This system gives equal voting rights to mentally ill people as it does for normal people. Should we change this disgusting system? How can we make it more sensible and reliable?
This can also happen to Trump.
>>74852953
>Should we change this disgusting system
In a fractured nation you can't do that
Polish nobles came up with the idea of "liberum veto" in order to force compromise in politics. Any person could veto what the parliament has voted if he thought this was inappropriate, threatening freedom whatever. Imagine introducing liberum veto in contemporary times - I think the state would be very much paralyzed
Anyway it would be hard to run a country in a divided nation
The results of democracy can be utterly stupid, because as this picture points out - almost half of voters are left out
Democracy has become a cult in soc-liberalism. Socialists and soc-liberals, who dominate in countries shaped by the european culture, look at it as the best possible system, a historical destiny of humanity
If you criticize democracy, then you're Hitler
>>74852953
>This system gives equal voting rights to mentally ill people as it does for normal people. Should we change this disgusting system?
Absolutely.
>How can we make it more sensible and reliable?
There's only one system.
>>74853726
>Democracy has become a cult in soc-liberalism. Socialists and soc-liberals, who dominate in countries shaped by the european culture, look at it as the best possible system, a historical destiny of humanity
>If you criticize democracy, then you're Hitler
I agree.
What if we introduce a system which favorites valuable members of the society to have a more valuable vote?
Scientist's vote = 10 points
High School drop out = 1 point.
Does it make sense?
>>74854668
I favor the system where only white male landowners can vote. Expanding on that, only educated white male landowners that are employed or retired can vote.
But it would be impossible in today's age to implement such a system.
![toddlertantrumstore[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ekIsXPL.jpg "toddlertantrumstore[1].jpg")
>>74852953
MY VOTE SHOULD COUNT I WANT MY CHICKEN TENDIES AND I WANT THEM NOW!
This is what happens if you give emotional unstable animals voting rights. I am talking about women here.
>>74854668
>What if we introduce a system which favorites valuable members of the society to have a more valuable vote?
Now I'd be in favor of introducing a chamber in a parliament that would be elected in an undemocratic way (eg appointed by the president or whatever) and that would balance the democratic chamber
It used to be that in the USA for instance the Senate was not elected through an electoral process, but it was changed by the progressivists
>>74852953
short answer: yes
>>74852953
It's not degenerate, but regressive. In all actuality, the idea that anyone who hasn't committed a serious crime's opinions mean something is ridiculous, your whole nation is hinged on the hope that the majority of you aren't retarded. The best system of government is a nationalized people supporting monarchy. The main complaint about about NatSoc and Fascism is it never lived past one ruler.
Pic related, a good leader at the opportune moments can make himself an emperor with an established blood line.
>>74854915
yes the 60% men/women infographic triggered everyone at this point.
>>74854942
can you elaborate in this?
>>74855764
This is nice. saved.
>>74856783
>can you elaborate in this?
You can read about the polish April constitution of 1935. It is bashed by soc-liberals as anti-democratic, but nevertheless it's inspiring. There the president could appoint 1/3 of the Senate
In the USA until 1913 each state legislature could elect 2 senators
Maybe indirect elections of this kind could curb the mob democracy
