Should women be allowed to vote? Bonus: should there be a minimum

>>134192383
>sausage neck
I still want to poke her titties, though

File: 14283456221_0c4a47c00f_k.jpg (648KB, 2048x1442px) Image search: [Google]

648KB, 2048x1442px

>>134192383
Yes
>bonus
no, voting should be based on discipline, the topic being voted on should be voted on by people who know about the topic. they must prove education to get that kind of ballot. kind of like having different voting licences. Having a high IQ is meaningless if you've squandered it learning psuedoscientific bullshit and fake news.

>>134192383
>should there be a minimum IQ or civics test required in order to gain voting rights?

no because that way it would have to be mandatory for all citizens and parties would have literally no voter base.

>>134192383

sage

no but politicians should only be allowed to be such for a set amount of time.

>>134193256
no to iq test but civics should be a big thing

Most men shouldn't vote either.
Civiv test? Sure, some sorto of real qualification previously.

>>134192383
Yes women should be allowed to vote.
No, there shouldn't be an IQ test to vote (maybe one to run for office?)
And I like >>134193318
idea that civics should be mandatory.

>>134193464
>civics
civics is a basic education class in our country. it doesn't seem to have fixed the problem?

>>134192383
No one should be allowed to vote unless they're smart enough to earn at least $250k/year.

If people can't reach that level of income, it's because they make poor choices, so that's exactly why they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

>>134192866
I'm thinking something smooth along the lines of a testing center somewhat like a DMV. You go to register to vote, you take a quick test to prove you're not an illiterate or dumb as dirt fucktard and actually have any business having a say in the direction of our society, and you're in and out and ready to vote if you pass.

>>134192383
>Should women be allowed to vote?
If they own land or a business, yes.
>Bonus: should there be a minimum IQ or civics test required in order to gain voting rights?
No, the person in question should have to prove they either own land or a business in order to vote.

>>134192383
the only people who should be allowed to vote are land owning individuals, after they've taken a poll test.
In other words, only people who produce in should be allowed to vote.

>>134193464
I'm surprised at the initial amount of people here who support the female vote. I see the modern woman as an emotionally impulsive, illogical, and herd-mentality thinker. Women really have no place in politics. Men are generally more logical-minded, and not so impulsive. They are much more inclined to value individualism as well. It merely seems like a bad idea to allow the meme-gender to have a say in our government. That's why we're being invaded by shitskins and the welfare state exists. Females' fee-fees in the voting booths.

>>134193950
>>134193743
I like these concepts as well. At least someone who owns land or a business or displays competency through their accrued wealth can prove they're capable of making smart, logical, and beneficial decisions regarding the direction of the country and their own communities.

Give me sauce

>>134193550
>man, I'm sure glad i chose to be born by my father schlomo, he gave me a nice job high up in the bank.

Its breeding rights for the poor we need to restrict.

>>134194230
>through competency
thats an odd way to spell nepotism

>being sexist and IQist

their should be a emotionel inteligense test requried to proove your not a biggot before voting, that way Hillary will definately win in 2020!

File: IMG_5784.png (1MB, 640x960px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x960px

>>134194354
don't think that would be a good idea but have some more just for the purpose of bumping the thread a little and getting more discussion

Women ruined politics. That's why you always get shitty choices come election day. Hillary Clinton pretty much gave away women's voting strategy when she asked for something to stand on during the debate to appear as tall as Donald Trump.

Women literally vote with their fucking vagina. They don't give a fuck what somebody means to the community. In this case the vaginas were torn between
>muh glass ceiling
and
>muh tall rich bull
White women mostly voted for Trump, other women mostly voted for Shitlery.
Guys like Rand Paul get completely locked in the political cuckshed because of suffragettes.

>>134192383
tiddies

>>134194691
this leaf gets it

Own land?
Natural Born Citizen?
Mentally Sound?
You can vote.

Its simple but beautiful.

>>134194691
>guys like x get locked in the closet because of suffragettes
leafniggers everyone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

>>134194230
For the first century or so of American history, only property owners were allowed to vote. It's akin to saying only shareholders can vote on company policy, since they're the ones actually invested in its success.
Universal suffrage was one of western civilizations biggest mistakes.

>>134194801
Just look at the last Canadian election. Justin Trudeau, Tall young and handsome. I know chicks who are full SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION who voted for Trudeau because
>well. uh.. anon... I just don't like Tom Mulcair that much.
Or chicks who normally vote conservative but are like.
>I dunno... I mean I like my local MP a lot.. but maybe we need a snowboard instructor as PM
Wrong bitch. You betrayed your base because of your fucking vagina. Because you couldn't keep your fucking legs closed. Bitches literally just voted for the most attractive candidate.

File: 1496259008343.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>134194976
Except the US is a fucking 2 party system.
Found the suffragette.
>mfw woman trying to look smart in a room full of men.

>>134195071
I feel you my man. And if it's not who the most physically attractive or perceived charismatic candidate is, it's based on their feelings. They feel bad for the sandniggers in the Middle East and so they welcome them into our homes. They feel bad for niggers and poor fags and so we're stuck in a perpetual welfare state where we have to pay for their shit constantly. They push feminism and socialism for the very same reasons. Not logic. Their emotions. Society shouldn't be run off emotions. I reckon that if we repealed the 19th amendment, we'd never see another democrat on the national level again. Males (especially whites) overwhelmingly vote right.

Minimum voting requirements:

* Must be male (no shit)
* Must be married and have at least one child
* No history of divorce
* Minimum age of 35
* IQ of 130+
* Owns land or a successful business
* Can pass Civics test
* Can do 20+ pull ups
* Can run 3 miles in under 26 minutes
* Dick length 7.1" +
* Can give both girls multiple orgasms in a MFF threesome
* Has smashed at least 3 commie skulls

The last five could be optional, with the exception of the very last one, which would be the most important.

>>134195176
>durr
yeah I wonder how the us got stuck with a two party system. I wonder if theres some kind of documented mathmatical reason for it?
why do people who insist women are inferior have this intense need to prove theyre more retarded at the same time?

File: 1494393691854.png (595KB, 1500x3719px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 1500x3719px

absolutely not. it isnt a good idea in any way

>>134195766
Yeah I swear...
>I'm not a baby machine
>I'm not a sex object
Well then what the fuck are you? Most men in society are expected to accept their status as eternal wage slave. Women wanted what men have. Fucking wear it then.
Society needs to go back to the days when family was welfare. Extended families owned properties together and took care of each other. You didn't need welfare.

>>134192383
an IQ test would be amusing as most of /pol/ would be found ineligible

>>134196137
You are stuck in a 2 party system because of women baka. For example take the last election. The two most unpopular candidates to ever be put head to head, and the third parties still got wrecked. And progressive vaginas actually unironically voted for Hillary? What? What the fuck? If you really wanted progressive vagina power you should have voted for Jill Stein so hard that the greens got official party status. Sent a resounding message to the corrupt corporate media and the establishment. Instead you wanted the short cut. So you voted for Shitlery.

>>134192383
no, yes

>>134196287
I'm not sure. I think it would be a grab-bag. I've had some high-level and intelligently thought out conversations with people from all over the world on here, and then sometimes I've just seen some legitimate Down's syndrome

>>134192602
>based on discipline
and how will this be measured, sodomite?
>people who know the topic
who decides this? what if it is decided that the only people who are qualified to know about government are the top officials?
>must prove education
"you must have your kosher education certification, goy. no (((diploma))), no vote!"
>high IQ is meaningless
are you a nigger?
>psuedoscientific bullshit
"global warming is true, but phrenology is evil and racist so it's wrong"

are you 14 years old or a woman or what?

>>134192383
>should there be a minimum IQ or civics test required in order to gain voting rights?
Why don't we just throw out all the votes for the wrong candidate? The "test" should be which candidate you vote for. If you vote correctly, you're obviously smart enough to vote.

Therefore, all the drumpf votes should be thrown out and Hillary should have won every state. IT WAS HEEEEEEERRRR TURRNNNNNNNN

File: IMG_8058.jpg (136KB, 750x1027px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 750x1027px

>>134192383
>Should women be allowed to...
No.

>>134192383
No, I have never met a woman that had half a fuck worth to talk about with politics. They just latch onto some ideology because a penis that liked that idea fucked them once.

Please prove me wrong, I'd love to have a real discussion with a woman about god damn anything. But no, they are vapid belligerent creatures that follow a greedy algorithm their entire life and assume they are right from the start of every debate. It's useless discussing politics with them. You have a better chance to convert them to an ideology by fucking them and saying as little as possible about it.

Ex, if you met an Antifa chick and argued about preserving whites, she might try to kill you. She could have radical stances like that westerners should all stop having kids.

But if you just play it cool like a chad, fuck her brains out, then go, "You know, I was thinking I really want kids with you. I don't care about the consequences." Boom, white baby cannon.

You inherently cannot have real discussions with women because they aren't logical. They do this at work too. They don't believe anything you say and stick to whatever their opinion was. It's social posturing against me citing studies for why a design should be a certain way.

Fuck damn women are stupid, and I've known some accomplished women. Still stupid. It's actually scary that they can vote.

>>134196072
we dont need to do a bunch of unnecessary shit. making it so that only men can vote is all that needs to be done and that will vastly improve things
>muh dick
obviously you're retarded though

>>134196484
an iq test is unnecessary and would have detrimental consequences (like creating class conflict from nothing) unless you're only trying to weed out people with sub 80iq or something

The problem with women is we are training them to be Disney princesses. We raise women with no expectation of reasonable responsible behavior and get the messy entitled behavior exhibited by modern "feminists".

Parents, wake the fuck up and start raising your children to appreciate freedom. The state is teaching them to be slaves. Pigs in cages on antibiotics.

Only land owning, married men should ne allowed to vote.

>>134197140
So basically in the case of the US only jews and muslims?

>>134192383
If you do not own land, you should not be able to vote.

>>134192383
>accepted welfare of any kind in the last (10) years
No voting rights. Renting is a must in some areas before someone accrues enough wealth to buy. Base it off gibs, problems solved. Of course, suffrage is still an issue, but it's here to stay, sadly.

>>134192465
Everyone wants to fuck the dust in secret.

>>134193987
>I'm surprised at the initial amount of people here
>people
Obviously there are girls on the internet. And commies.
And obviously the internet doesn't make women or commies smarter.

>>134197103
wow you're so woke

>>134197140
>land owning
that standard could easily be met by homeless people. lets say i'm a democrat and i want the homeless vote. i use my soros bucks to buy a huge plot of land and i give a small portion of a square foot to each homeless person and now they all vote for my guy. i also give them a wife
what's the issue with a man that doesnt own land? obviously there are reasons for a man to not own land, and all of these men who would consider living their lives in a way so that they dont own land, well now theres no way they'll go that route because it would mean not voting

>>134197349
you faggots really love bureaucracy. IF EVERYONE IS WHITE AND ONLY MEN CAN VOTE THEN WE WONT HAVE ANY ISSUES.

>>134192383
Property owning white males should only be aloud to vote
Then again, democracy is dead anyway so it doesn't matter

>>134197723
you "only property owning married men should vote" faggots never provide reasons for this assertion and why it would be better than just "men". do you love rules or are you retarded?

>>134197836
>let a horde of welfare collecting niggers and mexicans vote.
Was that hard?

>>134197349
>no voting rights
this will lead to the elimination of welfare,
once welfare is eliminated, everyone who was on well fare will put welfare back in again.,

>>134197947
if nonwhites are still in the country then there are more problems than who can and cant vote, and those problems should be dealt with at the root.
it could be a good idea to not allow people to vote who have been on welfare on not paid it back yet, but that should really be a non issue

File: 1464714763653.gif (2MB, 174x176px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 174x176px

>>134192383
Vote should be by non-welfare families, not individuals.

This would ensure only those with vested interest in the nation can participate in the democratic process of the nation.

>>134197324
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy

File: 0107121557.jpg (206KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1280x960px

>>134196557
>and how will this be measured, sodomite?
test on general consensuses, a test must include more than one viewpoint to prevent biasing, and may include many more. a PHD or other certificate will not count for entry. you must take the test no matter who you are.

>who decides this? what if it is decided that the only people who are qualified to know about government are the top officials?
who decides first past the post? both systems are broken if abused. that is a fact of governance. there is no requirement that you say the right thing, only that you show awareness of what is going on in a particular field and how that field opperates. a christfag that wants to weigh in on hurr muh evolution is wrong better understand how it all works instead of just saying "nuh uh".

>"you must have your kosher education certification, goy. no (((diploma))), no vote!"
diplomas may help you to pass a test but they are not themselves worth anything to vote. you must again, be up to date and know the topic and issues to vote on an issue.

>muh scientific consensus doesnt support me
then do some fucking studies. Studies come out every day that people would scream racist or sexist at if they even know about it. stop getting your understanding of how the scientific process works from butthurt idiots on pol who see the jews in everything.

>>134192383
I believe Rome and the Greeks had the best voting system.

>>134198250
>families, not individuals
what about men who devote their lives towards working? if they cannot vote then why should they bother contributing?
having only men vote accomplishes your goal of having one vote per family. read >>134196204 if you arent illiterate

>>134198544
>test on general consensuses, more than one viewpoint to prevent bias.
>missing the point that badly
who decides the test, retard? if hillary was president, do you think the test that she comes up with would be good?
all of this shit is unnecessary anyways. why is it better than if only white men could vote? we didnt have problems until nonwhites and women started voting, but people like you pretend the issue is something else because reality makes you uncomfortable

>>134198605
at one point didnt they allow nonwhites to vote as long as they fought in the army?

>>134199143
>men who devote their lives towards working
One of the greatest betrayals one can commit is not producing the next generation. They do not have vested interest in the nation. Only self profit.

I don't see how your post refutes this either.

>>134192383
There should be a minimum income.

Nobody on gibs should be allowed to vote.

>>134199619
I suppose nikola tesla was a worthless human then?
>they do not have vested interest in the nation. Only self profit
This is just wrong, or maybe you're projecting. I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate about it though. And the picture I posted explains why one vote per man is one vote per family without ostracizing single men. Should low iq men who shouldn't reproduce be incentivized to spread their genes? What about a family with a large amount of children? Should they get more votes? They have more vested in that nation according to you. You seem to be anti-eugenics and pro r-selection

>>134200015
>you must earn this many shekels per year in order to vote

>>134200308
Found the freeloader.

>>134196984
>we dont need to do a bunch of unnecessary shit. making it so that only men can vote is all that needs to be done and that will vastly improve things
>muh dick
>obviously you're retarded though

You're the retarded autist incapable of comprehending basic humor. That reminds me--there should also be a test to weed out autist faggots.

Also--it's not about designing rules that fit *me* or *you* or any specific individual. I wouldn't meet all the criteria that I laid out myself to vote. That's not the point. Stop being a "muh democracy, I deserve the right to vote" faggot.

The point is to achieve the best results. In order to do that, we must only allow those to vote who A) are capable of making good choices (points 1, 4, 5, and 7) and B) whose personal values and interests are aligned with what's best for supporting a dominant nation and securing our future (2, 3, and 6).

File: 1492899524448.jpg (44KB, 574x382px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 574x382px

>>134199619
>One of the greatest betrayals one can commit is not producing the next generation. They do not have vested interest in the nation. Only self profit.
>nazi flag
>Hitler never reproduced

File: adoption not abortion-dear-liberals .jpg (153KB, 749x742px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 749x742px

>>134192383

ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE CHILDREN

(including them who adopted children )

this goes to men too !

our ancestors said you are not man if you have not make children or build a house and as a single man i recognize that the high privileges are coming only from high sacrifices that i avoided when i choose to avoid the pain of marriage because the women of my age didn't want to marry to make children

>>134200553
There are no problems with simply allowing only white men to vote. Why are you trying to fix something that isn't broken, nigger lover?

>>134200199
Nikola Tesla wasn't worthless. Just not worthy to vote in a system that requires vested interest. Had he married and started a family, he would not only be able to participate in democracy, he would have his traits passed on to the next generation, possibly manifesting more geniuses.

The idea that the incentive only exists for low iq people is wrong. Everyone would have incentive. By restricting government welfare participants (who have generally lower IQ) a system of positive eugenics is created, since wealth is a general indicator of intelligence.

>Hitler never reproduced
A shame, but was required at the time to gain political momentum. Again, this is a case that would be better if the incentive to marry and produce a family existed.

All eligable voters should be qualified to make important decisions about a countries future. Unfortunately, that is not the case. So i think voters should be required to have a certain degree of education and to pass a test about economy politics etc.

>>134201061
>our ancestors
Big words coming from a follower of a religion made by the absolute worst enemy of the white race

What book did you read that from anyways? I don't remember seeing those rules in the oera Linda book. Oh wait, by 'ancestors' you must have meant "based jews"

>>134201329
meant for >>134200745 also

>>134195071
This happened in the last Edmonton Mayoral election.

1. Old jew
2. Handsome airhead
3. Financially conservative tubby

Handsome airhead won handedly thanks to the female vote.

>>134200541
found the wagecuck

>>134201329
If people like hitler and tesla spent all their time with a wife and children then they wouldn't have accomplished what they did. Are you childless or poor parent? Do you not understand how much a family takes away from your endeavors? You might as well just put a ceiling on the net ambition and dreams of the population by trying to have everyone have a family
And again, there are no significant problems with just simply allowing only men to vote.
Also:
>implying the only way to have vested interest in a nation is by having children
>being unable to comprehend how a person could have vested interest without children
>hitler didn't have a vested interest in the nation
and if a person doesn't care about the nation, then how will children change that? You are incentivizing people to only vote for what would be good for their children, not for the working class or anything like that

>>134196461
>being this fucking retarded
A 2 party system is intended by first-past-the-post voting. It has nothing to do with vaginas.

File: 8c6215ff0505756d2a82ecd1016f6220bbd9e5345571eb19feb7d22348c36365.jpg (67KB, 634x684px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 634x684px

>>134192383
>Should women be allowed to vote?
No

Here's how it SHOULD work, in my opinion...
To be allowed to vote, you must both
A) Be married
and
B) Have at least one child
and
C) Not be on any form of government assistance
You vote as a family with the father ultimately having authority over who the votes go to. Then for every additional child you have, you get an additional vote.

>>134202631
>more ostracization of the man who devotes his life towards working
>more promotion of r-selection
This is not a good idea

>>134202368
I'll agree that fanaticism is a remarkable trait that can be hindered by producing and maintaining a family.

But how does one have long term incentives in a nation without children? Excluding the altruism manifested through group selection, which is what Hitler, and to some extent Tesla, and a hypothetical nonexistent homogeneous society would have.

>You are incentivizing people to only vote for what would be good for their children, not for the working class or anything like that.
Those two subjects are intrinsically linked. By voting for the general welfare of your children, are you not also voting for the general welfare of the nation?

>>134192383
nobody should vote, democracy is stupid.

>>134199143
No they had auxiliaries (non-roman citizens) who after 25 years of service would receive a pension, plot of land and citizen rights. Those troops were mostly European.

>>134201103
Just being white isn't good enough.

50% of whites are below 100 IQ. The IQ difference between Jews and whites is the same as it is between whites and blacks. Let that sink in. This is why they run the show.

If you're worried about blacks voting, the 130 IQ requirement will ensure a voting eligible black would be extremely rare and that their influence on policy will never virtually nothing..

Whites won't be able to compete in the future when other nations are implementing eugenics policies. This is already happening in places like China but it isn't talked much about. This is aside from the direct genetic manipulation that China will most likely be first to begin implementing on a wide scale to improve their genetic stock.

Most whites today are fucking degenerates who will vote like fucking degenerates. The only way to secure the future for whites, if that's what you want to do, is to begin fucking culling the lower rungs who are pulling the rest down.

We know what makes a nation strong and dominant. We know what kind of people that a dominant nation is made up of. It's not fucking degenerates. Thus a nation's policies should be designed to cultivate MORE people like that while simultaneously wiping everyone else out.

>>134192383
The minimum IQ for voting rights should be 90.

File: Skærmbillede (34).png (187KB, 1330x672px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1330x672px

>>134192602
>voting should be based on discipline, the topic being voted on should be voted on by people who know about the topic.
Then women can't vote sweetheart. Since women have no clue about civilization.
http://archive.is/dBehg
Try again

>>134203082
It also encourages men to marry and have children at the youngest possible age, which isn't good
>inb4 samefag. I didn't think to add this

>>134203210
>how does one have long term incentives without children?
How does having children give people long term incentivization? People can care about all future generations the same as they care about the future of their children. I don't think the minor positives of having only married men with children vote is worth the negatives. Once we make it so only men can vote we can do some fine tuning afterwards if it ends up being necessary I guess.

>these two subjects are intrinsically linked
Yeah I knew I shouldn't have put that because you would probably say that but oh well.

>>134203554
>kikes run everything because they are superior
>still defending nigger voting rights
>"you white people wont be able to compete once the kangz ascend"
>implying chinks have any resemblance of a decent base for eugenics that could do anything for them other than make them slightly better at being scientific calculators

>>134192383
Only land-owning people with IQs over 110, without a criminal record or outstanding student loan debt should be able to vote.

>>134203554
Having only 130iq and above be allowed to vote would cause class conflict where there doesn't need to be any, and for what, so you don't have as many subhumans voting? Just don't allow nonwhites to vote then.
>we know what makes a nation strong and dominant
Yeah, not having any nonwhites or nonwhite influence (especially from jews)
I bet you're a transhumanist too

File: JFhorWsA.jpg (24KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 400x400px

>>134204292
Cletus detected.

Yes
Bonus : no
Your an idiot, cant wait for summerChan to go back to shitty public schools.

>>134204975

>Yeah, not having any nonwhites or nonwhite influence (especially from jews)

Good point but Jews also can't vote if they are all physically removed.

Making a "whites only" policy would be fine. My point is that it wouldn't be enough. Whites have become far too degenerate. A culling is coming one way or another--better that we control it.

>>134204292
>How does having children give people long term incentivization?
There's a saying: 'A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.' There's no better incentive than that which is built into us by billions of years of evolution. We want our children to prosper, and sacrifices are made to ensure it. This is the long-term incentive.

Without children, the incentive generally stops at the same rate as mortality.

>People can care about all future generations the same as they care about the future of their children.
This is wrong. In-group preferencing, a factor of group evolution, means that people, and all animals for that matter, care more about their children and family than others. That doesn't mean altruism for others is nonexistent, it's just relatively weaker.

Only having men vote would be a better system than what we have now, sure. But this family system is robust, in that it takes into account the undying and unyielding struggle for existence.

>>134205021
Nice strawman / ad hominem

>>134205297
>white men only isn't enough.
it has always been enough in the past. If you're gonna limit the democratic process so much you might as well just use a different system

>>134205345
>a society grows great when men plant trees etc etc
That's funny. I was actually thinking of using that quote earlier to support mY side. How doe that saying imply that the said men who planted trees did so because they had children? Did they plant the trees because of government incentive?
>billions of years of evolution provided the incentive
Yeah, so why does the government suddenly need to step in?
>people care about their children more than everyone else
So then wouldn't that make people care less about society as a whole? The people and nation should generally be held higher than the family. It is better to have the family be more important than the individual, but it's about what is emphasized. Your solution does pull the lowest people up a bit, but it also can pull the highest people down

File: acropole.jpg (463KB, 1800x1151px) Image search: [Google]

463KB, 1800x1151px

>>134201472

my ancestors were famous scientists , philosophers , singers and actors and until the age of 60 soldiers !

>>134207104
I was criticizing you, not your ancestors. Well yeah I guess I did criticize them at the end but that was because I couldn't think of anything else that was witty

>>134192383
>Should women be allowed to vote?
No.
> should there be a minimum IQ
Only if you want eternal democratic rule. High-IQ individuals are often bluepilled and altruistic, living in their own 90+% white middle class bubble far away from the sad reality.
> civics test
Probably, but it would be a very expensive policy.

File: 1497924183555.png (440KB, 633x758px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 633x758px

>>134196072
>Dick length 7.1" +
.1 off, NOOOOOOOOO

>>134196072
> muh dik
Kill yourself, my man.

>>134207020
>How doe that saying imply that the said men who planted trees did so because they had children?
It doesn't, however it's more likely to occur because of our biological nature, which I've gone into already.

>Yeah, so why does the government suddenly need to step in?
Because government is not natural, but rather an abstract concept. It has given power to all individuals, and would be better if it was aligned with our biological nature, which I've gone into already.

>So then wouldn't that make people care less about society as a whole?
They would simply care more about their family than society as a whole, which is quite relative. That doesn't mean altruism is completely vacant, in fact quite the opposite if said society was homogeneous in both culture and biological identity.

>The people and nation should generally be held higher than the family.
In a sense yes. It is the exterior shell of ones family. It is understood that when the nation prospers, so does the people, and so will ones family.

>>134199143
>if hillary was president
do you think i'm dumb enough to believe the test should be under executive power? it needs to be set in stone in an ammendment

>>134192383
Yes, that way we can get rid of all the drumpf voters

>>134209614
>they would care more about their family than society as a whole
This is my main issue. Society is more than just a bunch of individual families. Putting so much emphasis on the family adds a floor and a ceiling, but that's pretty much what most regulations do I guess. I just don't think it's necessary and not really worth doing since there are better ways to make people care about their nation than by having secondary stuff piggybacked onto bigger things.
And for voting it's typically the case that the less amount of qualifications required to vote the better it is, with just "men" or "white men" being the golden mean, since you also don't want too many people voting (women, children, etc). When you start to add that many regulations you lose the spirit of democracy and all that jazz. I plan on having a lot of children and I generally don't vote because I think democracy is dumb, but I do think that if you're going to have democracy then you should at least maintain the spirit. Once you start trying to prevent plebs or rabble and all that from voting it becomes something else and if you're gonna add more requirements then you end up with more classes and division among the people

>>134210164
And who will write that amendment? A commitee of jews?

>>134192383
democracy is literally a mistake, but if you're going to do it, it should only be men

>>134211694
How about no you misogynistic leaf

>>134200199
Geniuses are priceless and far and few enough in between to not be worth restructuring society for.
A genius is made infinitely more valuable and probable by the colossal family-oriented infrastructure that surrounds him.

>>134192383
Only taxpayers should vote. They are the country.

File: 000Title6.jpg (3MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x2048px

>>134211945
show us your real flag.

>>134192383
No, but there should be a bust measurement, no chestlet thots should be able to decide our future.

>>134192383
No, and most men shouldn't either.

We need to go back to the days where you had to be a home/land owner and tax payer for a few years before you could vote, and every time you had to vote you had to prove these things. This would easily get rid of the majority of illegal voting.

Also a woman should be married in order to vote, and never allowed into a political position unless partnered with a man.

File: 870c344fb66363db99f09f3301a3c8a9.jpg (201KB, 800x902px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 800x902px

>>134192383
I think you should have to pass a non-partisan test, sort of like a driving test. A) You must prove that you are a rational person by passing a test demonstrating that you understand how to avoid falling prey to most logical fallacies and sophist techniques of rhetoric. B) You must pass a test demonstrating that you understand the constitution and why it was put together in the way it was, and that you know basic facts about the founding fathers, the Magna Carta, Common Law, and John Locke. C) You should also be a minimum of 30 years old to vote, not this 18 shit.

I think women have no business voting but everything above should suffice as a major improvement on our current system and no perceived sexism would be needed.

>>134213000
Who's going to administer and grade the test? How do we prevent fraud and cheating? This sounds like another one of those great ideas on paper that when rolled out irl suck ass because it's not realistic.

File: 924ee4227694c45346b3014a3a2370a58d030e757a63f379a365b54dad0739c9.png (334KB, 1280x622px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 1280x622px

>>134212051
>nonwhites who pay taxes are the country

File: A8A9D3C2-CDA3-419E-9630-799EBA739D6A-239-00000062B4BA726B.jpg (714KB, 1936x2728px) Image search: [Google]

714KB, 1936x2728px

>>134192383
How about no voting at all? (((Democracy))) is and always was a sham

File: 1500367454392.jpg (375KB, 867x1000px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 867x1000px

>>134192383
>Should women be allowed to vote?
no because they never earned the right in the first place.men earned the right to vote by fighting wars and being egligible for drafting.

>>134215388
No, men earned the right to vote by drafting a system of government that is based on voting and successfully implementing it.

>>134192383

No. Men earned their right to vote based on conquering the planet and creating civilization and giving us all these modern comforts. Women just bitched over and over and men caved. That being said, even with Trump being elected, I'm still skeptical that voting changes anything in the long term.

>>134196953
Hm, I am antifascist in some way but I want to preserve the white race, why should it be mutually exclusive?

>>134192383
Men shouldn't even be allowed to vote.

>>134192383
>Should women be allowed to vote?
No.

>>134192383
>should there be a minimum IQ or civics test required in order to gain voting rights?
No, because they'll either change how IQ is formulated, or have a civics test that requires you to be "progressive".

>>134192383
No,

Only land owners should vote but I would settle for men only as well

If women didn't vote half the shit we deal with would be a non issue

File: 1acd6b2e8f75f0d2fbd632e96b29d9d3.jpg (66KB, 394x546px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 394x546px

>>134213390
> Who's going to administer and grade the test?

It could be graded by a computerized system as well as a human being. The original copies, with wrong answers, could be returned to the test taker to check the facticity of the results themselves.

> How do we prevent fraud and cheating?

As I said before, people who fail can get their results and study and take another test.

> This sounds like another one of those great ideas on paper that when rolled out irl suck ass because it's not realistic.

It is realistic, they give people drivers tests all the time. I also think that the system I described, even with minor errors and some cheating, would still be preferable to no system and everyone getting the opportunity to vote.

>>134192383
Reminder that women's suffrage was inevitable once the quasi-aristocratic landowner-only vote was abandoned, you can't maintain popular franchise and keep it male-only without a metaphysical/religious basis to keep it from women (not to mention the incentive to give it to them).

Any IQ or civics test restriction would have to be accompanied by so much transparency that the answer books are basically given away, otherwise gaming them to keep opposing voters out would be very easy to pull off.

>>134192383
>>134192602

Voting shouldn't be allowed. Hitler made a very clear and irrefutable argument against it.

> if you allow voting, you leave your country wide open to foreign interests manipulating your voter pool
> as well as allowing citizenship to be conferred to foreigners
> voting rights will eventually be given to people who arent even citizens

>>134221647

> corporations start buying up all the land, lease it for housing development but maintain the rights to the subdivisions
> corporations are counted as living entities by the law
> only corporations can vote

>>134192383
Most white women will pass iq tests

>>134222141
>drivers tests
Most ineffective thing ever. Have you even driven?
My point is that a system like this will either be abused and contorted by the power structure or it will be watered down to the point that it is ineffective at accomplishing its intended goal.

>>134222141
What's stopping people from looking up the answers on the internet? And give an example of a question. Just one

File: 1500149878333.jpg (73KB, 634x476px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 634x476px

>>134224466
>yfw this happens and we somehow create a traditionalist cyberpunk dystopia

>>134222141
Driving tests are garbage and terrible drivers are given licenses you dolt

You should have to get a voters license based on an exam in which your views are decided to be emotionally or logically rooted. Most women would fail.

>>134192383
I think a civics test should be required for all voters in every election. It should be really basic and have maybe 5 questions. How many you get right is how many votes you get. That way, the idiot who guesses a single question gets one vote while the person who pays attention gets 5.

>>134225635
>an exam in which your views are decided to be emotionally or logically rooted
So like an autistic psychopath? [spoiler]actually wouldn't be bad if he were aryan desu[/spoiler]
Unfortunately each test would be heavily tailored to only allow people who scored with a bias towards the current administrations views to be allowed to vote. Imagine a question that asked if you were xenophobic

>>134225968
>heavily tailored to only allow people who scored with a bias towards the current administrations views
This. Tests are not an option, it's not realistic.

>>134225635
>implement and administer this testing regime
>it turns out to evaluate immigration restriction as irrational xenophobia or esoteric Hitlerism

I don't know about that, butI know that fat people shouldn't be allowed to live.

File: 1432433901803.gif (1MB, 300x188px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 300x188px

>>134192383
>implying voting is even a good system to begin with

ishyddt

>>134192383
Women should be allowed to vote so long as they are held for the same level of civic duty. Ie: They have to serve in the military if a conscription is called. They keep peace of law.

A basic civics test would work as an effective iq minimum. If we are smart we limit multiple attempts. A person may only attempt the test once a year. If a person fails 3 times than they will get no more chances. The other part is to restrict voting to civic duty. If you are caught dodging a draft then you lose all voting rights for the rest of your life. If you do not qualify for income or property taxes, than you do not get to vote. If you are behind on your taxes, you lose your right to vote until you are caught up again. If a person is sentenced from more than a year in total in prison for crimes in their life than they lose the vote. Flag burners also lose their citizenship, which as a result would mean losing their vote.

Also voting should require id with nationality on it. Right now in Ontario all you need is a drivers license and a bill or lease in your name with an address in the voting district. Which means that non-citizens can actually vote and it would be impossible to separate their vote after the fact from actual citizens. Even if they do get caught after the fact the damage is done.

Only I should be able to vote, everyone else has proved to be bad at voting, they can't even tick the correct box

>>134203082
It's not r-selection if they're able to have lots of children without being on any form of government gibs.

>>134192383
>voting

Just become a Monarchy or a Fascism already, I'm sick of waiting. Voting is retarded because the average person is fucking retarded.

>>134192383
>Bonus: should there be a minimum IQ or civics test required in order to gain voting rights?
yes and no free pass for us men, some of us are as stupid as some women.... stupidity isn't a women only thing.

>>134192383

I believe only those who pay taxes should be allowed to vote.

Only white male land owners should be allowed to vote.

>>134231169
>become a fascism

Retard detected, why don't you become an hero

File: 1440954875800.jpg (26KB, 432x640px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 432x640px

>>134192383

>should there be a minimum IQ or civics test required in order to gain voting rights?

No, because that would disproportionately impact Bodies of Color, and therefore be 'rayciss.