>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?
>>60979161
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.
One must be a property or business owner, plain and simple.
Those who have skin in the game are the ones who stand to lose to those that have the opportunity to vote for their living.
>>60979161
Is it degenerate to make a scandinasian baby?
>>60979350
>I don't know the history of this nation
>>60979350
I can agree with you to a point, but maybe we shouldn't let black people vote.
>>60979161
Only white Anglo Saxon protestants should be able to vote.
>>60979394
Norway basically has the most beautiful women on the planet. Why settle for anything less?
>>60979161
No one should vote. Democracy is expensive ,inneficient and unstable.
>>60979350
>democracy
there's that pesky word again
and no, universal suffrage is not needed to have a working democracy
>>60979447
I do but shit changed you ignorant fuck.
Holy fucking shit you're an idiot, don't fucking imply.
>>60979476
Nope. All or nothing.
Give me liberty or give me death.
>>60979394
Asian girls are the best Anon.
When we blander op Asian, we will get high IQ like Finland has in the PISA tests.
>>60979631
Yes it is. It's a vital part of it.
Tell me how not letting the people vote and restrict they vote isn't forfeiting democracy. Voting is important.
>>60979686
>blacks have the vote
May as well give the vote to the monkeys in the zoo, they have similar IQs.
>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.
>>60979161
I have a brilliant idea, OP.
Voting should be allowed for everyone except:
- white men
- raycis
- frankfurt school despisers
- antisemites
- holocaust deniers
- conspiracy theorists
- deniers that WE WUZ KANGS
>>60979161
>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.
obligatory
>>60979161
Only men over 24 can vote
>>60979662
>shit changed
CURRENT YEAR
>>60979771
Well, anon. You can't even insult someone without fucking up. Your opinion is invalid.
Especially from someone under a monarch.
>>60979825
You would just end up as Germany, or worse. A self hating people is a self destructing people.
>>60979161
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.
>>60979933
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
Only property owners should be allowed to vote, as our forefathers intended.
>>60979161
An easy fix that would not need a constitutional amendment would just be to pay everyone $100 not to vote
>>60979161
>Republican democracy
>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.
>>60979394
You would just make a kid who looks pretty much like Elliot Rodgers (Supreme Gentlemen). I would know, I'm half Chinese, Norwegian myself.
>>60979350
>democracy
>electoral college
Was never meant to be a democracy, shit lips.
The second we gave people the power to vote directly for our senators, we ended states' rights.
>>60979538
I have to disagree. Also, beauty seems to be proportional to stupidity here.
>>60979758
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.
Can anyone explain why there's such a big push for votes at 16? And I mean from regular people, it's obvious that left parties want it because young people tend to be left.
>>60979161
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"
>>60979161
>>60979764
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.
>>60980036
>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.
>>60980181
>Just because people are ill informed, doesn't mean that we should restrict their voting.
why not?
>Where you have to serve in the military to be allowed to vote.
how is that a bad thing?
Only those registered for the draft, in the military, or a veteran should be able to vote.
>>60979161
restrict voting rights to land owners
>>60979161
The problem is we need internet voting, a way for people to vote safely, simply, and seamlessly over an encrypted server.
>>60979350
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?
>>60980975
>we need internet voting
it makes it too accessible and the lazy fucks who wouldnt have gotten out to vote shouldnt be accommodated
>>60980975
Fuck that.
We need to go back to paper ballots so there are hard records.
That's how you stop voter fraud
>>60979607
Who do you propose make the decisions then?
>>60979161
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.
>>60979764
Tell me how letting anyone and everyone vote doesn't undermine the integrity of the democracy of a specific state?
>>60979161
1. remove restrictions on age
2. introduce literacy test
>>60980553
>why not?
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
>>60979350
fuck democracy
cuck shit forced down our throat by effete political dilletantes 200 years ago
>>60981519
>freedom in this country
what kind of freedom?
Is personal freedom more important than state sovereignty?
>>60979355
Can a buosness simply be me forming an llc?
>>60980975
why would you want to help bernie voters out? they are all mouth on tumblr but are too lazy to vote
NO AND FUCK YOU JIDF
>>60980975
Would require secure voter ID cards, everyone to have internet access, and card reader devices for their computers.
>>60979814
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.
etc.
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.
>>60979161
who is this fluid druid
>>60979820
Good points.
>>60979355
This. If you don't own part of the country you don't get a say in its running
>>60981519
>1st Amendment
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
>>60981753
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.
>>60981706
Only if you make a profit in which you would be paying taxes.
>>60979840
The idea of mandatory service for political privilege is not really that bad of an idea.
>>60979350
The U.S is a republic you fucking moron. No modern nation is a democracy
>>60982023
>except niggers a significant omission which invalidates your argument
dont forget women
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.
>>60979350
HELLO REDDIT HOWS THE WEATHER
>>60981985
It is the only way for our survival as a sovereign nation, while not discriminating against white, black, women, gays...it is color, gender and religiously blind.
>>60982101
>No modern nation is a democracy
its a colloquialism lad calm down
>>60982115
>dont forget women
yep exactly
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
>>60980167
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.
>>60979161
I am a fucking millennial. RAISE THE VOTING AGE TO 21 AT LEAST! THE KEKS IN MY GENERATION ARE FUCKING US OVER! THIS IS NOT AN IDEA, BUT A PLEA!
>>60982287
My dick was a colloquialism in your moms pussy
>>60979161
>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
>no blacks
>no women
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!".
>>60982292
>but a "reverse tax" still disproportionately affects poor people
thats the point
The only reason for this instead of requiring you to be a taxpayer is the 24th amendment
>>60979161
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.
>>60979503
I second this
>>60979161
Either you must be a landowner who pays taxes or served in the military for 8 years, not excluding those who are medically discharged.
>>60982382
I said c u c k s
Just stop female sufferage and all will be good.
>>60979161
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.
>>60979350
Problem is libshits keep trying to give this right to non US citizens.
>drivers license? Das raycis
>other identification? Das raycis
>voter identification cards? Das raycis
>>60982628
that wont fix the problem that that country is about to become <50% white
>>60979161
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.
>>60982861
> university degree
> suddenly liberal arts majors have more rights than techs
>>60979161
I'm for restricting voting to land owners and those who serve in the military.
>>60982931
>white people oppressing the black kids in tech schools
>we wuz electricians n shit
>>60980357
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.
Restrict anyone who receives money from the government.
People who are effectively wards of the state have no business being able to vote themselves increased benefits.
>>60980381
This actually makes a lot of sense... Thanks for the idea.
>>60981695
>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.
>>60982931
If you make enough money to pay the voting fee you're good to go.
>>60979161
easy
>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.
>>60979161
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?
Once you enable restricting others from voting, you also enable restricting yourself from voting the moment you and your kind are outnumbered.
>>60982023
>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.
>>60981519
So you don't think a person should have to know even a little bit about what their vote means?
Also, there's a lot more to vote for than President kiddo.
>>60983440
Most women don't give a shit about politics, they vote what TVs or their familiars/friends tell them to vote.
>>60981392
How do you derive your power to govern?
>>60983756
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.
>>60983658
>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.
>>60982094
if you ready the book. The Citizens were mostly made up of people who built things for their National Service. The military veterans were a small portion of the Citizens.
>>60982051
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.
>>60983960
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.
>>60979161
Only land owners should be allowed to vote.
>>60984561
I don't really understand why you believe this. Can you provide any sort of proof of your claims? Your anecdotal evidence isn't enough, especially as mine contradicts yours.
>>60983621
>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
>>60982447
>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!
>>60979161
>Hurr Durr my opinion is best and everyone else shouldn't be allowed to vote
Fuck off back to kike college you fucking retard
>>60983183
>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.
THIS
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.
>>60979355
You have skin in the game every time you pay fucking taxes.
Will never understand you would be jackboots who want to turn the country into a 3rd world dictatorship.
>>60982861
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.
>>60985012
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.
>>60984905
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
>>60979161
>if your main source of political information is memes and twitter/facebook posts
>>60979161
The more you restrict voting the better. Ergo the best system is absolute monarchy. I'm not joking.
>>60984728
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.
>>60985593
>Just personal experience
You're willing to restrict the rights of millions of people based on your personal experience? You sound like a horrible human being.
>>60985555
checked
>>60985702
>You sound like a horrible human being
you sound like an ad hominem faggot
>>60985702
I didn't know a random thread on /pol/ was going to decide the fate of my country's voting system.
Also ad hominem ? Settle down.
>>60979161
People who dont pay income tax shouldnt be able to raise income tax by voting for shitty politicians who bribe with more of dem programs.
>>60980975
>internet voting
>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.
>>60981047
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.
>>60983440
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.
>>60983471
I have proposed ITT restrictions that would remove my right to vote, and I'm perfectly ok with that if it means better outcomes for my country.
>>60979161
>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.
>>60985852
>>60985877
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?
>>60979161
I think we should vote for killing all sandniggers first
>>60985994
It sounds to me like you don't want them to vote because they vote in a way that you don't approve of. Am I missing something?
>>60979161
>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.
>>60983621
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?
>>60979161
>no illegals
>no women
>no non whites
>>60986093
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.
>>60985086
its worked pretty good up until mid 1800's
>>60984107
>local legislatures
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.
>>60979503
WASPS should be put in concentration camps for their crimes against humanity
>>60984905
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.
>>60984789
>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.
>>60983183
>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.
>>60986500
You're a goddamn moron.
>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
>>60986998
Found the woman guys. Possibly a brainwashed beta-cuck.
>>60987281
Found the moron guys. Tell me exactly how limiting the rights of people is good?
>>60979161
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.
>>60986861
>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?
>>60987065
reddit: the post
>>60979350
>muh freedom
>>60987498
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.
Fine only men over the age of 18 years should be able to vote. They must not have alzheimer's or be mentally retarded.
>>60989815
second
>>60987848
In that model, what is the difference between House and Senate?
I mean, for example, House make the rules and the Senate eats sandwichs?
>>60990056
Why do you hate women, anon?
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.
>>60979161
Only men over 25 should be allowed to vote.
>>60990797
>low energy shit post
Off with ya cunt
>>60990838
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.
>>60990797
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.
>>60991316
>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)
Citizenship
GED or better
Explicit non-restrictions:
Age
Race/Heritage/Ethnicity
Prior convictions
>>60991230
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.
>>60979161
I support the same "reasonable restrictions" on voting that I support on gun ownership.
shall
not
be
infringed
>>60991765
Mah nigga.
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.
>>60991681
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.
>>60992109
>some young men are smarter than some young women, therefore ban young women from voting
I don't see how this logically follows.
>>60991492
>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.
>>60979840
>tfw no red pilled veteran ran system of government.
>>60992461
Almost all young men are smarter than young women, your greentext is obviously false my friend.
>>60979161
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...
>>60992557
>In the US men who refuse to sign up for the draft are denied many things including the right to vote.
Prove it. I've searched and I can find nothing substantiating this claim.
>>60992836
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?
>>60992379
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.
>>60985555
Now THAT'S what I call a suggestion!
Also checked.
>>60992861
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...
>>60993190
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.
>>60993132
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?
>>60986762
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.
>>60993511
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
>>60986143
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.
Is this a thread made to discuss something relevant in the US on /pol/? Never before seen.
>>60993614
>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?
>>60993030
https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties
Literally one of the first links when I googled.
Specifically:
>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.
>>60994005
>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.
>>60994119
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.
>>60994315
>Felony = ineligible to vote
Also untrue.
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.
http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286
>>60979350
Someone that actually understands the constitution and doesn't think the US should be ran in their autistic ideology.
>>60982166
>>60979355
>>60979447
>>60979901
>>60979476
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.
>>60979814
Decent ideas.
>>60994704
>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.
>>60985086
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.
>>60986290
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.
Again:
>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).
>>60985086
Wait a second. Then are you OK with booting people who pay zero taxes then? People who exist purely on welfare?
>>60979161
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)
>>60979161
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
>>60995064
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?
>>60985978
>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.
>>60979161
I like Texas' voting ban.
Psychos and imbeciles are not allowed to vote.
That means Muslims, SJWs, and white apologists are not allowed to vote in Texas.
>>60979161
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.
>>60994772
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.
>>60979161
Math test on paper.
Nothing fancy, simple long division of say a 6 and a 3 digit number would suffice for now.
>>60986093
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.
>>60986998
He's right though.
>>60995322
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?
>>60986375
>When [...] people are given power without earning it, IT WILL BE ABUSED.
>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
>>60995781
In my opinion that would devolve into feudalism, with a few large land owners.
>>60995565
>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.
>>60993765
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.
>>60993765
Oh, and you're right. It would be bias toward a certain agenda, namely that a person understand the system they're voting in.
>>60996301
>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.
>>60987498
>Tell me exactly how limiting the rights of people is good?
Voting isn't a constitutionally guaranteed right.
>>60979662>>60994772
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.
>>60996799
So it is considered good to take away rights that are not constitutionally guaranteed?
>>60996742
Wow.
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.
>>60997186
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.
>>60997411
This is pathetic on so many levels. You should be pretty ashamed to have been reduced to a sniveling little bitch over having your morality questioned.
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
>>60997601
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.
>>60996915
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.
>>60981622
perfect t b h
>>60992861
>>60993511
10/10 Post man.
You just made this entire thread worth my time.
If any of you tl;dr fags passed this up, take another peek, this is some high quality shit right here.
>>60981622
That'd be pretty good as well, desu, also highly entertaining.
>>60998097
>I'm only pretending to be retarded.
I haven't seen this one in a while.
>>60979161
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.
>>60998148
>Yes it is rational
You are literally saying a logical fallacy is rational.
>>60998355
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.
>>60979350
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.
>>60998461
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.
Force everyone to take a FULL citizenship test. If you do not score above a 90% you do not get to vote for that 2 year cycle.
>>60998472
>my original post was sincere
Then I feel genuinely bad for you, living a life devoid of morality.
>bleeding heart
I feel nothing towards the plight of women. Watching you dismantle your own argument in front of me was pretty entertaining, though.
>>60981753
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?
>>60998603
By that logic, no group can ever be given the right to vote, because no group is ever truly without flaw.
>>60996049
>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.
>>60998855
>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.
>>60994068
I lurk a lot more than I post, as with most of the more intellectual /pol/ community as I understand it.
>Polite sage.
>>60999092
for* your nation haha faggot
Yeah, people who disagree with you guys or have different interests shouldn't be allowed to vote.
>>60983440
Women vote only according to feelings, never to reason.
>>60999251
Based Jonah Hex
>>60998490
>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?
>>60994408
>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).
>>60997411
>muh dick makes me smart
>women don't touch muh dick so they're stupid
>you don't agree so you're a faggot
You really are pathetic. I hope your virginity carries over into your 50s
>>60998939
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.
Whatever Switzerland had back in 1700-ish would probably work really well
>>60998148
>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.
>>60979161
"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"
>>60979350
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.
http://www.rhodesia.me.uk/UDIConstitutionandFranchise.htm
>>60979350
>The moment voting is restricted we forfeit our democracy entirely. What a foolish act.
LMFTFY
>The moment voting rights were extended to irresponsible people with no skin in the game, we forfeited our democracy entirely. What a foolish act.
>>60979161
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.
>>60987498
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?
>>60999618
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.
For example:
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.
