, terminal cancer etc? Ridiculous to further restrict the right to vote imo.

Everyone of legal age should be allowed to vote in the country they live in and where the decisions of the government of the day affects their daily life imo.

Insect Overlord

In b4 the lock.

Tabnabs

Do homeless people get a vote?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Laziness should not forego constitutional rights.

FunLover18

14dMoney wrote: »

No it's not, it's a question about whether or not those that contribute to society, should have more of a say in how it's run, than the bottom-feeders.

You're saying that not every citizen should have an equal say in the governance of a country and that this should be based on economic status. Very dangerous thinking.

amcalester

Chances are they don't vote, at least not in any significant numbers as was demonstrated in the Local and European elections, so not much to be gained by excluding the few who do.

Also, it's just a silly suggestion.

14dMoney

Tabnabs wrote: »

Do homeless people get a vote?

If they're not long-term unemployed, of course!

14dMoney

FunLover18 wrote: »

You're saying that not every citizen should have an equal say in the governance of a country and that this should be based on economic status. Very dangerous thinking.

No I'm saying that those who are a net loss consistently by choice, should be restricted.

K.Flyer

So you have moved from having a go at people with weight issues to the unemployed :rolleyes:

Jamiekelly

The real question is should sock accounts be allowed to post?

super_furry

When will we ever learn? It's time to eat the homeless.

Lackadaisical

Tabnabs wrote: »

Do homeless people get a vote?

It's likely that many don't, as the electoral register is linked to an address.

Plumbthedepths

14dMoney wrote:

No it's not, it's a question about whether or not those that contribute to society, should have more of a say in how it's run, than the bottom-feeders.

For describing any other human as a bottom feeder should be actionable.

14dMoney

Lackadaisical wrote: »

It's likely that many don't, as the electoral register is linked to an address.

Pretty sure you can pickup post from a designated Post Office if you're homeless.

14dMoney

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

For describing any other human as a bottom feeder should be actionable.

So telling the truth should be punishable?

Allinall

They should probably have half a vote each.

It is, after all proportional representation.

Plumbthedepths

14dMoney wrote:

So telling the truth should be punishable?

Dehumanising a section of society is not truthful, it's actually very dangerous and there is many examples of just how dangerous in recent times.For example I believe a group of Rawandan society were referred to as Cockroaches before the genocide.

Ave Sodalis

*looks at OPs other posts*

Ah.

14dMoney

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Dehumanising a section of society is not truthful, it's actually very dangerous and there is many examples of just how dangerous in recent times.For example I believe a group of Rawandan society were referred to as Cockroaches before the genocide.

"Bottom-feeder" isn't dehumanising, it's a description. And yes, calling someone a cockroach was of course the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide, you're absolutely correct!

FunLover18

14dMoney wrote: »

No I'm saying that those who are a net loss consistently by choice, should be restricted.

You just reworded what I said and like I said it's a very dangerous thought process that reminds me of the olden times when the wealthy decided what was "best" for everyone. Should those who contribute more get more votes or should their vote Carey more weight? What about the extremely wealthy tax dodgers with accounts elsewhere, shouldn't they be restricted as well?

mcmoustache

14dMoney wrote: »

Excluding genuine reasons such as I'll health.

You should never deny people the vote. If you start doing it for one class of people, it opens the door to doing it for other classes of people.

The bigger problem is that there are long-term unemployed in the first place. Long term unemployment simply shouldn't be an option if someone is fit and healthy. I don't have the answer to that but indefinite social welfare creates far more problems than the "temporary" solution that it's supposed to offer. I would suggest seeing if other countries in europe have figured out something that works better than our system.

14dMoney

FunLover18 wrote: »

You just reworded what I said and like I said it's a very dangerous thought process that reminds me of the olden times when the wealthy decided what was "best" for everyone. Should those who contribute more get more votes or should their vote Carey more weight? What about the extremely wealthy tax dodgers with accounts elsewhere, shouldn't they be restricted as well?

Nope, like I said it only applies if you're a net loss.

Plumbthedepths

14dMoney wrote:

"Bottom-feeder" isn't dehumanising, it's a description. And yes, calling someone a cockroach was of course the catalyst for the Rwandan genocide, you're absolutely correct!

The term bottom feeder is dehumanising, you are entitled to you own opinion not your own facts. The sooner the mods step in and deal with you the better.

is_that_so

14dMoney wrote: »

No it's not, it's a question about whether or not those that contribute to society, should have more of a say in how it's run, than the bottom-feeders.

Might be simpler just to off them, no? Sure why not give us all classifications according to the level we provide to society? Or you could move to China. It seems to suit your world view a whole lot better with its social credits policy.

14dMoney

14dMoney wrote: »

Nope, like I said it only applies if you're a net loss.

*Here fishy fishy fishy*

You're a lost cause here.

14dMoney

is_that_so wrote: »

Might be simpler just to off them, no? Sure why not give us all classifications according to the level we provide to society? Or you could move to China. It seems to suit your world view a whole lot better with its social credits policy.

Once again, this simply applies to those who are, by choice, net-losses for society. Why should someone get a say in how we do things, who refuses to contribute?

El_Duderino 09

14dMoney wrote: »

No it's not, it's a question about whether or not those that contribute to society, should have more of a say in how it's run, than the bottom-feeders.

Yes it is just another dole bashing thread. Lackadaisical put it very well in the post above.

If you're phrasing the question as those woo contribute to society vs those who don't then you'll have to explain how exactly you define contributions to society.

If someone contributes twice as much to society as another person, should they get twice as many votes? Should the wealthy automatically get preferential votes? Should people on minimum wage get reduced votes?

Why would do done who is disabled get a vote? Aren't they "bottom feeders" by your definition? If not, why not?

If every worker's contribution to society is equally rewarded in voting power, would you also support rewarding them,equally in spending power?

Start by defining a contribution to society and explaining why a profoundly physically disabled person would meet the criteria.

FunLover18

14dMoney wrote: »

Nope, like I said it only applies if you're a net loss.

That's not how society works, not should it be. What you're suggesting wouldn't be out of place in a dystopian YA novel. Good luck.

Sleeper12

14dMoney wrote:

Excluding genuine reasons such as I'll health.

I'll go one further. No one paying less tax than me should not have a vote

14dMoney

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yes it is just another dole bashing thread. Lackadaisical put it very well in the post above.

If you're phrasing the question as those woo contribute to society vs those who don't then you'll have to explain how exactly you define contributions to society.

If someone contributes twice as much to society as another person, should they get twice as many votes? Should the wealthy automatically get preferential votes? Should people on minimum wage get reduced votes?

Why would do done who is disabled get a vote? Aren't they "bottom feeders" by your definition? If not, why not?

If every worker's contribution to society is equally rewarded in voting power, would you also support rewarding them,equally in spending power?

Start by defining a contribution to society and explaining why a profoundly physically disabled person would meet the criteria.

I already defined everything clearly:

Someone who by choice, contributes nothing to society. I.E work, pay taxes etc. How is that so difficult to understand?

14dMoney

FunLover18 wrote: »

That's not how society works, not should it be. What you're suggesting wouldn't be out of place in a dystopian YA novel. Good luck.

So you're happy that a sponge has as much say as you?

martingriff

14dMoney wrote: »

Nope, like I said it only applies if you're a net loss.

How about a self employed person who owes more money then they are spending are they not a net loss. You say for I'll health however they could be a net loss depending how much there treatment cost.

Also determine long term unemployed. Will they be able to vote straight away if they get a job. How about if they lose it will there other time make them lose the vote again

Odyssey 2005

What is the cut-off weight for these unemployed voters ?.

El_Duderino 09

14dMoney wrote: »

I already defined everything clearly:

Someone who by choice, contributes nothing to society. I.E work, pay taxes etc. How is that so difficult to understand?

Define a contribution to society. Does it have to be through paid work?

Also, how would you figure out if a person choosing to Contribute nothing?

martingriff

14dMoney wrote: »

I already defined everything clearly:

Someone who by choice, contributes nothing to society. I.E work, pay taxes etc. How is that so difficult to understand?

But I could flip it and say I contribute more then you I should get more of a say

branie2

Of course they should

amcalester

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'll go one further. No one paying less tax than me should not have a vote

I've an even better option, the government can sell votes. GE and Constitutional Referenda vote for €5K, Local and European elections for €2.5K.

14dMoney

martingriff wrote: »

How about a self employed person who owes more money then they are spending are they not a net loss. You say for I'll health however they could be a net loss depending how much there treatment cost.

Also determine long term unemployed. Will they be able to vote straight away if they get a job. How about if they lose it will there other time make them lose the vote again

A self-employed person still pays taxes, is therefore contributing.

Long-term unemployed is anything over 6 months. After that period has passed, for each subsequent month that a person is employed, is reflective of the amount of time the person would need to regain full voting rights upon recommencing employment.

So if you are unemployed for 6 months, you lose your rights. If your unemployed for a further 3 months, you're voting privilege will be restored after 3 months working.

Tazz T

14dMoney wrote: »

So you're happy that a sponge has as much say as you?

I'm not happy that people like you have as much say as me.

FunLover18

14dMoney wrote: »

So you're happy that a sponge has as much say as you?

Yes. It's called democracy.

corner of hells

super_furry wrote: »

When will we ever learn? It's time to eat the homeless.

I work in Homeless Services , I've never seen one I'd like to eat, ever.

As for voting, if they are in a hostel, that's their address and some do vote.

Sephiroth_dude

Mod

Thread locked, we don't need any more dole bashing threads, ridiculous question anyway.