Official Political Discussion Thread 4

[Buffy Summers]

Please be sure you have read this post before posting:

On Politics

The staff has been listening to comments from you, the members, as well as our own feelings on the discussion of politics on the board. We feel, as it seems like a lot of you do as well, that this is a board that is ostensibly supposed to be about discussing the Whedonverse, something light...

buffy-boards.com

 

[DeadlyDuo]

It appears that the democrats in California have passed a law that will make it legal for male minors aged 14 and above to be abused by male predators in their early 20s. The age limit is that the "adult" must be under 10 years older than the minor so this new law makes it legal for a 23 year old male to have sex with a 14 year old male without it being considered a sex crime.

I think this is wrong. In America, most places legal age of consent is 18, in some places I think it's 16, in the UK it's 16. 14 is way too young. It would be the equivalent of Season 5 Dawn (if she'd been male) having sex with Season 7 Xander.

Why did the democrat party in California think this was a good idea? How did they think it was a good idea?

This is clearly leaving children vulnerable to predators.

Thoughts?

 

[Buffy Summers]

I think that video is misleading. The law actual level sets LGBTQ and hetersexual consensual intercourse. Without getting too graphic, currently the law says that for "straight" sex if there is a 10 year or less gap the judge has discretion as to whether to put the offender on the sex offenders list in consensual statutory rape cases. The same discretion did not apply to sex between partners of the same sex. This law allows for that discretion.

More info: Fact check: California bill does not legalize pedophilia

 

[nightshade]

What do you think about mandatory voting? In Australia you get a fine if you don't vote, could it work elsewhere? What level of fine do you think would encourage people to go out and vote?

As someone who is still annoyed that I had to register to vote or face a fine, I am not in favour of this. Would it only be for the general election or for any voting?

Do you think they would take credit card?

 

[Buffy Summers]

I think in the same way that you have a right to vote, you have a right to not vote if you choose. Also, you can require someone to vote but you can't require them to actually look up what any of the candidates stand for.

BUT I'm sure the government is interested because it's a way for them to make money from fines lol

 

[nightshade]

Western Australia was the first one that popped up on Google, no idea if it's the same throughout Australia

Voting at State general elections, by-elections and referenda is compulsory.

If you did not vote at a State election or referendum you may receive an email, text message or notice in the mail seeking an explanation of your apparent failure to vote. Please respond to the electronic message or complete the form and return it in the envelope provided.

Electors who fail to vote at a State election and do not provide a valid and sufficient reason for such failure will be fined.

The penalty for first time offenders is $20 and this increases to $50 if you have previously paid a penalty or been convicted of this offence. If you do not have a valid and sufficient reason for not voting, you can pay the penalty and that will end the matter.

Electors who do not respond to notices or do not pay the prescribed penalty may have the matter referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry and could have their driver's licence suspended.

Failure to Vote | Western Australian Electoral Commission

 

[Taake]

What do you think about mandatory voting? In Australia you get a fine if you don't vote, could it work elsewhere? What level of fine do you think would encourage people to go out and vote?

Don't they also have a problem with people writing in fake candidates when they vote? As a kind of protest to this. I feel like I've read that, but it may have been an overexaggeration to the reality of the occurrence. In general it would make sense to me, because people don't like being forced to do things and would rather make a joke out of it, but do it and avoid the fine.

 

[nightshade]

Quite possibly, but it does look like if you don't have a valid reason to not vote then they could take you to court!

Electoral Backgrounder: Compulsory voting

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I think that video is misleading. The law actual level sets LGBTQ and hetersexual consensual intercourse. Without getting too graphic, currently the law says that for "straight" sex if there is a 10 year or less gap the judge has discretion as to whether to put the offender on the sex offenders list in consensual statutory rape cases. The same discretion did not apply to sex between partners of the same sex. This law allows for that discretion.

So it just makes it equal opportunity then? Even so, a legal adult shouldn't be having sex with a 14 year old regardless of whether they're straight or not.

What do you think about mandatory voting? In Australia you get a fine if you don't vote, could it work elsewhere? What level of fine do you think would encourage people to go out and vote?

As someone who is still annoyed that I had to register to vote or face a fine, I am not in favour of this. Would it only be for the general election or for any voting?

I don't think people should be forced to vote if they don't want to, however it possibly cuts down on voter fraud since theoretically the number of votes should line up with the number of people in the country and it ensures that everyone gets a vote.

 

[Spanky]

So it just makes it equal opportunity then? Even so, a legal adult shouldn't be having sex with a 14 year old regardless of whether they're straight or not.

That's why it's against the law.

What the law does, is allow a judge, at their discretion, not to require someone breaking the law to have to register as a sex offender if there is less than a 10 year difference. So an 18 year old having sex with a 14 is still a crime, and the 18 year old will still be punished (if taken to court), but if the judge sees fit that 18 year old will not be labeled as nor have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life and have to deal with the ramifications of being labeled as one.

 

[Spanky]

This made me LOL, like a snort laugh. There may be a few people on the forum that get it.

 

[Athena]

What do you think about mandatory voting? In Australia you get a fine if you don't vote, could it work elsewhere? What level of fine do you think would encourage people to go out and vote?

As someone who is still annoyed that I had to register to vote or face a fine, I am not in favour of this. Would it only be for the general election or for any voting?

Do you think they would take credit card?

I'm torn on it. I feel like people should have the right to not vote, as its their choice in that regard, but if they don't vote then do they have any right to complain on the outcome?

But I also think forcing votes is just as bad, because you'll just end up with either a multitude of spoiled ballots, or votes for random parties just because they have to tick a box. I feel like placing your vote has to be done with care and due diligence, voting for the party you personally agree with the most. A forced vote won't be that.

 

[Spanky]

but if they don't vote then do they have any right to complain on the outcome?

Of course. In fact they are twice covered. They can say "I don't vote for them!" no matter who wins.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

That's why it's against the law.

What the law does, is allow a judge, at their discretion, not to require someone breaking the law to have to register as a sex offender if there is less than a 10 year difference. So an 18 year old having sex with a 14 is still a crime, and the 18 year old will still be punished (if taken to court), but if the judge sees fit that 18 year old will not be labeled as nor have to register as a sex offender for the rest of their life and have to deal with the ramifications of being labeled as one.

In which case the age band of the adult should be lowered. A 23 year old shouldn't be having sex with a 14 year old at all. Even the 18 year old and the 14 year old is a bit dodgy. This is season 5 Dawn's age. If the adult was 18 or under then the new law should apply but to enable a 23 year old to not be labelled a sex offender for having sex with a 14 year old is wrong.

 

[Buffy Summers]

That was already the law in California, right or wrong.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

I noticed in the 2016 election results when they were showing what states Trump won, each state had a number of electoral votes in the corner and obviously the winner has to get over 270. Since the electoral college doesn't vote until December, is their vote just confirming the result of election night in November eg Do you actually know who will be president at the end of election night or is it not confirmed until the electoral college votes?

 

[Spanky]

it not confirmed until the electoral college votes?

Technically it's not confirmed until the electoral college votes.

 

[DeadlyDuo]

Technically it's not confirmed until the electoral college votes.

But the electoral college will vote the way of the election result? It's not like the electoral college can completely ignore the will of the people, can they?

I did hear a rumour somewhere that the democrats were trying to get more democrats in the electoral college or something like that to vote for them.

 

[Spanky]

It's not like the electoral college can completely ignore the will of the people, can they?

Some can, yes. It's called Faithless Elector. There was a push during the last election that some go faithless and vote for Clinton. Some states, I don't recall which ones, automatically go to the victor, but others can go faithless and pay fines. Other states can invalidate the votes if they are not cast correctly.

 

[Taake]

In which case the age band of the adult should be lowered. A 23 year old shouldn't be having sex with a 14 year old at all. Even the 18 year old and the 14 year old is a bit dodgy. This is season 5 Dawn's age. If the adult was 18 or under then the new law should apply but to enable a 23 year old to not be labelled a sex offender for having sex with a 14 year old is wrong.

But the key term here is ”consensual”, no? While not advisable, it does happen that say a 19 year old dates a 15 year old and they consensually engage in what is legally termed ”statutory rape”. While one could argue that the 19 year old should know better, it is wise - in my opinion - to leave some leeway for the judges discretion whether or not he/she ought to be labeled a sex offender. I imagine, if it was a repeat offender, the judge would acknowledge that it was predatory behavior. But consensual statutory rape does not necessarily indicate a predator. Though, again, certainly inadvisable.

The law doesn’t appear to OK statutory rape, but rather give the judge opportunnuance the conviction to fit the crime. Which will be subject to the specifics of each situation.

A 19 year old sleeping with their significant other, consensually, shouldn’t necessarily be classified for life as a sex criminal or paedophile. Thinking that they should is very rigid and leaves no space for the grey areas that make up the mess of reality.

But then, I say that as someone who had a 21 year old boyfriend at 14, and though in hindsight I can feel like he was very immature to date someone so young, I also wouldn’t want him penalized forever for it. It was more complex than just looking at our ages implies.