>ITT: We discuss restrictions we'd like to see on Voting
So yesterday there was a pretty good thread about voting right restrictions (particularly on Women).
Most anons agreed that Voting should be restricted a bit, but not all agreed how.
I would like to discuss what voting restrictions you would impose if you had the power, and/or if you think voting should be restricted.
Personally I was a fan of a basic test for political aptitude, and if you agree with this kind of restriction, what sort of questions would be most important to ask on the test?
The moment voting is restricted we forfeit our democracy entirely. What a foolish act. First it's limiting stupid people from voting and then it climbs to only rich land owners.
My fellow citizens are fucking cancer and don't know what freedom is. Get the hell out of this country if you don't think every man, woman, and child shouldn't receive the same rights.
>must be 21
>must be a natural born citizen
>must be living there uninterrupted for the last 10 years
>must be paying taxes
>must take a literacy test every 5 years (although not that deliberately confusing style one Alabama used to have)
Ghost of True Capitalist Radio has the right idea.
You have to make your own money and not receive a single government entitlement.
I personally think only people who receive government entitlements shouldn't be allowed to vote. Even if you don't work, as long as you don't collect and benefits, you're allowed to vote. Collecting social security would be considered a benefit since people old enough to collect it lived through a much easier time and have no excuse to not have enough money to pay for their own retirement.
If you receive any benefit, then your vote can be easily bought by whichever candidate says they will give you more benefits.
I have a brilliant idea, OP.
Voting should be allowed for everyone except:
- white men
- frankfurt school despisers
- holocaust deniers
- conspiracy theorists
- deniers that WE WUZ KANGS
>I would like to discuss what voting restrictions you would impose if you had the power, and/or if you think voting should be restricted.
If you don't pay taxes you shouldn't be able to vote.
If you're not contributing you're spending other people's money.
b-but I read this one study that said mixed race children are healthier!
wh-whats your obsession with skin color anyway? Its not like your fellow white "brothers and sisters" give any more of a fuck about you as a person than any shitskin
>Restricting voting (beyond being 18 and needing an ID to prove you're you)
>Still thinking you're free
The right to violate the rights of the people belong to the people. Just because people are ill informed, doesn't mean that we should restrict their voting.
Any time democracy gets severely limited, I'm always thinking of how the political process of Starship Troopers (book) works: Where you have to serve in the military to be allowed to vote.
You would just make a kid who looks pretty much like Elliot Rodgers (Supreme Gentlemen). I would know, I'm half Chinese, Norwegian myself.
I have to disagree. Also, beauty seems to be proportional to stupidity here.
Not sure if this is a joke but it's either a red pilled woman from a nigger free country where islam is banned or a blonde blue eyed SJW desu.
Only thing i'd go for would be an age restriction
From 25 to 70. No more, no less. Letting people under 25 vote spreads degeneracy. Letting older people vote fixes a country in a neverending "muh past was better"
Married or working and paying taxes, why should you have any political standing if you don't contribute anything to the country and society? It's like asking kids where there want to go on vacation, they demand will be unreasonable dangerous for family budget and stupid because they are kids.
>b-but I read this one study that said mixed race children are healthier!
With the superior races, sure>>60979758
With sand niggers? no.
With blacks? no.
>Its not like your fellow white "brothers and sisters" give any more of a fuck about you
They do. It's easier to create a peaceful and happy community when you are ethnically homogeneous. People greeting each other on the streets as friendly neighbours.
With islam, they greet you with suspicion, you are inferior to muslims in their eyes. Even at a fundamental level such as hiding how their women look, you're met with suspicion on the streets when one party doesn't want you to know how they look like.
>Just because people are ill informed, doesn't mean that we should restrict their voting.
>Where you have to serve in the military to be allowed to vote.
how is that a bad thing?
The problem is we need internet voting, a way for people to vote safely, simply, and seamlessly over an encrypted server.
Do you really believe that there should be no restriction on who can vote? Should Non-Citizens be allowed to vote? If you say no, then clearly you don't have a problem with some basic restrictions. Why not let everyone who wants to vote, vote then?
Why is it so far fetched to demand that people who participate in the political process know how it works at the very least?
Nobody should be guaranteed a vote. We should have ministries of experts that have studied and worked their whole lives in a particular field and they should be the only ones who get to vote on the issues of which they are experts. Universal suffrage is cancer. Democracy is cancer. Our population isn't smart enough on average for it to work.
1st Amendment; freedom of expression. They might be "wrong" or misguided. But that doesn't mean their voice should be silenced. Originally our voting system was restricted to just land owners, until Andrew Jackson opened it up for everyone. On top of it all, the popular vote doesn't really elect the president; it's our mysterious, spooky electoral college "delegates", that elect the president.
>How is that a bad thing?
I know this is an odd thing for an American to say. But we aren't a militaristic centrist government. We have a large and powerful military, that's for sure. But there is a clear separation of powers/interests from our military and political leaders (they do obviously intertwine at times, however). By making service compulsory to vote, I think that we narrow the separation of these powers and interests.
That being said. I wouldn't mind the idea of conscription (compulsory 2 year military service). But that too restricts the "freedom" of an individual. But I essentially vote for what gives the individual the most freedom in this country; regardless of the party lines that are drawn.
>Do away with voting all together.
>remove all the white people from Detroit
>have Detroit set as a giant survival arena
>anyone who wants to be president can come to the arena come election time
>all the candidates fight to the death, last one standing is president
These are all good, but I personally would like to see a political aptitude test for issuance of a voter license.
I'm trying to get some basic ideas for questions, something like:
>How many branches of the government are there, and what are their names?
>Name at least three rights granted by the bill of rights.
Anyone got good questions for this? Something that is important, but not too difficult.
I also would make the test publicly available, so the questions would never be a secret. But someone would have to put the effort in to actually learning (or at least memorizing) the answers.
has nothing to do with voting; a non argument
>that doesn't mean their voice should be silenced
you dont silence them you dont let them vote theres a difference you can still write what you like in a newspaper for example
>until Andrew Jackson opened it up for everyone
except niggers a significant omission which invalidates your argument
>By making service compulsory to vote, I think that we narrow the separation of these powers and interests.
could you eloborate on that not sure what to think of this
>By making service compulsory to vote, I think that we narrow the separation of these powers and interests.
compulsory military service is the reason why european states have democracy in the first place get rid of military service and you get (eventually) rid of democracy
The left would never support that, they have a pretty uneducated voting pool.
I like the idea but I think it may be in the wrong direction. I would like to see at least bare minimum people have to graduate highschool or maybe higher learning. Maybe that plus a voting age of 30 because we all know voters under the age of 25 are still parroting thier parents or what the local news channels tell them.
Voting age should be raised to 35. Exceptions to the rule would be made for those holding respectable bachelor degrees and above as well as unrestricted voting rights for those who choose to serve in the military.
>No modern nation is a democracy
its a colloquialism lad calm down
>dont forget women
what seems weird to me is the ancient greeks already had a problem with letting all men regardless of their staus vote they would have never thought about letting women or niggers(or whatever is the equivalent in their society) vote
I heard someone say this in a thread a while back, and honestly - it sounds like a great idea in theory... but a "reverse tax" still disproportionately affects poor people. Plus, politicians are always concerned with getting MORE people to vote, not less, so this kind of thing would never be implemented. Not to mention the fact that tax payers would be footing the bill.
>only land owners or atleast people who actively pay taxes and do actual work should be allowed to vote
>age restricted - only 30 and up
Additionally what would help is not making leaders into celebrities. Policies should be clear-cut and the main focus, not appeals to emotion, "vote for me because i'm x" or contests to see who's the most beautiful candidate.
Otherwise we get people who vote because "hey this candidate is black/female/an alien, we need to have the first black/female/alien leader!".
As someone from California, a legal ID proving citizenship would be a great restriction.
Fucking retarded illegal immigrants get to vote on what happens in my country they are leeching benefits out of without contributing.
Also, Fuck Sanctuary Cities.
Voting should be a privilege able to be earned by anyone, and it wouldn't take much other than a short vocal exam.
Just go there, declare your vote and explain the political program of that group, name its main leaders and get out.
No need to give any reasons, just show you know who and what are you voting for and you're set.
Given free markets, only persons with a university degree which can pay a monthly voting license fee should be allowed to vote. At the end of the government's term there is a referendum where the voters decide if they are happy with how the ministers have done their job. If someone gets a negative vote he is sent to jail for 1 year. There are no salaries for parliament representatives. The head of state is the monarch who is restricted by a constitution.
You ever wonder why politicians and the media are so concerned with voter turn out?
Two reasons, the more people that vote, the more obscure and insignificant each vote becomes, and the easier it is to sway/control large voting blocks. It's also nearly impossible to prove voter fraud.
The more important reason is because voting is like a contract. By voting you essentially consent to the outcome. You're saying
>I'll play by the rules and if I don't win, I'll grumble about it, but I wont rise up against the government.
That's the way I see it anyway.
>Is personal freedom more important than state sovereignty?
I've been struggling with this question for a long time. It isn't that I don't recognize the the need or importance for state sovereignty. But I don't personally know where I draw the line(s) where state sovereignty is more important than personal freedoms and vice versa.
>no one under the age of 30
>no one with an income below $250k/year
youngfags have no clue and are easy prey for indoctrination. poor people are just disgusting and should be genocided.
I don't really understand /pol/'s obsession with limiting women's voting rights. Is it that statistically speaking they vote differently from you and you don't like that? Can you give any clear reasons why you believe the world would be better off without women having the ability to vote?
>has nothing to do with voting; a non argument
Yes, because a German knows all about American politics and how things work over here. Say what you want, but the 1st Amendment is essential to the voting process.
>you dont silence them you dont let them vote theres a difference you can still write what you like in a newspaper for example.
You're silencing their political voice. Nobody reads newspapers much. I read the paper, but I'm the only person on my entire block who has a subscription to both the local paper and NYT.
>except niggers a significant omission which invalidates your argument
Yeah, that's what the 13th, 15th, and 19th Amendments were for. I was hoping with your apparent knowledge of American politics, you'd understand that minorities did get their rights later, but they got them regardless. Jackson essentially transformed the whole voting system from all land owners to all white men. Which was enough of a start to eventually give way for everyone to vote. Niggers should be able to vote. Just because they're idiots doesn't mean their voice should be silenced; no matter how unfortunate or stupid their opinions might be.
>could you eloborate on that not sure what to think of this
The military essentially teaches you one way to think. There is subtle propaganda in the military and if conscription was mandatory to vote: the military could sway your opinion one way or the other on who to vote for. We have enough of the so called "Military Industrial Complex." If we were to make conscription mandatory for voting, this would only increase the complex.
>compulsory military service is the reason why european states have democracy in the first place
>get rid of military service and you get (eventually) rid of democracy
Well, nothing lasts forever; that much is known. But we don't need compulsory service to keep our Republican Democracy alive, our nationalistic frenzy seems to do that for us.
The same can be said for most men, as well.
If your argument is lack of knowledge, then barring women from voting would bar potentially knowledgeable people from voting while doing little to alleviate the actual problem.
I had an idea a while back to restrict voting rights to only Married couples with children. Each household would get a single vote.
This would balance the interests of the sexes, and encourage a society that is based on Family, rather than individuality.
>So you don't think a person should have to know even a little bit about what their vote means?
As unfortunate as is it to say, yes. People should indeed have that right. With voter turnout as low as it is, it's not like most ignorant people are voting anyway. They generally chose the right to abstain from voting.
>Also, there's a lot more to vote for than President kiddo.
I'm speaking in a broad sense of elections, Kiddo. Nobody seems to give a shit about local legislatures, both in both this country, and on the world stage.
I disagree, if the barometer is set at highschool or higher graduation, you're restricting it by an arbitrary education level. And talk about the left not going for something, they'd scream racism for sure with that measure. Besides, plenty of people come out of the education system with a diploma and no idea how the political system works.
I don't think it's objectionable to at least ask basic enough questions to ensure that the person knows the impact of voting. It should be treated as a privilege that anyone can earn, not a right that everyone has.
It's not a lack of knowledge, it's a lack of interest.
Of course young men are also going to just vote for the "popular" group or who daddy told them to, but most eventually grow out of that and form their own opinion.
Most women truly do not give a fuck about politics, all the they do is zapping TV, end up on a channel were two strangers are talking about stuff and vote for the guy who look like he's winning the argument or looks more like a nice person.
>the 1st Amendment is essential to the voting process.
agreed still has nothing to do with voting itself my freedom of the pressis not restricted by not being allowed to vote
>because a German knows all about American politics
i dont have to know a thing about ameriblob politics to be able to read the first amendment
>You're silencing their political voice
which is not included in the first amendment
> Nobody reads newspapers much
it was just an example your nitpicking instead of addressing the argument
>Just because they're idiots doesn't mean their voice should be silenced
agreed but freedom of speech!=voting also i didnt mean to imply that niggers should not be allowed to vote by virtue of being niggers
>There is subtle propaganda in the military and if conscription was mandatory to vote
im not so sure thats a bad thing though to be honest i mean every preoccupation has a propagandistic effect and being in the militar is not one of the worst kinds of propaganda you can be exposed to seeing as you learn thinks light teamwork,sacrifice and duty,etc
> But we don't need compulsory service to keep our Republican Democracy alive
yeah i think you amerifreedoms are a special case with that regard you cant deny that your gun culture and militias are having a quasi military effect on you though
>legal ID proving citizenship would be a great restriction
GOD fucking this. I am still flabbergasted that people can argue against this basic requirement... it's NOT EVEN A RESTRICTION!
>Hurr Durr my opinion is best and everyone else shouldn't be allowed to vote
Fuck off back to kike college you fucking retard
>The more important reason is because voting is like a contract. By voting you essentially consent to the outcome. You're saying
>>I'll play by the rules and if I don't win, I'll grumble about it, but I wont rise up against the government.
Voting is political theater. Policy is already determined by the elite jews that run the government. They just need people to consent by voting. If the vote fails they will continue to pump brainwashing in the media and education system until the vote succeeds.
I'm sorry man, this is just plain retarded.
Although, I am for upping penalties for elected officials... I'm even for the threat of death being on the table for officials who have an approval rating that is like 15% or less.
I think it depends what is being voted on. If it's something that will raise property taxes for a said County then only property owners should be able to vote on such issues. My County wanted to build a new million dollar basketball gym so they brought the polls to a basketball game where all the niggers could vote it in. Obviously all the white property owners had to pay the price.
Which is exactly why voting rights need to be restricted. Less people voting means each vote carries more weight. Less people voting means it's harder to commit fraud without someone noticing. And if it's restricted properly, presumably less people who are susceptible to manipulation will vote... But how on that last one is up in the air.
the problem is not people with different opinions its stupid people if suddenly no stupid people would vote the quality of arguments of all sides would go up because we wouldnt have to appeal to idiots
Just personal experience, I know very few women at work and inside my family that show any real interest about politics and will quickly get bored if your conversation goes that way, the trend is that they root their position over something they've heard or something they saw and use that single experience to decide who gets their vote, anything like their program or personal history means nothing to them.
On the other side I can have a conversation about politics with most of my male friends or familiars, I can see them putting out multiple arguments and I see their position changing over time as they gather new information.
I guess it's different over there.
>ever taking off
No. We can barely get voting on an electronic box working without one side accusing the other of cheating. The problems internet voting presents with our current security architecture is just a nightmare.
Not him but most people have no idea the issues and just spout random shit anyways. /pol/ is a great example of going off whatever shock jock/media shit they heard rather than the pure facts actually put out there.
An honest question, how many people actually watch/read the bills and laws uploaded by the government? How many even bother to watch C-Span or other sources that directly report happenings occurring on the floor?
My personal opinion is that there needs to be an age minimal, shown to be able to make your own decisions, and must be a full citizen. You would also be able to vote even with a felony on your record but not while serving time. Trying to rule out stupidity or ignorance just seems a futile effort.
I can answer this.
Women (as a whole) tend to vote for entitlements, and safety nets, and often times vote along single issues, without knowing or caring about the political process.
In essence, Women vote for Big Government through their ignorance, and then (along with everyone else) complain that Government is too big.
I recognize that saying Women can't vote is unrealistic in this day and age, and I think there is a minority of Women who understand that the Government has to take money from somewhere to put it elsewhere, and generally stay informed... Which is why I would implement a test, to weed out (among others) stupid bitches.
>limiting ANYONE's voting rights
All you fuckers should be gassed. If you're an adult you should have a say in the way the country is governed.
Look, I hate leftists as much as the next guy, but voting is a RIGHT.
Ad hominem is only relevant in a debate. A debate requires logic, and so far none has been presented.
How in the world can you possibly justify restricting the rights of people based on personal experience?
>white male property owners
It was good enough for the founding fathers. I think their should be restrictions on citizenship in general. No citizenship: then no welfare or government benefits. If you want to be a part of this country then you can earn your right to vote by serving your country in some capacity. When they people are given power without earning it, IT WILL BE ABUSED. That's just human nature.
It sounds like you think everyone should be able to vote, but surely you draw the line at citizenship? You don't seriously think non-citizens and illegal immigrants should have the right to vote?
In the cities near me, there's barely any sidewalks so everyone walks in the street because no one wants to pay to have sidewalks across their properties, which makes driving through these areas a pain in my ass, especially having to dodge pedestrians when the roads are snowy. Either that or sidewalks will only span three or four houses and then stop for the rest of the block.
A co-worker from kangaroo land says that she doesn't understand why none of our suburbs have continuous sidewalks. Are there lots of sidewalks in your country?
It's pretty much proven the majority of women are incapable of voting logically.
Ever since women's suffrage the west has been going downhill steadily.
Acting like some morally superior fag doesn't change facts.
But this is the most important place the average voter will have an impact by far. And I only made fun of you because you only mentioned presidential elections in your OP.
I'm only implying that people should understand what they're doing, not that they should agree with my opinions. But of course you think this is a bad idea, you're stupid enough that this would mean you wont get to vote.
>You're silencing their political voice
>which is not included in the first amendment
You're right, it's the 15th Amendment that covers that topic.
>it was just an example your nitpicking instead of addressing the argument
Okay. Well how about this? Political change can't come in the direction that a group of people want if they can't vote. By not allowing them to vote and forcing them to just "write an opinion piece on it" isn't going to do anything in the legislative process.
You can try writing a letter to a congressmen of course. By try arguing something like Gay rights to an Alabama Senator; he's not going to change his mind. The only thing that can change the system for the best or the worse is a vote.
>i didnt mean to imply that niggers should not be allowed to vote by virtue of being niggers
Unfortunately, they should have the right to vote. Only once of course. Niggers are infamous for making dead people vote.
>Propaganda in the military
It isn't that I don't think it's a bad thing either. I personally think the US military should have more propaganda to keep our shit in line, to combat this apparent slope of degeneracy this country is heading into. While I think that, I also think that people should make up their own opinion on the matter informed or not.
>gun culture and militias are having a quasi military effect on you though
I'll be the first to admit that the national firearms act of 1934, the subsequent legislation that followed (and continues to follow), is a gross violation of the 2nd Amendment. Laws passed by our elected leaders to "keep us safe" seem to have the opposite effect in this country.
I like the idea of our militia culture. Just the application of it, is sort of backwards at times. I just wish the Liberals here would quit saying that our right to bear arms is for militias only.
It isn't that I don't think you have a valid point with our voting system. It's just half the time our politicians really fuck shit up.
>You ever wonder why politicians and the media are so concerned with voter turn out?
It's because higher voter turnout is good for Democrats. The ill-informed and undecided almost always vote left.
>all these people thinking limiting a poor persons ability to vote would be beneficial
Holy fuck, read a history book you guys. I'm glad you are all neets and not in government because there is some seriously misguided and scary shit in this thread
Restructure the Government.
>House is composed of representatives elected by Workers
>Senate is elected by Entrepreneurs
>President is elected by popular vote.
>Working Class Interests Represented
>Business Interests Represented
>General populations interests represented.
A system where power is shared between labor and capital interests in preferable to one where Capital Interests are represented exclusively in both houses.
>The only thing that can change the system for the best or the worse is a vote.
voters as is the alabama congressman in that example(if not to the same degree) is influenced by what media he consumes if you really think that the media doesnt have any influence on voters opinions you shouldnt be on pol
>It's just half the time our politicians really fuck shit up.
so youre saying the system as it is right now where everyone gets to vote is not working but you dont think it should change?
reddit: the post
It's so blatantly obvious.
It's like asking why mentally retarded people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Women aren't capable of making logical decisions. Decisions being formed by feelings more so than any kind of logical contemplation.
This is disasterous for any kind of position that requires good logical decision making skills.
however it is extremely useful, ironically, for getting the position in the first place.
Again, ever since women's suffrage things have gone downhill and you can't prove me wrong on that one.
>Only military veterans above the age of 30 can vote
prerequisite: All men must serve three years in the armed service at the age of 18; or 21 if they choose to pursue higher education and will be trained as officers in the reserve.
Raise the voting age to 25. By that age only the tiniest, most insignificant minority of minorities hasn't encountered the real world after school. Voting should be based on practical realities, not fantastical theories.
Completely oppose any attempts to extend voting to prisoners or people on probation. Fuck you, EU.
Not a citizen? You don't get to vote on anything at all.
Are you a student at university? You go back home to vote. The only thing that kept re-electing Clegg was the local's block voting against the brainless socialist students who flooded their tiny ward.
That'll cover a lot of bad practices in recent UK voting history without harming democracy.
Completely agree, except for:
>Completely oppose any attempts to extend voting to prisoners or people on probation.
That way the government can choose when to ban, for life, somebodies for voting.
For example, imagine a left party governing. They will try fucking hard to make laws to arrest right wing people. In the end, only the government approved males will be able to vote.
Why do women get to vote without paying the price?
The only way common men get the right to vote is by signing a military slave contract with the country (Selective service).
Women just get it for free by bitching and moaning for a few weeks? Fucking bull shit.
>Why do women get to vote without paying the price?
What price is that? Why must voting have a price at all?
>The only way common men get the right to vote is by signing a military slave contract with the country
This is totally unrelated to voting.
Requirements for voting:
IQ 130 minimum cutoff
Must not collect social security, pension, tenure, or any form of unemployment welfare
Maximum individual annual earnings of $200,000 (2016 dollars)
Married with children (or prior proof of each)
GED or better
Ahh... yeah, actually.
I'm more immediately concerned with certain areas gaining an instant socialist block-vote if they are unlucky enough to have a prison. Which is exactly what the EU wants with the propsed new legislation.
Tricky one, that.
Older women should be allowed to vote. The weird thing about /pol/ is that it thinks younger women are smarter than they really are, while bashing older women. Not sure why.
Middle aged women and women that are at retirement age are much, much more mature and intelligent than younger women, obviously. But at the same time, I have seen young guys match or exceed them in intelligence and maturity.
Young women think with emotion and trends. I've never seen an exception to this at all. They will vote based on what the cool people around them are doing at the time. And if they are edgy contrarians with autism, they'll hold right-wing and maybe even natsoc ideas, and try to vote based on that to follow what the cool people on the Internet think.
Let women vote, just raise the minimum voting age for them, because young women are stupid.
That is a tricky situation.
I'll solve it by allowing inmates only in national elections, not on province/states elections. That way they still have voting-power, but their power is not focused in certain areas. Of course, when they are set free, they will be able to vote in their province/city of residence.
It have some logic. Do you have a residence in X? You can vote in X. No residence (because in prison)? No vote.
>What price is that? Why must voting have a price at all?
Because protecting that right isn't free. If you aren't willing to fight to protect the country, thus your right to freedom, you aren't deserving of the right to vote.
>This is totally unrelated to voting.
How in the absolute holy fuck is ... what the shit? Is your IQ below 80? In the US men who refuse to sign up for the draft are denied many things including the right to vote.
It is, in every single way, related to voting.
Retard detected, dismissed.
>tfw no red pilled veteran ran system of government.
in Montesquieu's "the spirit of the laws" he noted that virtuous republics would be effectively run by virtue, which is defined by the willing abidance to the laws, values and principles of the republican state.
this meant, that back during the revolutionary era men would vote by virtue, or by personal beliefs and convictions in which were aimed to prop up the virtuous republican states, it's values and laws.
However, today we live in a society in which men (and women) vote not based on the virtues of their society, but on what effectively suits and promotes their own existence. We live in a society in which we vote and support things that improve our own wellbeing AT THE EXPENSE OF SOCIETY.
This has been the direct, albeit accidental result of complete capitalism, the relinquishment of the state to free trade enterprise that promotes consumerism but denigrates conservatism: conservatism does not sell.
So, we replicate the model of a virtuous government, yet is voted for and influenced by the majority of the population that isn't virtuous at all. This by extension corrupts the government and allows unvirtuous men into office, resulting in corruption and the basic degradation of state values, stability and social cohesion which is a race to the bottom: who can suck the most out of the state before it collapses on the poor suckers that come after.
What needs to be done is to allow only the virtuous to vote, and the virtuous to represent national government.
But how do we do that? how do we firstly know which citizen is virtuous and aims to improve the wellbeing of the society and the state?
Primarily, this can only be done through the process of earning the right to vote, through virtuous work that aims to act as the base of society, the moral and infrastructural foundations in which other citizens live off.
Therefore, society must now be split into two
virtuous citizens who are enfranchised, and civilians who are not...
Whether men are smarter than women is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Why do you feel it is acceptable to deny women rights for being on average less intelligent than men?
To make that work in the UK, we'd modify it to mean that prisoners would vote as if they were voting back home, not in the ward that the prison resides. So, their voting form would be provided by the local ward and sent to the prison... or, hang on... got it: Postal Vote Only.
That way no block voting in the prison ward, no political prisoner abuses by the system.
And, the most obvious one I totally forgot about: you have to produce ID to vote. It's unbelievable that there are no identity checks at polling stations here in the UK.
the virtuous citzen will earn his right to vote by , in the space of three years, providing labour, service or support to jobs and roles within society which contribute to it's welfare, infrastructure or safety.
These jobs will range from farmers, farmhands, doctors, soldiers and all other assorted national services
to earn the right to vote, you would have to work three years for the state and the national good. All could find a place whether crippled or retarded, as long as they worked for the wellbeing of the state they exist in.
This also leads to social benefits, after all these man are the most deserving are they not? they would receive subsidies, benefits and state pensions, as well as free healthcare.
what this system does in allow and develop selflessness in the men that wish to vote, and although this cannot guarantee that after three years the virtuous citizen will vote in favour of society at their own expense, it will hopefully breed the moral conviction and nationalism which inspires them to do so.
And what of the civilian?
civilians are the members of society which BENEFIT from it's stability, it's safety and it's infrastructure. they do not directly assist in propping up society and the states, but profit off of it none the less.
these men range from businessmen, bankers, service sector workers, isnruance, gas and all manner of private services that may wish to negatively influence a societies' values for their own profit, and have completely alterior motives to the upholding of virtue or moral value.
These men would not be allowed to vote, however they would also be allowed the option to participate in three year national service before resuming their civilian lifestyle and face reduced taxation.
yet, as they are also the least deserving of state aid simply for not contributing to the state, they must pay for their own healthcare, rely on company pensions and receive very little to no welfare if they become unemployed...
We have arrived to a common ground, britishbro. Postal vote to their home-towns seems fair enough.
>And, the most obvious one I totally forgot about: you have to produce ID to vote. It's unbelievable that there are no identity checks at polling stations here in the UK.
Totally unbelievable. Here in Spain you need your ID/passport to vote. It is essential to eliminate double-voting or impersonation.
Would you allow retarded people to vote? People with IQs under 85? Same goes for young women. They can vote when they are of a certain age (middle age, 40?), but there is an astronomical amount of evidence that confirms what I said up above, that young women only vote with their trendy emotions. Let me guess, you're a "girl", right?
No, you're not, your political aptitude test would be biased toward a certain agenda. I bet you'd object to an aptitude test by an sjw tumblrite. You'd probably object to an aptitude test from a fenceposter. Someone just disagreed with you and your response was you don't get to vote. He didn't fail to answer a series of questions "correct" he just disagreed with you.
equally, one could only put themselves forward for government positions if they themselves provided three years of national service
in conclusion then, this model divides society into those that wish to improve it, and those that wish to profit off those improvements, while allowing each side to transition and earn the right to vote, or resume typical civilian lifestyles.
In short, we end up with a virtuous government in which only those who have provided and contributed to it are legible to influence its decisions, creating a healthy, fair and morally driven society and state to benefit all involved
It's not just experience though... I can't find the info right now, but they did a study where they asked Men and Women what they cared about the most politically...
Men were concerned with national security, taxes, and generally things that affect everyone.
Women were concerned with entitlements, abortion/reproductive rights, and essentially things that give more power to the Government.
I mean, it's not all Women, but a majority for sure vote for things that, in my personal opinion, are not good for the country, and contribute heavily to its decline in all measures.
That being said, if a Woman knows what she's getting herself into, then I don't see a problem with them voting. I'm reminded of a quote from a Woman who voted for Obama care, who said something along the lines of:
>I was all for it, until I found out I had to pay for it.
>Would you allow retarded people to vote
Why wouldn't you? Do you regard retardation as an inherent evil?
>People with IQs under 85? Same goes for young women.
Is low IQ an evil? Are young women an evil?
By what system of morality can you genuinely claim that denying an entire gender the right to vote based on relative intelligence levels to be a good thing?
Literally one of the first links when I googled.
>Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.
Felony = ineligible to vote.
>Men were concerned with national security, taxes, and generally things that affect everyone.
>Women were concerned with entitlements, abortion/reproductive rights, and essentially things that give more power to the Government.
How can you say either of these two things are inherently better than the other? Moreover, if not all women (as you yourself admit) subscribe to this, how can you genuinely consider banning all women from voting?
If, by whatever system of ethics you subscribe to, entitlements and big government are a bad thing and by your own admission not all women vote this way, how can you possibly consider banning all women from voting or restricting them based on age? Doing so would violate your own ethical principals.
Voting age must be bumped to 24, 18 year olds are too idealistic and retarded. They haven't even experienced the world at all and many of them haven't even worked a part-time job.
Voting can only be done by legal citizens.
You need to be able to verify employment to vote. Even self-employment counts. If you pay into taxes, you get a say in the system.
Retardation is a defect. Young women cannot think rationality. It was just a comparison to give you an idea. Low IQ is also a defect. Young women voting to be trendy and fit in with the cool kids has proven to be destructive for all "democracies" that have ever existed.
>By what system of morality can you genuinely claim that denying an entire gender the right to vote based on relative intelligence levels to be a good thing?
Common sense, my friend. I am concerned with the well-being of my nation and, for the record, other nations as well. I wouldn't let a young woman, retarded person, monkey, etc vote.
Think of it like this - young males over here are charged much, much more for car insurance because they drive around like raging retards, swearing and throwing things at cars and pedestrians, and speeding and getting into accidents. Is that discrimination to charge young males more because of that? Something tells me you'd disagree.
>Felony = ineligible to vote
Selective service is a federal system, and registering to vote is a local system. Many states place no restriction what so ever on felons voting, while some restrict them only while in prison, and so on.
Please check your facts before you start spouting garbage, you are only hurting your own case, not helping it.
Someone that actually understands the constitution and doesn't think the US should be ran in their autistic ideology.
Fucking. Retarded. It brought me physical pain trying to understand how fucking oblivious you'd have to be to believe this stupid shit you fucking half-simian retards.
>Retardation is a defect. Young women cannot think rationality. ...
How can you consider a defect as grounds for denying someone the right to vote? Surely, you are not free of defects. Would you be OK if someone considered shitposting on 4chan to be a defect and denied you the right to vote because of it?
>Common sense, my friend.
Common sense is not a system of morality.
>I am concerned with the well-being of my nation and, for the record, other nations as well.
A commendable thing. If you were truly concerned about the well being of your nation, wouldn't it make more sense to restrict the ability to vote based on some other measurement, such as being employed, having a high IQ, or so on? It seems to me that such a restriction would have the desired effect without excluding huge amounts of people based solely on their gender.
Actually, allowing non property owners to vote will turn the nation into a third world nation quicker than anything, that is what I meant when I referred to a non-property owner voting for their living such as free food, free housing and medical coverage.
A non property owner has everything to gain to keep voting for higher taxes on the owners, they non owners have everything to gain.
No, you're absolutely right. Restricting anyone's right to vote is by its nature designed to keep people from voting who make poor choices, and "poor choices" is subjective to who you are.
For instance, if you're an illegal immigrant who receives entitlements from the government, and you're allowed to vote, you're going to vote for things that relax immigration law, give more entitlements to people like you, and so on. But that would hurt actual citizens who have to deal with the consequences.
The problem is, and I'm not speaking from experience here, I'm speaking from poling data, Women tend not to consider the effects of the "feel-good" policies they vote for.
>I was all for it, until I found out I had to pay for it.
On top of that, Women are heavily influenced by the media, and are a natural majority by biological mechanisms. Women control more than 70 percent of global consumer spending, why do you think commercials are aimed at Women disproportionately to Men? Because they work. These all play into natural biological tendencies of the sexes, but I'm not sure you'll accept that explanation so I wont go into it deeper.
I'm not arguing for removing Females voting rights by the way, I'm just saying that there is rational justification for people wanting it done. My argument is for an aptitude test, which will, due to Female nature, weed out quite a few Women (as well as Men).
Voting forbidden to people who were not born in the country, no exceptions
A mandatory test must be passed to vote, something simple like match each party/candidate to their proposed measure (eg. Trump -> wall)
I would like to see people be able to have more than one vote, but the extra votes based upon life accomplishments.
You went to college? You get another vote
You run a business? You get another vote
It's definitely a way to make sure that the failures in life get as little say as possible, while still technically having a say
Nobody knows I shitpost on 4chan, and a defect is indeed grounds for denying someone the right to vote, since they are so mentally inferior that their logic is not valid, since they can't into logic in the first place.
Common sense is a system of morality, you silly autist. We make conclusions based on the facts, then make sure things stay "right" for the common good.
Restrictions on voting could cover many bases, yes, but since young women are prove 99.9 percent of the time to be very irrational, there can be no exceptions there. Are you triggered because you are a femanon, or some type of white knighting natsoc guy?
>how many people actually watch/read the bills and laws uploaded by the government? How many even bother to watch C-Span or other sources that directly report happenings occurring on the floor?
I do. But I'm not asking for this.
>Trying to rule out stupidity or ignorance just seems a futile effort.
I don't think it's futile to rule out people who don't know what the constitution says, or how many branches of government there are and what their function is. If you don't know how something works at the very least, you shouldn't have control over how it functions.
I think that the voting age should be raised to 90 or 100.
That way, being 90 (or 100) doesn't suck so bad. You have a serious say in who becomes President. With hundreds of millions of eligible voters, your vote becomes effectively meaningless. At least this way your vote has a chance of impacting something.
You offer name calling with nothing of substance in making points or offering a solution...in the trash with you.
Property/business owners only voting is how to weed out the welfare rats, while allowing all ethnicities, genders and income levels have their vote.
Why should a welfare recipients be able to continuously vote to raise my property taxes, I have everything to lose while they have everything to gain, dumbass.
It should be achievable by anyone who wants to work for it, I think:
>2 years national service
>Threshold level of taxes paid
That's literally it. It would solve a lot of the problems of current democracy.
The right to vote is not provisioned in the constitution, there are however some amendments that protect people from being barred from voting for specific reasons.
Voting should be treated as a privilege, not a right.
I'm not denying that women vote one way more often than men. I do agree with you that they tend to. Men vote differently than women, but I don't see anyone saying that we should restrict the right of men to vote.
>I'm just saying that there is rational justification for people wanting it done
This is not rational. If some part of group X is evil, that does not imply that all of group X is evil. Evil, in this case, being highly subjective.
>My argument is for an aptitude test, which will, due to Female nature, weed out quite a few Women (as well as Men)
Even so, is there an inherent good in aptitude? How can you say that someone who is more educated on the subject of politics should have more rights than those who aren't? Assuming that aptitude is an inherent good in your ethical system, how do you design a test to objectively prove it? How do you determine the cut off point? Can you honestly say that one person who has slightly less aptitude than another should be denied rights while the other retains them?
>give women right to vote
>they vote in leaders that flood country with Muslims
>Muslims come to country
>Muslims take away women's right to vote
>Common sense is a system of morality, you silly autist.
It absolutely is not.
>We make conclusions based on the facts
This is not ethics.
>then make sure things stay "right" for the common good.
What is "right" is determined entirely by your system of ethics. Common sense does not do so. Common good and common sense are not the same thing.
>but since young women are prove 99.9 percent of the time to be very irrational, there can be no exceptions there.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
>Are you triggered because you are a femanon, or some type of white knighting natsoc guy?
I am triggered because I am an ethical person, and it bothers me to see people passing moral judgements on others while they have no defined morality of their own.
I didn't say he didn't get to vote, I just insulted him because he didn't bother to fully read and comprehend what I was saying, so I assumed that he would do similarly with an aptitude test, which is exactly what I want.
Look man, there are plenty of liberals and conservatives and whatever that would be able to pass the test I'm trying to put out there.
The test should be simple, with FACTUAL questions about our government, and how it works. It should be publicly available so anyone can study as much as they want to pass the test, or even just memorize the answers. If you can't even do that, I don't care how much you agree with my positions, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
>It absolutely is not.
Yes it is, FAGGOT.
>This is not ethics.
"Ethics"? The true ethical thing to do here is to not let young women vote, because young women are stupid. Western society has pulled out all the stops in giving young women everything, and they are still illogical about it. Nothing is ever good enough, they still think they are oppressed. and that's because they are irrational and mentally inferior.
>What is "right" is determined entirely by your system of ethics. Common sense does not do so. Common good and common sense are not the same thing.
If that is true, then why do you get triggered when I state my position? Faggot. My system of ethics is for the common good, and common sense dictates that young women voting is not for the common good, faggot.
>You have got to be fucking kidding me.
I've never seen anything to suggest my position is wrong. Are you going to use MUH FEELS to tell me about these mythical young women that are smart and amazing, but you can never show me?
>I am triggered because I am an ethical person, and it bothers me to see people passing moral judgements on others while they have no defined morality of their own.
You only want to tell yourself you are an ethical person and you are using this thread and the people in it to do it. Take a look at how feminism has destroyed the western world, and even then, I still don't think it's right to take away the voting rights of middle aged and senior citizen women, you fucking faggot.
and do you like where we are now? The founders were very specific in their hate for democracy and their understanding that the common man was simply too stupid to have that power.
I just want you to take a look at what you've written. So much hostility over having your belief system questioned. If you have to resort to insults to defend your morality, you don't have much of a morality at all.
wow, you are such a fucking FAGGOT, this is amazing. FAGGOT!!! I responded to everything you said, you have proven that you are literally either the biggest faggot on this website, or you are an angry femanon that thinks she is more important than she really is. You sound like a cuck guy though, so I'll go with you being a faggot.
What I want is for the good of my people, and the nation. My morality is superior to yours, because you actually think young women are smart enough to vote properly. Faggot.
A good rule of thumb to use for the political aptitude test would be the test they use for immigrants coming into the States, they say that even most born citizens fail that test kek
I'm just triggering you, my friend. This is like second nature to me. I can say something you disagree with, and since you are so self-important you will reply like you are superior. Let me guess, you're a salty, bitter femanon that can't get no man? The typing pattern gives it away.
In order to gain the right to vote you must satisfy 2-out-of-3 of the following:
1) Have children
2) Have served in the military
3) Have payed taxes for a minimum of 3 years (summer jobs count, just add up the months).
If your pay less in taxes than you receive in welfare you should'nt be allowed to vote.
Honestly I do not get your line of argumentation.
Everyone knows the masses are stupid.
Why then give them voting rights? It's the entire reason why the west has become some type of pseudo-socialist swamp. Christ's sake, you already had people voting for Obama because he was black, not because of his policies; now there's people voting for Hillary because she's a woman, in fact atleast one of her ads literally plays off this.
And yes, Canada anon is right; the MAJORITY of women vote for what's popular, not for what actually is good for their country. Look up the statistics.
>This is not rational. If some part of group X is evil, that does not imply that all of group X is evil. Evil, in this case, being highly subjective.
Yes it is rational. Fuck's sake, that's literally the same argument the #notallmuslims people use. Just because some small percentage of them might be civilized and not scumbags, doesn't mean we should take all of them in just to get the minority that's actually decent. It's weighing down the pros and cons of it. You think those few decent refugees who can actually contribute are worth what's currently happening in Germany and Sweden?
If most of an apple was rotten but there was still a patch of non-rotten tissue left on it, would you take a bite? No of course you fucking wouldn't, the entire thing goes in the trash.
People who contribute, love their country and want to actually do something for it and it's people should be able to vote, like soldiers and landowners. Not someone who leeches off of fucking benefits and doesn't work at all.
A test which checks the quality of knowledge of a) each of the candidates platform policies and b) party ideals + agenda. Now, this would actually fuck me, but I don't want people like me in the booths. I don't really devote much time to learning about the candidates, so I probably shouldn't be making decisions for those who actually know what's happening.
Nah, my original post was sincere, and young women are stupid, but your bleeding heart gave me the perfect chance to go all out on this one. Good luck finding a man, I'm sure Chad will text you back eventually.
well I don't know what you're talking about, because the US is a democratic republic, you slack-jawed fuckwit. There is no such thing as pure democracy, so nothing meaningful is lost in restricting some dumbasses who don't even know what they're voting for from voting.
You're the one who is literally arguing over a small percentage of a group.
Just because a small part of a specific group is "good" doesn't mean we should give rights to the entirety of it when most of them arent. Simple enough.
>my original post was sincere
Then I feel genuinely bad for you, living a life devoid of morality.
I feel nothing towards the plight of women. Watching you dismantle your own argument in front of me was pretty entertaining, though.
Here's a question that should be asked:
>When the government pays citizens welfare or other benefits, it pulls it out of a pool of money that it has. What is the source for that pool of money the government is handing out?
>Even so, is there an inherent good in aptitude?
One smart person that thinks to lift a boulder with a lever and a fulcrum is objectively worth more to society than five morons that struggle together to get it off the ground with their arms and hands. The one person's thinking saved the effort and strained backs of an entire other group. The rising tide lifts all boats - this describes the inherent value and superiority of "aptitude".
>How can you say that someone who is more educated on the subject of politics should have more rights than those who aren't?
You can trust your life and the lives of your family members in one of two people.
One of these people is a poor man. He spent his youth on sex and drugs; when the time came he had to make his own living, his meager skills landed him a low-level sales job. At the age of 45, his prospects have not improved, and he makes only a little more than he did before. He has developed alcoholism and been divorced twice. He lives alone; his children don't return his calls.
The second person took life more seriously. He works as an accountant for a chemical production company. He met his wife in college and lives with her and their two children. He's paid off all his student debt, and most of their mortgage. He remains in good health from regular exercise. Small but steady contributions to his long-term investments have accrued several hundred thousand dollars, savings for his retirement and for his children's schooling.
You answer that question, and let me know why you denied the other man his right to determine the future and safety of your family.
>how do you design a test to objectively prove it
That depends on the definition of aptitude. It's a difficult question, one that requires careful judgement - and who is worthy to judge? But if you've arrived at this point, you've admitted defeat on whether or not we should cull people from the voting rolls and are only dithering on how we should go about it.
>Then I feel genuinely bad for you, living a life devoid of morality.
Being concerned your nation is morality at it's finest, faggot.
>I feel nothing towards the plight of women. Watching you dismantle your own argument in front of me was pretty entertaining, though.
Dismantle what? Young women are mental retards, just like monkeys, autists and other subhuman life forms. They cannot into logic. Why can you not handle bantz, brah? My narrative holds up fine, but you need to relax man. What is Chad's number? I'll get him to text you back.
Women vote only according to feelings, never to reason.
>nothing meaningful is lost in restricting some dumbasses who don't even know what they're voting for from voting
Are you the expert on determining who knows what they're doing and who doesn't? How can you tell people what to do with their lives anyway?
>how can you genuinely consider banning all women from voting?
Please be sure to read all of my post before responding.
>If, by whatever system of ethics you subscribe to, entitlements and big government are a bad thing
Now, here's where it gets tricky, I don't think these are good, but they're not necessarily bad... It's just that people who aren't informed about them often see the benefits without considering the downsides, that's all I'm getting at (and also that Women tend to do this more often).
Flawless or not doesn't have anything to do with it, nothing is without flaw, but if the majority of a certain group can be considered trustworthy and does what helps society at large, and the minority are the leechers who harm everyone else to keep themselves alive, then I'd say that group does deserve the right to vote, in spite of the small minority that is bad.
The opposite type of group does not deserve that right.
>looks at people stereotyping muslims on an anonymous image board
>accepts it as truth instead of /pol/ users being /pol/ users
The idea that part of x can describe all of x is what you're justifying here, which is wrong. By suggesting that such is a valid analytical structure, you could deduce that if one white person is homosexual, all white people are homosexual, right? If you bring up deviancy, then why aren't bad muslims a deviancy? It looks like there are so many more bad muslims, but that's because literally more people are muslim. if 1% of group a and group b are bad where group b is bigger than group a, group b is much more likely to be subject to a negative stereotype because they have more surface area. Like go to fucking Indonesia or Pakistan and you'll find that neither have the problems that Saudi Arabia and Syria do.
Also, apples are a horrible example. The apple is a single homogenous thing so the rotten part can travel through the apple uninhibited. Different muslims are raised under different degrees of Islam, different values, different interpretations, and so on. They aren't a hivemind even if /pol/ told you so.
"basic test for political aptitude" sounds awful tyrannical to me
sounds like the government could jsut make the test to fit the voter that they want voting
I said not rich landowners, but each property owning family
each family which has "skin in theg ame"
rich landowners would therefore be in check by everybody who has a farm or house
of course property value would have to be checked so people wouldn't simply own a square inch of land to vote.
>The moment voting is restricted we forfeit our democracy entirely. What a foolish act.
>The moment voting rights were extended to irresponsible people with no skin in the game, we forfeited our democracy entirely. What a foolish act.
At the very least, I think the people should be required to be familiar with at least 50-75% of a candidate's policies in order to vote. Meaning just the candidate they intend to vote for. Not everyone fully researches all candidates, but it's important that they understand who they're voting for. Very few will be fully familiar with an entire campaign, but showing that they at least have a good understanding of WHY they're voting for them would be nice.
Also, I'd make it so that no matter what a person could cast their vote, just that their vote would not count if their test scoring were below a certain threshold. Or you could make it a gradient system.
In reality, implementing this kind of thing isn't feasible and will never happen anyways so I'll just deal with the fact that my vote means as much as Laquanda's, and that my vote doesn't count anyways since I live in a landslide state.
you're right, let us not limit the rights of murderers, I mean that is wrong right?
tell me exactly what's wrong with allowing rapists to walk the streets?
you see how people who aren't capable of making ther ight decisions shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that fuck everybody over?
A lot of that was bantz, women have touched my dick before, but that's not important. Good job resorting to "hurr virgin" insults just because I point out how young women are mentally inferior. Did Chad text you back today, femanon? Give me his number and I'll make him pay attention to you.
Honestly, i am not sure.
For one i agree with >>60979350
> First it's limiting stupid people from voting and then it climbs to only rich land owners
On the other hand, it should not be the case that a no good gangbanger welfare cockroach should have the same voting power as a law-abiding citizen that works to support his family.
If voting should be restricted it must not be by a test, for the difficulty of the test would not be constant, it could easily filter everyone against a certain political view , test supervidor could be bribed , among other flaws.
If voting were to be restricted, it would have to be through a standard.
Upon reaching a certain age 16,18,21 whatever, a citizen has the choice to request a voting card.
With the request, the citizen must send all required information, and he/she would be evaluated with the standard criteria.
Now the criteria should be somewhat what people have said here, natural citizenship, paying taxes, criminal background, etc..
There should also be an expiration, 5,7,10 years , that would be debatable.
>trying this hard to derail the subject and make it about determinism vs. free will
So you want someone to randomly check a slot on a ballot? Because that's how I indirectly define 'dumbass'. If you want people to fucking draw straws for presidency, you can take that to your own shithole and see how it works out. I'll send you a postcard.k
Also, I suggested a test to determine quality of knowledge of candidates and policies. I don't give a fuck if Trucker Joe hates his taxes and wants affordable healthcare insurance, if he doesn't know what all of the candidates have to offer him so he can be the best represented, his opinion is irrelevant, because when he finds out that the candidate he voted for A L S O supports his disenfranchisement as a white male and a super strict trucking licensing process, he's going to be pretty upset anyway.
Like do you seriously want people to just elect based off race or gender? My example actually has a lot of room for you to argue. Imagine some newly 18 tumblr bitch who votes for hillary literally just because she's a woman. Hillary could offer the resurrection of the third reich as her platform policy, and that bitch would still sign her ballot for hillary. Is that what you want? At least in a world where dummies are rooted out, that's SO MUCH LESS LIKELY to happen
>The idea that part of x can describe all of x is what you're justifying here, which is wrong.
No I'm not. What I'm saying is that if a group of people is majority bad but has some good people in it, then honestly why should they be allowed any say in how a country they come to is governed?
>They aren't a hivemind even if /pol/ told you so.
Where am I implying they're a hivemind? I literally admitted that some small minority of them may be hard-working and willing to contribute and assimilate. Yet as statistics show that's all they remain, a minority. Ergo if the majority of a group isn't willing to be any of those, then why should the entire group have any say in how the country they come to is governed?
Pic related. And no politician can gain elected office unless he is 6 yrs prior service.
>You went to college? You get another vote
Careful there, most colleges are pumping out marxist indoctrinated useful idiots.
Anyone who works for the government shouldn't be able to vote, for they have a clear bias. People who don't pay taxes, shouldn't be able to vote either.
One other idea that I don't think would work out, but would be interesting, is that you get 1 vote for every $1000 in tax you pay. Contribute more tax revenue? Well then you get more votes! Kinda like a shareholder contribution idea
Smaller government, less taxes
Freedom isn't the freedom to do what's best for you, it's the freedom to CHOOSE what's best for you. One may say that living under a belevolent dictator you will be happier and more successful; however you won't be free. And there haven't been that many benevolent dictators either.
But I was just joking, anon. I did all that to trigger the other person. Who is really having a bitch fit here? Chad will one day like you, just put on more makeup.
Yes they have. Chad hasn't touched you in a while, so the cobwebs are making you a bit salty salty.
"What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
>Would you be OK if someone considered shitposting on 4chan to be a defect and denied you the right to vote because of it?
I think you underestimate how good of an idea this really is!
>This is not rational.
I don't mean to offend, but you didn't comprehend my sentence properly. The justification is entirely rationally based, it's the conclusion that is irrational. It's possible that wasn't clear from my wording.
>[The rest of your post]
You keep assuming there will be a political agenda. It's just to make sure a person knows what they're doing. It's like getting a drivers license, or being registered to own a firearm - presumably from your responses you support those positions, why not for voting as well? It has a similarly significant impact, some would argue greater. You are trying to boil my position down to good vs. evil, when all I want is for a person to be competent, be they good or evil in intent. The test questions would be open to the public even! Anyone can memorize the answers without even understanding them (at least that's what I'm advocating). All you're arguing for is laziness. All I'm arguing is that voting should be treated as a privilege that is earned, not an inherent right. If someone can show the BARE MINIMUM effort it takes to understand the basics of the basics of our government, how is that being unfair?
>hat I'm saying is that if a group of people is majority bad but has some good people in it,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country (stats for upcoming arguments. data was taken in 2011 by Pew Research Center)
I addressed this, though. Majority-muslim nations exist that are peaceful and tolerant, albania, for example, which is 82% muslim ( http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/hardliners-nightmare-religious-tolerance-europes-only-majority-muslim-country-318212.html )
Algeria, another Muslim-majority state, institutes tolerance on a political level (first paragraph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Algeria ) and the legislation aligns well with popular opinion and attitude.
The hivemind comment comes from an undertone you're giving off, which is that there is some unifying force to fuck society, to fuck other people, and to ruin humanity that is controlling the Muslim body. It was also to supplement the criticism of the apple comparison. They aren't all one thing, but billions of unique individuals.
So you should probably define majority. Millions upon millions of people do not meet the stereotype you're suggesting. Also, none of that achmed shit. I'm actually pretty conservative and would not house a refugee. I'm just a lot more interested in arguing about it, due to truth's importance over media coverage and regurgiation of politically correct ideals
you're literally just not arguing at this point. Stop getting lost in the romantics of free will. It's naive.
>freedom isn't the freedom to do what's best for you
>freedom isn't freedom
Someone who doesn't know what they're voting for is literally not choosing what's best for them, because they literally do not have the knowledge of the candidates policies to know that they're good for them. Even within this preposterous framework of freewill being a priori, a controlled system of voting is more aligned with your fantasy world. If they know what they're voting for, then they must know each candidate's policies right? They must have come to an informed decision to know what's best for them, then, right? Then they shouldn't have a problem getting a ballot signed and sent off, right?
If you want voters to be well educated, strengthen education. Don't remove people's voices because they don't meet your arbitrary criteria.
That said, a simple political competence test wouldn't be a bad idea as long as it's lenient.
That would be a valid point, and I would soften to that exception, only there is a flaw in your argument....we allow illegal immigrants to serve in out armed forces. Sorry sir, no dice.
>service guarantees citizenship
Anyone who has worked at least 2 years for the betterment of the state, militarily or civil service.
Fuck roaches who have never done anything for anyone but themselves, they should have no say.
The /pol/ approach to curing a disease would be to kill the sick, I suppose.
>people without property or business don't feel attached to their country/don't have much to lose
Great argument for the redistribution of wealth. Instead of excluding the poor from decision-making, make everyone a shareholder who will care as much as you do about the future of your country.
>I claim to have some superior ability/education/my asshole smells better
No it doesn't, and anyway, great arguments for improving the situation/education of everyone so that they can have more free time and think critically.
This, in combination with the above, solves the problem of representation,without infringing on anyone's freedom, instituting dictatorship or opening up gulags.
Good and bad don't come into it, the question is, is it possible to take away "rights" that are not constitutionally guaranteed, and the answer is yes, it is possible and happens all the time.
You keep coming from a position that voting is a right, when it doesn't have the fundamentals to actually be a right.
I mean, how would it make sense for you to be part of a club, and me not to be part of that club, but I still get to vote on its policies? Or more realistically, you don't have the right to exclude me from joining your club, and thus joining and voting against the clubs values.
Exclusivity is the key here. If it's available to everyone, then it has no value to anyone. There's a balance to be struck here, but to suggest that voting rights not be restricted at all is preposterous.
I was going to add something like this, maybe worded differently. But absolutely something like this should be on there, so people understand that the Government has nothing, and the people are the ones who foot the bill for what the Government does (there are some arguments here because the Gov obviously uses more than it makes in tax revenue, but that's more complex than what should be understood in order to vote).
There should be a series of test for various subjects that people should need to take in order to demonstrate how qualified they are about that topic. Then, they could have a points based system where people have more weight voting for issues they are more qualified to think about.
>They aren't a hivemind even if /pol/ told you so.
All shared ideas are essentially hivemind. All religions have a degree of hivemind. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say, all human group associations, regardless of size, have hivemind qualities on at least a handful of ideas.
You know what would be cool? If each candidate instead of a check box next to their name, had a page with multiple choice answers about their policies, and you have to score correctly to a certain percentage to vote for them!
It would never fucking work, but it's pretty awesome to think about!
Ban gerrymandering, the electoral college, and pull politicians out of the party nomination processes. Then institute some sort of basic political knowledge test, and require ID. If they had that test they could even let kids vote desu, but I think everyone can agree that most kids just emulate their parents, or are uneducated Gommunists nowadays.
I think it should be paid, let's say 100$ to vote. I don't see anything wrong with non-property owners to vote, they might too young to get a house, or it might be a fake ownership, someone owns three square feet of land and is therefore granted a vote, the spirit behind is good but it can easily be circumvented. One should have to pay a small and reasonable portion of average or median annual income to vote, this way a 16yo who works but doesn't own land can have a vote, but a lazy land owner can but wouldn't necessarily want to "waste" money on a vote. Also making people pay means they don't need to pass a test.
Tests to determine political knowledge are well intentioned but who grades them, what are the questions and so on can again easily be manipulated to only allow the demographic you want to vote. But if they have to pay, they'll either don't care and vote/pay or they'll have to "invest" into their vote with learning what are they voting for exactly.
It might also need to be twined with military service (and civil service only for those who arena healthy enough for the military) but one could easily bribe a doctor to get the option for civil service. But people need to know how to protect their country and also need to know how awful war is before declaring it.
>One other idea that I don't think would work out, but would be interesting, is that you get 1 vote for every $1000 in tax you pay. Contribute more tax revenue? Well then you get more votes! Kinda like a shareholder contribution idea
Wow, I can't possibly imagine how this could go wrong.
What a profoundly bad idea. I'm sorry man, you just won the
>Worst suggestion I've read ITT
>If you want voters to be well educated, strengthen education. Don't remove people's voices because they don't meet your arbitrary criteria.
First, that doesn't work and you know it. Tons have money has been thrown at "strengthening education", and it hasn't paid off (at least not for certain minorities). Secondly, even if you could "educate" people better to meet "arbitrary criteria" - we're already seeing a problem with certain political leanings dominating the education class, and pumping out people who don't think critically about their political opinions.
>That said, a simple political competence test wouldn't be a bad idea as long as it's lenient.
That's all I ask, and it doesn't require a formal education to pass, just access to the information (which should be made readily available).
It's certainly admirable but no, they need to come legally and if they have such a good record then it shouldn't be hard for them. Although that could give an incentive to come illegally then do some military service to speed up immigration. But ultimately no, they need to respect laws including immigration laws.
I think it speaks volumes that for many people here, it is considered fine and even desirable to limit the civil rights of individuals, but when there is a thread about corporate tax or something of the sort, they come in, gunz 'blazing, to protect "their" freedoms.
The point of government is to limit liberty.
We don't have he liberty to kill or defraud, or drive anywhere we want. Those are liberties animals would have though. If you want to form a society and government you should strive to give as much freedom as possible but you should ask what liberties can we do away with to have the best form of government or the best society and live in relative harmony.
>What's the point of such a test then? Anyone could just learn them by heart without understanding any of it.
To force people to look into it. It would weed out lazy and stupid people. You have to be at least semi-intelligent to memorize things.
It's really useless though, if we want to make a distinction between voting citizens and normal civilians then might as well be sure that they are worth it by whatever metric we choose, rather than by a useless test that isn't even meant to test knowledge.
Knowledge isn't meant to be a secret though? I mean, you can study for any other license test... and they give you all the questions and answers... I'm not sure what you're getting at? You're mad that people can just fake their way through it without giving a shit? I'm afraid you can't control for that under most circumstances. The test should be about facts that are readily available to the public about our governmental system. At the very least you're forcing people to read through the stuff, even if they don't fully grasp it... it's the best you can do in my opinion.
You might like this guy though - it's a read but I liked the idea: