The other irony, of course, is that wealthy non-doms and oligarchs, media moguls, and similar have hugely disproportionate levels of 'representation' (whether or not they can vote) despite neither paying taxes, nor being resident nor, in some cases, even being citizens. If we are arguing for levelling the playing field, maybe we should start there?
I can agree with this POV up to a point but, as in my immediately preceding post, observe that this is far from the case currently.
I don't know what Twitter comments you are referring to, so can't meaningfully engage with this, but if you are saying that people who complain about the cost of citizenship are not fully committed to becoming citizens, I don't think that's a logical inference.
Why only 'older' women, and why only those 'with property'? Does this not strike you as some way from equitable. And on what grounds is this an 'approximate political balance'. It would be reasonable to assume that an older woman with property would be more likely to vote Conservative than Liberal or <shudders> Labour. Where's the balance there? Does this not smack, even if only slightly, of 'gerrymandering'?
This isn't the argument you think it is. Until this year, parental consent was required for 16 & 17 year olds to marry. 16 & 17 year olds were never regarded as legal adults. The new act (see here) is mostly an attempt to prevent forced marriages before people reach legal adulthood.
You're guessing. It would be interesting to see some evidence.
Pretty much everything you've written about me personally in this thread is a lie. You know this because you don't actually know anything about me.
It was a random thread in the aftermath of Jacob Ress Mogg's comments. Someone complaining they weren't allowed to vote and it was too expensive and they planned to return 'home' in some years.
It's completely inequitable. But it's what happened. It's interesting that the first time Labour gained the most seats in an election was 1929, after the franchise was extended to all over 21.
I don't think it's an argument, I was surprised to find it, it passed me by, someone mentioned 16 up thread. Anyway let's hope it works.
It's interesting, but it's not gerrymandering, clearly. If anything, it suggests that it has unpicked previous voter suppression and levelled the playing field. And, in so doing, has allowed left wing politics to reflect the wishes of the electorate for the first time. You think a similar objective, proposed now for other unrepresented minorities is morally equivalent to voter suppression. We will have to agree to disagree.
I don't post here very often because the environment you foster is toxic.
I thought you retained the right to vote for 15 years at least.
I don't think it's safe to draw simple analogies with the past, when the Liberals were dying, Labour was growing and just prior to the biggest general election upset ever.
Where do you stand on PR vs FPTP? Adopting PR would also be likely to improve the electoral chances of Labour and/or LibDems, and both parties have expressed an interest in change to this. Is that gerrymandering? Is it morally equivalent to voter ID too?
