If you told me that one railroad track was empty, and another had one of my friends and all of my enemies tied to it, I'd be coming back to that lever, day after day, staring at it to try to make sense of my decision.

I'd say: one has only enemies, the other has enemies and one extremely influential, good friend. I know which I would pick.

Now I know a lot of people spin tales about what will happen. E.g. that suddenly a network with only Tuckers would rise if Fox were burned down by them. That is just fanciful.

This is basically the universal suffrage problem: are some women based? Yes. Would we all be better off if no women could vote? Yes. Is it moral to deny them the vote on pragmatic grounds alone?

Considering morality is a luxury that cannot be afforded. It's difficult enough to defeat the menace while only considering expediency. I'd argue that it's bad on pragmatic grounds, and pragmatic grounds alone - at least, announcing it beforehand (because that immediately alienates most women).

If it is true that women voting are to blame for the degeneration of Western civilization, it still does not follow that them not voting will solve the issue. Because in the meantime, everyone has gone to hell.

The bigger problem is that 'voting' doesn't seem to change anything. You get the same thing no matter who you 'vote' for.