It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Who Should not be allowed to vote?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 09:13 AM
Further to a request by FreedomERP on the thread titled 'The right to vote automatically' to post this topic, here it is...

Who should not be allowed to vote?

My personal opinion on this matter is that the prison population should definitely NOT be allowed to vote under any circumstance. Withdrawing the right to influence their prosecutors views (the government, the people, the monarchy) must be upheld. I think the prison population is some 90,000 people, which is a considerable sum. They have nothing much else to do while they are being reformed, so they would probably go and vote just to get some extra 'leg-stretching' time. I have encountered many offenders through the years, and my generalisation is that I wouldn't trust the majority of them to go to the shops for me, never mind influence government.

I would be interested to hear others views on who they would deny the right to vote.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 10:58 AM
Sometimes I think people below a certain IQ shouldn't be able to vote. Too many Vicky Pollard's out there lol. I'd never really expect it to happen though.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:17 PM

Anyone legally resident in the UK who is a citizen of the UK, the Republic of Ireland, or of a Commonwealth country, and who is 18 or over on the date of the election is eligible to vote, provided they are on the electoral register, unless they are currently a member of the House of Lords, imprisoned for a criminal offence, mentally incapable of making a reasoned judgement, an undischarged bankrupt, or have been convicted of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election within the previous five years.


I think this was pretty much discussed in the other thread, but as the above source shows, prisoners aren't allowed to vote.


posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 01:57 PM
By other thread I presume you mean this one?

Yes Prisoners are currently not allowed to vote but those human rights people and the lawyers getting rich of the criminal's are wanting to allow prisoners the right to vote, its been in the news recently if you haven't seen it.

Its of course completely stupid, the whole point of prison is to take away there rights. Its getting to the extent these days where prison offers a better life than most people currently have.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 03:26 PM
Anyone who cannot pass a simple civics test,in my opinion, shouldn't be allowed to vote. If you don't understand how the government operates, you need not vote. I honestly believe that.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 04:05 PM
I have to say that I've never understood the bit about citzens of Eire or Commonwealth countries being allowed to vote if resident. What the heck is that all about?

Who else shouldn't be allowed to vote? Well let's start with anyone who has not yet realised that the peak of a baseball cap goes at the front.

posted on Feb, 5 2007 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Edn
Yes Prisoners are currently not allowed to vote but those human rights people and the lawyers getting rich of the criminal's are wanting to allow prisoners the right to vote, its been in the news recently if you haven't seen it.

Well, the only way for prisoners to get the right to vote is via an Act of Parliament. The liklihood of this happening is next to nil - why?

Simple. MPs don't have to worry about getting votes from prisoners, so they won't risk their careers trying to enfranchise them. Can you imagine the backlash if someone proposed reverting this law considering the current attitudes towards issues such as crime and immigration? It's almost certain to be defeated if it even gets as far as being proposed. The lawyers can cry all they want. I'm sure MPs and - more importantly - the public will see through this as a way for lawyers to make a bit more cash.

Originally posted by timeless test
I have to say that I've never understood the bit about citzens of Eire or Commonwealth countries being allowed to vote if resident. What the heck is that all about?

The reason for residents in the UK who are citizens of Eire being able to vote is because Eire was a part of the UK up until 1922, and it's similar for all the Commonwealth nations - they used to be ruled by Britain and so Parliament felt that if they came to live in the UK they should have the right to vote.

I agree this is an anomaly that should be gradually rectified, since it has been nearly half a century or so since the British Empire came to an end. I suppose the simple rule is to say that you're entitled to vote if you're a resident of the UK and from a Commonwealth realm which was ruled by Britain up to fifty years ago (or a hundred years for Ireland, since it was a part of the United Kingdom itself). That way the rule is gradually phased out until eventually only those holding British citizenship can vote but it doesn't occur so quickly that it revokes the rights of a large minority of people.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:21 AM
When my parents sold up and moved to Spain they retained the right to vote however decided to abstain due to their non residential status. I admire their stance and wish more ex-pats forfeited their right to vote.
In my opinion, when you leave the country, you lose a say in how its governed unless you maintain active business interests in said country.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 06:20 AM
I dont really see why citizens of commonwealth countries should vote on British governement, it just doesnt make sense.

Some people here have expressed the wish for some sort of test to see if you are clever enough to vote, or whatever. I think this is a disgusting elitist idea. When a democracy starts limiting which members of the free population can vote it stops being a democracy!

Even stupid people who dont know much about politics are affected by the decisions made in parliament so of course they should be allowed a say. To suggest that they shouldnt is dictatorial.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:08 PM
What about the serially unemployed? Surely after a year dependant on benefits ANYBODY can get a job of some description? If people are going to scrounge off the state then, in my opinion, they should temporarily forfeit certain rights. They are no longer contributing to society positively. It might even serve as a wake-up call to them. Something to be embarrassed about.

Or, perhaps, people who do not speak English. Why should anything in our country have to be translated to accommodate those who cannot be bothered to learn what should be a given. (the deaf, indiginous Gaelics etc excluded)

Drug addicts must surely be deemed incompetent to carry out the duty of voting. If an employer should find an employee to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol then they will either be relieved of duty through incapability or sent for help and suspended until capability returns.


posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 12:32 PM
Yeah, why can't 'we' just kill people when 'we' decide they're not contributing to 'society' sufficiently and to our liking?

Jayzuss wept, the type of world some of you guys seem to want to live in.

Here's hoping it's never you on the receiving end of it tho, right?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 01:22 PM
Kill? Why would you want to kill anybody? It would be much more effective to put the serially unemployed to work if they desire state benefits. There are thousands of playparks, public buildings, public walkways etc that need spruced up.

when 'we' decide they're not contributing to 'society' sufficiently and to our liking?

Ok. So the long-term unemployed actually DO contribute to society, is that what you are saying? And drug addicts should be liked and pandered to?

Not in my opinion.

If push came to shove, i'd take whatever job provided me an income rather than lay about for months on end expecting the state to magically provide me with a 'Giro-Cheque' every other week. People with morality this low do not exhibit the character to collectively chose government.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:13 PM
Why is we as a society (Earth) , deem prisoners un worthy of having an opinon (voting)

I've never been in prison, nor do I plan on it but why are they denied.

What are they going to ban together and elect Lex Luther PM, or President

We have the same way in the US and look we voted in Bush

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 02:19 PM

Why is we as a society (Earth) , deem prisoners un worthy of having an opinon (voting)

Murderers, rapists, Granny-muggers, people who kick others in the head until they are vegetables, embezzlers, arsonists, fraudsters, terrorists, bombers. I could go on.

Do these people deserve to participate in electing government?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 03:04 PM
Im really torn between my two views on prisoners voting.

On one hand I believe that they do forfeit their rights by being found guilty.

On the other hand, their life is directly influenced by the decisions made by the government, maybe more than most people, so surely they deserve a say.

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 04:03 PM
I think the restrictions we have in place already are fine. Any extra and it's debatable as to whether you could actually call this country a democracy.

The problem with many of your proposals, boyg2004, is that they depend wholly on circumstances. Long term unemployed... what if the economy was going through a rough patch and there were a lot of people out of work? How can you prove that someone is actually deliberately not getting a job?

Drug addicts... what if they were trying to get off drugs? What exactly constituties a 'drug addict'? Anyone who takes drugs? People who take drugs constantly for a year? How do you prove that they are addicts?

And also, who's going to pay for all the extra civil servants that need to be brought in to administer this new voting system and assess the entire UK electoral register (that's 45million people) and constantly update it as people's circumstances change?

posted on Feb, 6 2007 @ 09:58 PM
I do believe prisoners should retain their right to vote, during and after incarceration. Many convicts commit their first crimes as minors, and most all of them are in a downward spiral by their early 20's.

Prison make an inmate a very lonely person, and many deserving people who made mistakes in their past go on to become accomplished students writers, or at least educated and opinionated people. When you consider the fact that these men and women are finally approaching a stage in their lives where they actually might care about politics and how it affects them, AND they're locked up and have only time to fill, I would think the right to vote and an inmate or ex-convict would be a beautiful thing together.

As for the inmates or ex-convicts out there who don't deserve the right to vote, in most cases i would assume those people are not interested, and thus wouldn't even utilize their right anyway.

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 03:21 AM
theoreticaly Prisons primary concern is rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Although many people regard it as punishment through isolation, this is not it's purpose.
I don't see how denying prisoners the right to vote helps with their integration back into society at all, in fact surely it discourages an interest in politics and further removes them from the mainstream making their reintegration harder and more likely to fail when released.

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 04:56 AM

Prisioners have, by definition, demonstrated a desire to operate outside the rules of society to a greater or lesser extent.

Whilst they are undergoing punishment/rehabilitation and may, therefore, be considered still to be of that mind, how can it be justified that someone who wants to work against society's rules should have an active say in what those rules should be.

It's not a perfect arrangement of course but if you want to change the rules that should be done in a legal and democratic way after you have been punished/rehabilitated and shown your willingness to act within the rules.

posted on Feb, 7 2007 @ 05:28 AM
Because a prisoner has theoretically broken the law doesn't suddenly turn them into an anarchist unwilling to obide by the rules of society. Most prisoners are there for a specific reason. The guy who gets caught dealing drugs, may well pay their taxes wouldn't dream of stealing a car and berates people in the street for dropping litter. Theres a reason why so many murderers are described as being "just a nice normal guy" before their crime is discovered.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in