1. Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

~*...is an uneducated vote...*~

Discussion in 'Politics (deprecated)' started by that 420 guy, Dec 2, 2005.

  1. Ditto Much

    Ditto Much TRIBE Member

    Is any vote educated?

    We vote based on the hope that the person we vote for is being truthful and honest about there intent and about there interest. If the politician I vote for then goes and does the exact opposite my educated vote becomes as useless as a guy who picked at random or who voted politically rather than for who they believed in.

    Take for instance Jean Chrétien (one of my favorite politicians) not only did I vote for him each time I actually helped on the campaign of two MP's and joined the party. But he said the GSt was bad and that Free Trade was bad and spoke at length about the dangers of cutting social programs. By this rating I might as well have voted for Kim Campbell or Joe Clark as there platforms differed very little and in most regards they were more honest.

    All of my educating myself in the last provincial election came down to nothing. Dalton instituted a smoking ban that I consider pointless and silly. I wanted to vote for Bob Rae, but he ended up putting in photo radar a concept that I personally find revolting and questionable. Mike Harris got rid of photo radar but caused so many pointless strikes and work to rule campaigns that it was difficult to support him or his policies.

    The nature of politics makes the concept that any vote is educated more of a crystal ball reading than anything else. those who voted for Belinda Stronach because she was a PC in the last election might as well have voted Liberal as she simply changed side.

    Educated at the time means nothing. In many regards I would like to see what would happen if voters simply rolled a dice when they got to the front of the line. I doubt it would actually change anything.
  2. deafplayer

    deafplayer TRIBE Member

    Why do people react so strongly to photo radar?
    The only two points Ive heard are that its a violation of privacy... its taking a picture of your car on the highway!
    And also that it means big greedy mean government is punishing drivers to extort money from them.... but they're breaking the law if theyre speeding, and they're supposed to be punished whether by photo radar or some other means
    No one objects to pulling them over and writing a ticket the old fashioned way..
    Why do people find it so outrageous?
  3. Ditto Much

    Ditto Much TRIBE Member

    It’s an issue of burden of proof.

    If I get pulled over by an officer and ticketed I the driver of the car is assessed the penalty. The driver of the car can now opt to take it to court and defend themselves. They can request that the police officer provide proof that the radar device used was licensed and calibrated at the time the speeding infraction occurred. They can request the police officer provide proof that they are legally qualified to operate the device with which the speed was measured and they must under oath state that the driver was infact behind the wheel committing the stated offence at the time and place specified.

    In the case of photo radar a fine is assessed and charged to the owner of the license plates. This person is automatically guilty and did not even have to be in the car or country to be assessed the fine. The state need not provide any form of witness or proof beyond a single still frame with a date and speed superimposed upon it. In essence a doctored picture is being used to convict someone who we can't even prove was guilty and to which we have no witnesses.

    I have no issue with regards to privacy as your vehicle on public roads is not a private place, my issue is purely in regards to burden of proof and defense. When charged with a crime until I admit my guilt or I am found guilty in a court of law I am innocent. Photo radar allowed a third party to be assessed a penalty without them having committed the offence.
  4. AshG

    AshG Member

    voting enables the creation of laws amongst other things, and so the act of voting or not voting is a fundamental component of the creation of all democratic governments.

    the act of obeying or not obeying the law is not productive in the sense that choosing to do either thing does not actually result in any social construct - you are merely following or not following an arbitrary set of rules governing largely invididual behaviour.
  5. AshG

    AshG Member

    this for me as well is one of those issues of principle that i simply cannot accept.
    i still don't understand how the vehicle's owner can be assumed to be the guilty party in a court of law. its ridiculous.

    to emphasize just how ridiculous it is, even the insurance industry - of all organizations - refuses to acknowledge any kind of photo-based conviction as an act by which a client's insurance policy should change; they simply don't count them because they know there is absolutely no logical basis for such convictions.
  6. ~atp~

    ~atp~ TRIBE Member

    But some of us might argue that voting has little influence -- let alone exist as a fundamental "component" -- of any government.

    Civil disobedience does not actually result in any social construct? Gandhi is appalled! :)

    Perhaps I have misunderstood.
  7. AshG

    AshG Member

    but that's an argument of practical effectiveness and open to as much interpretation as describing the colour of something.

    perhaps, but i think it more probable that your focus on a particular aspect of some acts of law breaking is more apt to demonstrate the exception than the rule.

    the issue at hand was comparing obeying laws merely for the sake of the action described by the law, and voting.
    civil disobedience is an act of protest and democracy enabled through law-breaking, but the law breaking itself is an entirely different means to a higher end; as i said, with few exceptions going about your daily business of obeying the law has an entirely different function from the very special functional and symbolic act of voting.

    i don't think ghandi held any special love for the law in particular but rather did ascribe some special functionality to the act of voting, or rather not voting.

    "It would conduce to national progress and save a great deal of time and trouble if we cultivated the habit of never supporting the resolutions either by speaking or voting for them if we had not either the intention or the ability to carry them out."
    Mohandas Gandhi

    Last edited: Dec 7, 2005
  8. AdRiaN

    AdRiaN TRIBE Member

    If you make paying taxes voluntary, how many people would actually pay taxes? So few that the country could not function. If you make stopping at a red light voluntary, the roads would be undriveable.

    What detrimental effect does voluntary voting have on society? We somehow manage to attract 50% - 80% of eligible voters at each election without mandatory voting. Can you provide evidence that countries with mandatory voting are better governed or "more democratic" than those without?

    Quite frankly, any representative democracy will always be capable of having its leaders make unpopular decisions, whether they have a 20% turnout or a 100% turnout.

    Similarly, is there any evidence that non-voters have a different distribution of opinions than voters? We often look to opinion polls with samples of 1,000 people as being a reasonable estimate of the entire 30 million population of Canada. Elections are kind of like polls with a sample of 10 million people, so the margin of error is exponentially reduced. Does using the entire population really add any noticeable accuracy?

Share This Page