Canada is just weird. EVERY other western country (I can't include Australia and New Zealand in this as not kept up to date on their elections) is by now either swaying to voting for common sense even with establishment resistance or a complete rejection.
Canada put the pedal to the metal off the cliff even if it is just a slim majority. I honestly think it's too late for them and you're only options are flee Canada or a province breaks off and goes independent as there's too many retards that pay taxes to have taxpayer voting only make the difference.
I can't include Australia and New Zealand in this as not kept up to date on their elections
At least from what I gathered by Australian sources I trust, they did reelect their Labour left-wing government just a few days ago. But it is harder to say what kind of trend it lends to because that government had only been in power for 3 years, and the guy running against him for the Liberal (their conservative) Party was a wet rag who was barely any different from the Labour option and seemed more concerned about not offending people than actually spelling out a difference in policy.
So they could very well be as cucked as Canada, but it is hard to get a read at the moment.
I suspect you could fix all of this by simply tying votes to tax receipts, with only those who are net taxpayers being given the franchise in any given election. At a stroke this would disenfranchise the welfare underclass, government bureaucrats, and university students, all of whom should be prohibited from voting as a matter of principle. If you wanted to be really fancy, you could implement a tax-weighted vote: the more taxes you pay, the more your vote counts.
Isn't Citizens United essentially what the author from the Substack is describing here?
That really fixed things south of the border, didn't it?
I know there's some precedent in the Founding Fathers vision of voting rights only being bequeathed to White male landowners.
But "Money = Votes" may shut out the parasitic liberal class, but also newly disenfranchises your average centrist and right-leaning wagie in different ways.
I would say having to be a net tax payer should be a requirement, but a tax weighted vote would be disastrous, as it would only further cement the influence of billionaires.
I wish we would go to a "merit=votes" system. Everybody can have one vote as a sop to the universal suffrage crowd, but it goes up from there. Graduated high school? +1. Served in the military/Peace Corps/Americorps? +1. Net tax payer? +1. Pick whatever indicators you like for being a "good citizen" and productive member of society and assigned bonus votes to them.
In a scenario like that, someone rich like Bill Gates would get the extra vote for being a taxpayer, but he never served in the military and quit college before graduating, so he'd lose those sorts of votes. The goal would be to concentrate the maximum amount of votes in middle class taxpayers (both an absolute numbers and in votes per person), leaving predatory rich people and welfare parasites both unable to muster enough votes to be a deciding force in an election.
Canada is just weird. EVERY other western country (I can't include Australia and New Zealand in this as not kept up to date on their elections) is by now either swaying to voting for common sense even with establishment resistance or a complete rejection.
Canada put the pedal to the metal off the cliff even if it is just a slim majority. I honestly think it's too late for them and you're only options are flee Canada or a province breaks off and goes independent as there's too many retards that pay taxes to have taxpayer voting only make the difference.
At least from what I gathered by Australian sources I trust, they did reelect their Labour left-wing government just a few days ago. But it is harder to say what kind of trend it lends to because that government had only been in power for 3 years, and the guy running against him for the Liberal (their conservative) Party was a wet rag who was barely any different from the Labour option and seemed more concerned about not offending people than actually spelling out a difference in policy.
So they could very well be as cucked as Canada, but it is hard to get a read at the moment.
And they have preferential voting and MANDATORY voting too so that changes things.
Nothing says "Democracy" like being threatened with fines for not participating in the fake and ghey humiliation ritual every 4 years.
Isn't Citizens United essentially what the author from the Substack is describing here?
That really fixed things south of the border, didn't it?
I know there's some precedent in the Founding Fathers vision of voting rights only being bequeathed to White male landowners.
But "Money = Votes" may shut out the parasitic liberal class, but also newly disenfranchises your average centrist and right-leaning wagie in different ways.
I would say having to be a net tax payer should be a requirement, but a tax weighted vote would be disastrous, as it would only further cement the influence of billionaires.
I wish we would go to a "merit=votes" system. Everybody can have one vote as a sop to the universal suffrage crowd, but it goes up from there. Graduated high school? +1. Served in the military/Peace Corps/Americorps? +1. Net tax payer? +1. Pick whatever indicators you like for being a "good citizen" and productive member of society and assigned bonus votes to them.
In a scenario like that, someone rich like Bill Gates would get the extra vote for being a taxpayer, but he never served in the military and quit college before graduating, so he'd lose those sorts of votes. The goal would be to concentrate the maximum amount of votes in middle class taxpayers (both an absolute numbers and in votes per person), leaving predatory rich people and welfare parasites both unable to muster enough votes to be a deciding force in an election.