To think that people with extreme political views shouldn’t be allowed to vote?

[EdgyEagle]

Far-left and far-right ideologies are tearing society apart. Should we limit the influence of extremists?

Surely an "extreme" view is one that not many people have (otherwise it would be a mainstream view), in which case stopping them from voting will change nothing.
Also, massive issues re: democracy but that's been covered already.

Anyone who thinks differently to the OP or whoever is in charge.

I shall be joining the Tooting Popular Front forthwith!

Will Count Binface be deemed "extreme"?

Is that true globally or just in the country they’re in do you reckon? E.g. Hitler had some extreme views, yet won elections. Did that make his views non-extremist? I’d argue extremist views can become mainstream, tragically, but that they are still extreme? It’s a weird one.

Thank you OP, I needed this thread. Best laugh I have had in a while!
Also, I think this is the first time on the history of MN that everyone has agreed on a thread about politics!!! That made me smile. No doubt replies are from both left and right leaning people and they’re all in agreement.
Was that your aim, OP? To unite MN on a political view? It so, well-played.

So what happens when the political pendulum shifts, as it always does, and yours are the views that are considered extremist OP? Would you be happy to give up your right to vote?

I have quite a lot of reservations about democracy as the electorate is manipulated by those who control information sources but that's a different argument. You can't have some people with the right to vote and some who don't - that's not democracy.

Didn't know Donald Trump was on MN.

How would you police what people think?.
Outwardly I could be the most liberal person going but inwardly be a raging nazi fucker, how would you stop me voting?

true but then its also not a democracy when its voters voting on soundbites etc

You have a very odd understanding of defining democracy. There’s no definition which includes telling people on what information they may base their vote.

You can't see that you're demonstrating precisely why your idea cannot be rolled out.

"Only one person so far has commented with a bit of sense "

You've already descended into "anyone who disagrees with me is stupid".

You're obviously having a laugh.

I don't like your ideas you can't vote is pretty much the opposite of a democracy.

That's quite an extreme political viewpoint OP....

Stopping some people voting is very extreme.

So I assume you'd have no issue with yourself being stopped voting as you've clearly just demonstrated you have extreme political views.

Women used to be considered too emotionally fragile/immature to vote.

Give your head a wobble

Democracy was originally a bit like this, only educated property owners could vote (men), as the Greeks realised that with power comes responsibility, so didn't want people with crazy views let loose on society. I don't think there's anything wrong with defining extreme at all, it brings ethics into the system, which is again something we need to do to run a society well. The responses on here do show how well extremists can leverage a lack of understanding on democracy.

A more serious comment:

In 1890, in the UK, it would have been extreme to suggest women should be allowed to vote.

In 1900, in the Southern US, it would have been extreme to be against segregation.

You could go on and on, there are loads of things which used to be utterly outside the pale and are now so normal the fringe groups are those who disagree. And vice versa.

Stupidness? If you're going to say people with extreme views can't vote, you need to define those views or how do you know who to exclude?

People can vote for any available party, whatever their views. You might just as well ban political parties then. That way nobody could vote for them. But we live in a democracy.

Just to say, I'm in NI and the two parties in control of Stormont, Sinn Fein and the DUP are what I would call extreme. If people had been deprived of their right to vote for whoever they chose, who knows where we would be now? I'm one of the moderate voters and was very dismayed and uncomfortable when there was a shift towards the two polar opposites holding the First Minister and Deputy First Minister positions. But I accepted that Ian Paisley was only ever going to get on board with power sharing if he was, effectively, 'king' of the country. We have peace here because people are permitted to vote for whoever they like, no matter how unsavoury others may find it.

In order to limit extremism in any guise, my opinion is that people need to be able to have more open and respectful debates with people who think differently to them.
I try very hard not a choose a political hill to die on, I believe what I believe at the moment based on the information I have and the experiences I have had so far. It’s constantly evolving and changing.

People are very tribal when it comes to their views. It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, to be ejected from the tribe would have meant certain death millennia ago. But unfortunately, that also means that people are extremely wedded to their beliefs and to disagree with someone’s opinion is to attack their personality. Which should not be the case.

You see it on here all the time… people posting about breaking with friends because they believe something different to them. Which is course is how you end up in an echo chamber. Or people getting very worked up and feeling personally attacked if a poster offers an alternative view point.
Social media makes this worse, the algorithms will only show you content it knows you will agree with so that you keep scrolling. And the echo chamber is further reinforced.
Then people come on MN, where view points aren’t censored for you and all hell breaks loose!

If people were just a little more open minded, this wouldn’t happen.

you’ve missed the whole point of democracy love

I have to say it does restore hope a little.

I wouldn’t mind exploring a minimum voter turnout threshold for an election result to be legally binding.

This current bunch have a disproportionate amount of power for such a pathetic share of the potential vote. They are not wielding that power lightly. Voter apathy is a big problem. For totally understandable reasons. The choices are appalling.

Its people who believe every word in the Daily Mail should never vote again. Also read somewhere about ten years ago, they were proposing an upper age limit for vote, inline with jury service.

If was applied in 2016, we would still be in the EU. As this graph shows. https://www.statista.com/statistics/520954/brexit-votes-by-age/ But I did find another one a couple of years ago where 80+ was 70:30 in favour of Brexit.