Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3339494" data-attributes="member: 7240">No. But I think the law is unnecessary. People in Canada lose votes over being dual citizens; I cannot imagine somebody being electable if they were not a citizen. I don't foresee a scenario where this would be allowed to happen.They are allowed to run usually but not allowed to vote. I think this is a good system; non-residents tend to have a tough time winning seats, even if they are running for a major party. As a result, this phenomenon is rare. When it does happen, the individual tends to be a very qualified and prominent opinion leader. The man who currently serves as deputy leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, like a high profile Conservative candidate in a recent election, was actually residing in the United States at the start of the election in which they were running. So, generally, I do not see the need to use legislation to restrict voters' choices for their own good. Such legislation is offensive, paternalistic and anti-democratic. The only reason it is not struck down more frequently is because the only people it disqualifies are people who would be unlikely to get elected anyway.But these situations are not, in any case, analogous. You are proposing to micro-manage voter choice to a much greater extent by instituting such things as term limits. Your question, above, is analogous to asking, "Should people who don't play RPGs be allowed to run?" And my position is, "Of course; we can trust the voters not to choose them."No. I support rules that disqualify people due to conflict of interest. And the ENnies already have such a rule -- one of the few restrictions on candidacy that I support.But, again, this is not relevant. You are proposing to increase the current level of restriction of voter choice. The fact that I support the current level of restriction cannot be taken as a point in favour of your position.I think that financial conflicts of interest are a special case and a form of candidacy restriction I favour. If we did not restrict candidacy on this basis, we would end up with a lot of negative campaigning as candidates who were not in conflict would have to point out which of their competitors were. With even one or two entries into the race by people in conflict, the whole tone of the race would change from a positive one to a negative one and the resulting depression in voter turnout would offset any benefits that would result from widening those eligible for candidacy. Similarly, unlike term limits, conflict of interest restrictions on candidacy and voting or candidacy are universal in mature democratic systems whereas term limits tend to be rare and more common in emerging democracies.This is a tired kind of argument eyebeams; I expected a little better from you. These kinds of all-or-nothing propositions just don't fly. You are also not allowed to run your pet for the ENnies but that is neither here nor there. What we are debating is whether democracy is served by further restricting people's choices. And you have offered no positive argument for why it is; all you have done is harangued me for being some kind of hypocrite by constructing a series of all-or-nothing propositions.I think the elections should be as free as is practical. And they are.</blockquote>

Verification