It’s full implementation is unacceptable as a hard rule. I agree with doing a lot to ensure everyone votes, but removing rights for reasons beyond one’s control is the opposite of helpful.
Expatriation means losing basically every right in the charter, and is politically equivalent to execution. This reason (failing to vote) is also heavily biased towards people with less control over their lives, and disrupting someone from voting could be used as a weapon.
I can see punishments for failing to vote, but such an extreme response should be reserved for those who explicitly choose not to vote, and such a system would need a rigorous judgment to act on.
Having such a thin line between citizenship and expatriation is too dangerous. On one hand, choosing not to vote may be considered a serious enough act, but on the other hand there are dozens of reasons a vote can fail to be cast, and they would all need to be addressed before something as serious as expatriation is considered as a punishment.
I know what expatriation means, hence why it is a part of my idea. Frankly, if one doesn’t have a really good reason not to vote I don’t care how extreme the punishment is.
As I said in another comment cheap and easy like a good old fashioned ice float for being too lazy to do the one thing required of you in a democracy. If you believe that means people physically, or mentally, incapable of being able to do that would be expatriated you need to touch grass because we have numerous laws with exceptions. Welcome to Canada.
It is weird how humans immediately try to find exceptions to a rule without ever discussing its full implementation in the first place.
It’s full implementation is unacceptable as a hard rule. I agree with doing a lot to ensure everyone votes, but removing rights for reasons beyond one’s control is the opposite of helpful.
No one said rights would be removed for reasons beyond control. Quit being ridiculous, shit isn’t real.
Expatriation means losing basically every right in the charter, and is politically equivalent to execution. This reason (failing to vote) is also heavily biased towards people with less control over their lives, and disrupting someone from voting could be used as a weapon.
I can see punishments for failing to vote, but such an extreme response should be reserved for those who explicitly choose not to vote, and such a system would need a rigorous judgment to act on.
Having such a thin line between citizenship and expatriation is too dangerous. On one hand, choosing not to vote may be considered a serious enough act, but on the other hand there are dozens of reasons a vote can fail to be cast, and they would all need to be addressed before something as serious as expatriation is considered as a punishment.
I know what expatriation means, hence why it is a part of my idea. Frankly, if one doesn’t have a really good reason not to vote I don’t care how extreme the punishment is.
As I said in another comment cheap and easy like a good old fashioned ice float for being too lazy to do the one thing required of you in a democracy. If you believe that means people physically, or mentally, incapable of being able to do that would be expatriated you need to touch grass because we have numerous laws with exceptions. Welcome to Canada.