Universal suffrage is incompatible with good governance.
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (52)
sorted by:
It's amazing how far gone Oregon and Washington are.
just Seattle & Portland fucking it up.
So for competent leadership, only white people should vote?
I will accept all adult male taxpayers without criminal records.
Points at Trump then at the people railroaded by prosecutors to accept bad plea deals: you sure about the criminal record requirements?
In a world where all political power was with [adult male taxpayers without criminal records], nonsense like this Trump prosecution would never have happened to begin with.
Probably still fewer false positives than not. Better to leave the rest of society to advocate for those than to add in a bunch of actual criminals. If you're going for reliability over raw numbers like that.
MARRIED FAMILIED male taxpayors. Non-transferrable. Non-delegable. No owned land requirement, but yes an intact biological family requirement.
Only people who have proven a bodily interest in the future of the country, beyond their own lifespan, should vote. That's new people. The vote should count One for each member of that intact nuclear family; not including emancipees and not including majority aged children; and no buy-ins with adoption. The husband and wife ALWAYS vote the same way, as cast by the husband, as decided between them.
The criminal record bit is too lawfare-vulnerable. Rather: incarceration/death removes the ability to get to the poles.
But we're just wishing, now.
Only tax net positives, eh? Maybe earning permanent vote after 20 years or something so the responsible retired also get to vote? In short, only the financially proven assets vote.
That sounds good, although it introduces the eventual possibility of horrifying abuse and true discrimination against the "parasites". The poor would have no voice.
No way, old people should definietly lose the vote as they age.
Other than the obvious senility issue, they don't have any stakes in the wellbeing of the country so they vote for their own special interests (other than kids, but Boomers don't evem care about that).
Who do you think was the political force behind "you're killing grandma" and "if it saves just one life"? The parents of kids being locked out of school, or literally the only demographic that was at any sort of risk?
Landowners.
One word: Blackrock
Corporations aren't people. They have no rights, and should not vote.
Hence why it's not just land owners. But land-owning, sole-proprietary running, residents.
No one else should be able to vote.
90% of blacks and 80% of latinos openly vote for antiWhitism, crt, esg, and communism so fuck them. They support blm and antifa terrorism and grooming of kids. Whites are the only group who voyes nep republic at around 56% so do the math.
You still have the leftist ones in that case. Do citizenship starship troopers style - everyone that wants a vote has to earn it with their own sweat and blood. That'll get rid of the vast majority of the faggots and still let the tolerable people from other groups vote.
I have a hard time with the government treating citizens differently, but it would be best if there were only white citizens. Has always been my view.
Equal rights requires equal responsibility. The democrat party in its current form only exists to create more “rights” while shifting responsibilities from their voting block to the “evil white Christians”.
Lol at white women still based enough to get to 327 red EVs
The truly based ones reveal themselves on the (all races) Women chart. Even surrounded by enemies the women in Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc. held it together.
There are no enemies inside of Oklahoma. As much as people jerk off Florida, Oklahoma is literally the reddest state in the Union, and not a single county voted blue against Trump either election.
People of Color is all blue, even in Oklahoma.
I like how "White Women" and "College Educated Whites" vote almost identically.
College trains you to think like a woman.
/it’s that simple.
They still vote net gop. Meanwhile nlacks and latonos are beyond lost. They just vote for more gibs and more antiWhitism. Trump offered them reparations (his stupedest move which drove away millions of White votes, and had he not done so biden wouldnt have been able to chest himself in) in platnium plan and blacks chose to vote for antiWhitism
what's funny about college is it creates a lot of retards. You have some people who are (((successful))) but still a lot of dumb cunts who just aren't anything but dumb.
When the national divorce comes, give the Blues the West Coast from SF up to Seattle & the East Coast from Washington DC up to the Canadian Border. Reds take everything else, including all the rural parts of those "blue states" since they vote red.
Better yet we just round them all up and march them to oklahoma.
The trail of queers
Nah, send them south of the border. I'm sure the drug cartels will reward their compassion.
We don't fucking want them here, fickhead.
Canada can have Detroit, and if we're going to keep Chicago we're going to need several aggressive bombing campaigns.
We need to keep Detroit & Chicago. Just wall them up & fill them with cameras for the ultimate reality show.
Illegal aliens get thrown over the walls so the residents have a steady food supply.
You don't give up the ports. Also I don't want to give up any of it, particularly not my home state.
Black homeland 13% of the country in the SE. That's what I'm willing to give up. Everyone else GTFO.
I think that's the easiest way to get people in the right countries while relocating as few as possible.
you misspelled Liberia
I don't really care where. I don't think that it's a given that any country would accept people you're trying to exclude. That's why creating territory for it out of the US makes sense.
Fuck. That. We're tired of dealing with them.
So women and darkies are political poison. Nothing we didn't know already.
It's all true. The problem is I don't know what to do with this information. A legit "national divorce" is probably fantasy. I'm for gradual decentralizing to more local control and parallel governance, but normies (not just America but the whole western world) are completely brainwashed by the Inherent Good of Democracy and universal rights. It would be suicide for Republicans at any level to make "less suffrage" part of their platform, and without that there's no policy changes to be had.
All I can think of is more White men getting married and (figuratively) locking up women who would otherwise vote a different way.
We can also keep talking about it on platforms like this but I'm not sure how long it will take to trickle out to places that have a real effect on the public conscious. Twitter is better for that. Encourage more people to read Hoppe.
Repeal the 19th Amendment
That's one way. In fact that's essential. But how?
How can anybody see maps like these, see the division in the street, and not agree this collection of loosely aligned interests needs to separate, except for recognition that one half needs the other's production and industrious spirit.
That sounds like an amazing graph up until you remember the Republican party is the junior party to the Democrats. All those red States still watch TV and movies produced by Hollywood. They do not produce culture so they are ruled by the culture of the left. Their school still have Lefty teachers. It also ignores that younger Generations are more left wing then older Generations and when the Boomers die out whites will no longer be a majority. It also ignores that first and second wave feminism are big parts of so-called conservative culture. Lots of single moms and divorces and girl power in red States. Finally, when a state turns blue in more than often remains blue while a red State can fall to the blue and never be salvaged again.
Those poor fuckers in WA, the only state that's blue no matter what.
King County has heavily fortified elections; some of the safest and most effective elections in the world, in fact.
Voting Requirements:
Yes, I realize this would exclude a vast majority of people from voting and that's entirely the point.
Carve out the bluish bits, move all the blues there. Pay them to go. Redraw the borders, harden and enforce them; and let them run their enclaves, isolated from the outside.
Return in a decade or two, to find unihabited wastelands, well fertilized, and in need of garbage collection...
Oh, and another point not necessarily connected to my previous post, all right wing propaganda can be summed up as "and that's why we don't need to fight (except for Israel)."
John Adams and Blackstone agreed. Not on the concept of race though, but of dependency.
Both explicitly state that a man of the family, who owns property, and has an income from his business, and is a resident in his community should vote.
They specifically cite the dangers in allowing non-property owners to vote, and it is because they are not the ones voting, but they are just multiplying the vote of their masters. I think it was Blackstone that specifically laid out: Charlatans, Rabel Rousers, Factory owners, and Landlords not being allowed to vote; and his argument is extremely poignant.
The Landlord who gives space to tenants will pressure his tenants to vote on his behalf as their home and family are utterly dependent on his welfare. So, the more tenants he has, the more votes he has in a given area, even if he doesn't live there. "You vote my way, or I'm kicking you out."
The Factory owner hires large numbers of poor, illiterates, and immigrants to fill his factory with cheap labor. The same problem appears. He can pressure his employees to vote on his behalf, everywhere there is a factory of his; and so he multiplies his vote. They will vote to protect their jobs, and so they vote to protect his interest.
The Rabel Rouser is an activist. He produces nothing except passion and discontent among the people, and he does that for money. He manipulates people to voting for his will by manipulating them to accept his positions as theirs. Once again, by the will of manipulating the mob and with social pressure, he multiplies his voting power.
The Charlatan is the con man, or the cult leader. He tricks and deceives people into giving him money and they see him as a savior. He exists to manipulate and deceive, and can trick people into reflecting his will in a voting booth; once again multiplying his power.
The entire concept is about removing dependency, because slaves vote for their masters. The man of the house votes, not because women or children shouldn't be represented or are stupid, but because he is the only true arbiter of the family, and is the only person who is genuinely independent. The property owner only votes where he lives, and only votes in his community. He doesn't vote for higher positions than his own, directly invested environment.
The value of a republican system is that it builds strata upon strata. What should happen is that the individuals vote for their village. The villages vote for the county. The counties vote for the state. The states vote for the country. The number of voters is very small, but it means that it is very accountable. 85 million votes for president diffuses responsibility, but 300 makes it nearly impossible to miscount or corrupt, especially if those final electors are chosen one strata at a time.
The system actually makes a lot of sense, because you basically never have a situation where more than a thousand people are voting in one particular strata, and everyone is only responsible for what is directly in front of them. Intriguingly, it's quite similar to how you might write good code for a program. Each method preforms specific tasks, and hides specific data within itself, and only focuses on the one function it's supposed to do; but it is part of a much larger system where this one level of scope is repeated dozens of times to make a complex final structure.
Blackstone said that allowing non-property owners and non-residents the right to vote would beget tyranny, and I can't help but think he's absolutely right. I'm actually much more comfortable with the idea of small towns banning Walmart, because if the economy becomes dominated by Walmart, the way that voting is set up: you won't get a population of 100 voters who are community members, you'll just get 100 employees who will vote for whatever Walmart wants. And Walmart isn't even a person, but a legal fiction, a corporate entity. There's no accountability for anything.
Now when you look at the fact that every action the Left has taken has been to make as many voters as humanly possible, and broaden the voting scope as much as possible to all levesl, and they want to abolish the electoral college; you can see the incredible danger in "Democracy" that Blackstone was warning about.
I don't believe you.