Well, no. By changing the voter base you’re just avoiding actual productive competition. Why should a party bother doing actual work for its voters to earn their votes , when they can just parachute in a ton of people that will vote for them no matter what?
Oh no, my democracy is going to represent the people rather than an arbitrary subset of the people that happen to align with my biases! The horror!
Democracies should have strong, broad participation. Why would you want a democracy that hears the voice of fewer of its constituents, other than to do things they would never accept given the choice?
You think any change to the voter base is negative for some reason - it’s not. Some changes make the democracy less representative of the people living in it (e.g., arbitrarily deciding some people shouldn’t be able to vote) while some make the democracy more representative (e.g., removing arbitrary barriers to voting).
Oh no, my democracy is going to represent the people rather than an arbitrary subset of the people
Fair point
It just surprised me a bit that Labour have come up with this now, after Brexit, so I’m trying to read between the lines and see what motives they might have to do it. As much as I support Labour and broadening the voter base, I fear the ulterior motive here is to defend themselves from competition. If they actually wanted productive, democratic competition, they would adopt PR.
happen to align with my biases!
Please don’t assume my biases. It’s not a good look.
Yes, disenfranchising people is exactly the same as enfranchising people, your big centrist brain has it all figured out
Well, no. By changing the voter base you’re just avoiding actual productive competition. Why should a party bother doing actual work for its voters to earn their votes , when they can just parachute in a ton of people that will vote for them no matter what?
Oh no, my democracy is going to represent the people rather than an arbitrary subset of the people that happen to align with my biases! The horror!
Democracies should have strong, broad participation. Why would you want a democracy that hears the voice of fewer of its constituents, other than to do things they would never accept given the choice?
You think any change to the voter base is negative for some reason - it’s not. Some changes make the democracy less representative of the people living in it (e.g., arbitrarily deciding some people shouldn’t be able to vote) while some make the democracy more representative (e.g., removing arbitrary barriers to voting).
Fair point
It just surprised me a bit that Labour have come up with this now, after Brexit, so I’m trying to read between the lines and see what motives they might have to do it. As much as I support Labour and broadening the voter base, I fear the ulterior motive here is to defend themselves from competition. If they actually wanted productive, democratic competition, they would adopt PR.
Please don’t assume my biases. It’s not a good look.
Brexit supporters claimed brexit would open the nation to more wide skilled immigration rather then be a racist attempt to stop it.
So of course that wanted immigration will lead to a community that needs a say in how the nation is run.