| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
|
|
|
 |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
Memo to Mr Bracks, That plot that you were looking for is over there on the desk where you left it sometime ago.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
lmao.
That would have meant that a few years back, 10 votes would have gone to the Liberals, just from my family 
Really, it's a ridiculous idea. I especially liked this bit:
| Quote: | | "Just imagine the radical change that would occur if parents voted not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their children" |
Clearly been smoking the wrong cigarettes.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Instead of dismissing the idea with a flippant remark, how about engaging with the substance of what's being put forward? Why shouldn't the votes of those with dependants, and thus more at stake, carry more weight than those who only have their own individual interests at stake when they vote?
The idea of extending the vote to those without property, women, and indigenous people was dismissed in exactly the same manner. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I always thought the democratic principle was 1 man, 1 vote. (I use man in a non gender specific way in this case)
Giving more than 1 vote to any individual for whatever reason is against that principle.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Shane Whelan
Joined: 02 Jul 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
WHo is going to vote for the kids, the husband or wife (if a married couple).
Just say they vote for different parties?
It is a poorly thought out idea. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Instead of dismissing the idea with a flippant remark, how about engaging with the substance of what's being put forward? Why shouldn't the votes of those with dependants, and thus more at stake, carry more weight than those who only have their own individual interests at stake when they vote? |
I think it's always valuable to debate and discuss any idea, no matter how far-fetched, although some arguments are so ridiculous that it's almost a waste of time to do so.
Giving extra votes based on the number of kids you have is on the same level as allocating votes according to income etc, and is equally arbitrary. It's not so much voting on someone else's behalf (which in it's own right would be kind of disturbing), but simply having greater vote value than those with less/no children.
| Evan Thornley wrote: | Just imagine the radical change that would occur if parents voted not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their children, what that would bring to democracy, for investing in human capital, for investing in the next generation, for thinking about the environment and the longer-term future of our country," Mr Thornley says.
"It would be a big change — yet hard, I would have thought, for the self-proclaimed 'family values' crowd on the other side of politics to oppose," he said. |
What the hell is he even talking about? Investing in the next generation? Is he suggesting that at the moment, parents vote without giving a thought to their children's needs? That's just stupid, and even if it was true, a policy like this would not make any difference whatsoever.
The last part of that quote makes me suspect he's taking the piss. Even my Mum and Dad, who would have 6 more votes to give to Johnny this election, thought the idea was a load of crap.
| nomadjack wrote: | | The idea of extending the vote to those without property, women, and indigenous people was dismissed in exactly the same manner. |
What's funny is that I can kind of understand why those policies existed back then (e.g. the idea that Aborigines weren't actually 'part' of 'Australia', which at the time was basically a British cultural enclave. I don't think the Indigenous peoples would have considered themselves part of this 'country' either). But the rules changed because attitudes towards those social classes changed.
You could possibly mount an absurdist case that children could one day receive the vote along with all other adult rights and responsibilities, but the idea of parents voting for them is drastically different from all the examples you list.
| Shane Whelan wrote: | WHo is going to vote for the kids, the husband or wife (if a married couple).
Just say they vote for different parties?
It is a poorly thought out idea. |
Pretty much sums it up.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:28 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Memo to Mr Bracks, That plot that you were looking for is over there on the desk where you left it sometime ago. |
Stui, not Bracks idea. |
|
|
|
|
Joel 
Joined: 23 Mar 1999
Location: Mornington Peninsula
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | Instead of dismissing the idea with a flippant remark, how about engaging with the substance of what's being put forward? |
To be honest, that's all the suggestion deserves. |
|
|
|
|
EBB
Joined: 26 Apr 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | lmao.
That would have meant that a few years back, 10 votes would have gone to the Liberals, just from my family
Really, it's a ridiculous idea. I especially liked this bit:
| Quote: | | "Just imagine the radical change that would occur if parents voted not just on their own behalf but on behalf of their children" |
Clearly been smoking the wrong cigarettes. |
Maybe your family should start smoking the "wrong cigarettees". 
_________________
understanding stuff, with endeavour to overstand.. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Now that would be funny  and kind of disturbing.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
