• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is more likely to vote for change?

Who is more likely to want to change local laws?

  • A person who was born there.

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • A person who chose to move there for a better opportunity.

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Total voters
    7

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,671
Reaction score
6,627
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Who would be more likely to want to vote to change the laws of a country? A person who was born there that had no previous influence over them. Or a person who chose voluntarily to migrate to that country for something better?

I mean other than maybe better weather why would someone choose to move to a country where they didn't already like the laws there better than the ones in their homeland? Wouldn't someone born in a country feel as though they are MORE entitled to decide it's laws and it's future and therefore make whatever changes they see fit?
 

DaveFagan

Iconoclast
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
10,090
Reaction score
5,056
Location
wny
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Who would be more likely to want to vote to change the laws of a country? A person who was born there that had no previous influence over them. Or a person who chose voluntarily to migrate to that country for something better?

I mean other than maybe better weather why would someone choose to move to a country where they didn't already like the laws there better than the ones in their homeland? Wouldn't someone born in a country feel as though they are MORE entitled to decide it's laws and it's future and therefore make whatever changes they see fit?

The person who gets up offf their ass and moves demonstrates more ambition. I'm not demeaning thsoe that don't move, just acknowledging that they have long accepted the Local status quo.
/
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
31,974
Reaction score
30,885
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Dangerous subject. What the question really asks is who is most important to local driven change, and should that be tied to longevity of residence there. Which is a passive way of asking should those newer to the area bow to the wishes from those who lived there longer as some showing of acknowledgement of "how things are done" in some community.

The reality is invariably times change as do perceptions of conditions in any area, no matter if primarily driven by those living there longer or those moving into the community. So the "want" to change local conditions ends up argumentative in terms of who generally drives change and the motivations for them.

We have no real legislative, or system of law, granting higher voting authority at the local level to those who lived their longer. The flip side is also true suggesting the another reality of change, they are really driven by majority thinking no matter if the scale tilts to longer term residents or those who recently moved there (or some combination of.) Any attempt to really suggest we apply weight to one group attempts to marginalize someone, that is entirely unavoidable, and that pretty much voids the poll and participating in it.

(The other harsh truth of democracy, the majority inherently marginalizes the wishes of the minority. That is also unavoidable.)
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,324
Reaction score
36,837
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Who would be more likely to want to vote to change the laws of a country? A person who was born there that had no previous influence over them. Or a person who chose voluntarily to migrate to that country for something better?

I mean other than maybe better weather why would someone choose to move to a country where they didn't already like the laws there better than the ones in their homeland? Wouldn't someone born in a country feel as though they are MORE entitled to decide it's laws and it's future and therefore make whatever changes they see fit?

Hang on. The poll asks who is more likely to want to change local laws.
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,671
Reaction score
6,627
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The person who gets up off their ass and moves demonstrates more ambition. I'm not demeaning those that don't move, just acknowledging that they have long accepted the Local status quo.

Then why wouldn't the person with ambition just change the status quo of the place they were born. Why move to an entirely new place only to try and change it and make it more like the place they came from?
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,671
Reaction score
6,627
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Hang on. The poll asks who is more likely to want to change local laws.

Yes, local to a country. But any locality would suffice. Town, city, state... Why would you move to a new state, city, or country and then try to change the laws of that country to be more like the laws of your homeland? Why not just stay in your homeland? I mean with the exception of maybe moving to a different more hospitable climate.
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,671
Reaction score
6,627
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Dangerous subject. What the question really asks is who is most important to locally driven change, and should that be tied to the longevity of residence there.
No, it does not. The question asks what it asks. If you like the laws of your country, city, or state the way it is and want to keep it that way, who should you be the most afraid would try and change it? Someone who chose to move there because they liked it, or someone who is only there because their parents liked it?

Which is a passive way of asking should those newer to the area bow to the wishes from those who lived there longer as some showing of acknowledgement of "how things are done" in some community.
False. It's asking why would someone come to an area in the first place if they didn't already kind of like how things were done there?

We have no real legislative, or system of law, granting higher voting authority at the local level to those who lived their longer.
Yes, we do. It's called citizenship.

Any attempt to really suggest we apply weight to one group attempts to marginalize someone
So you would argue that we should do away with the requirement of citizenship in order to obtain the right to vote since it marginalizes migrants?
 

Phys251

Purge evil with Justice
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
52,324
Reaction score
36,837
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Yes, local to a country. But any locality would suffice. Town, city, state... Why would you move to a new state, city, or country and then try to change the laws of that country to be more like the laws of your homeland? Why not just stay in your homeland? I mean with the exception of maybe moving to a different more hospitable climate.

The reason why I ask is that as you get closer to the local level, the left-right split matters less and less. There, people tend to value the quality of life and of government service, but what they see as optimal solutions for both varies from citizen to citizen.
 

MrWonka

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
11,671
Reaction score
6,627
Location
Charleston, SC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The reason why I ask is that as you get closer to the local level, the left-right split matters less and less. There, people tend to value the quality of life and of government service, but what they see as optimal solutions for both varies from citizen to citizen.

The reason is simply due to the fact that what you can accomplish at the local level is generally very little. This is, unfortunately, one of the things Democrats have working against them. There are very few liberal economic policies that you can realistically implement at the city or county level. When people can simply move one town over to avoid a policy they don't like it makes your options quite limited.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
31,974
Reaction score
30,885
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
No, it does not. The question asks what it asks. If you like the laws of your country, city, or state the way it is and want to keep it that way, who should you be the most afraid would try and change it? Someone who chose to move there because they liked it, or someone who is only there because their parents liked it?

False. It's asking why would someone come to an area in the first place if they didn't already kind of like how things were done there?

Yes, we do. It's called citizenship.

So you would argue that we should do away with the requirement of citizenship in order to obtain the right to vote since it marginalizes migrants?

You are crossing swim lanes, and misrepresenting what I said by cutting out parts of my post. The thread subject says local laws, your op says country, and all the posts throughout this thread seem to mash local, state, federal as if they are the same. They are not.

It might be better to distinguish between say someone moving from rural Texas to Houston, vs. say someone moving from California to Texas vs. say someone moving from Mexico to the US (all of those are just examples to illustrate a point.)

At the federal level you make a strong point about someone wanting to bring with them into the nation the culture and methods of law from their home country, and ultimately you end up with a conversation about multiculturalism vs. assimilation (even though it is never that cut and dry.)

State to state, or rural to city is another matter.

The issue at hand though is the same, who *should* win in terms of moving wherever. Those that are established vs. those that are new. The reality is you end up with some blend of elements that change with others not changing so much, and there is really not much you can do about it as democracy suggests will of the majority no matter if made up of those living there longer or those newer to the area (or community, or state, or even federal level.) Generally speaking majority elects representation, who appeals to that majority to stay in power. Seemingly shifting law (which impacts everything from economics to social climate) towards the will of that majority.

Immigrants to this nation who obtain the ability to vote do the same thing, by pool of political lean will guide their representation. Just requiring citizenship to vote (that I agree with anyway) does not necessarily remove all of our ideologies that end up translated to political lean, which end up becoming a voting force.

It seems like what you want to argue is if coming to the US accept it the way you find it, but that never really happens even with those who have been here longer. We have had enough legal, social, economic, and otherwise advancement that cannot be entirely (arguably even partially) blamed on immigration.
 
Top Bottom