What if people were only allowed to vote on issues they were qualified in?

i.e. economists voting on economic issues, farmers voting on agricultural issues, etc. Different interest groups could vote on issues which indirectly related to them and compromise to create legislation, which would prevent groups just voting themselves power/funding.

It would be even worse than the horror story that is working in academia and listening to these outright morons spout off just because they played the game to get letters after their name.

What about the young and unemployed?

What election issues involve graphic design?

Fields like economics are a joke because you have hundreds of retards who create economic systems and theories and claim theirs is the right one

>Unlimited growth on a finite planet wow why didn't I think of that.

That would be racist and sexist

People would try to take other peoples rights away....like what a women can and can't do ith her pussy.....pussy-control is the ultimate act of ower

Unemployment

I'm pretty sure getting to decide what sort of aesthetic guidelines need to be followed by any local businesses sounds like a pretty good hook for people like us.

That's called the free market.

>not using rare pepes to channel chaos magic into swinging elections

The only thing worse than economists making up bullshit is ignorant retards on the internet pretending they know anything about the subject.

And it's just a coincidence that so many experts and academics would also turn out to be Jews then? Fuck off Shlomo.

They probably wouldn't get much of a say unless they could prove their expertise, knowledge, or merit in something via passing something like a specific knowledge, IQ, skills, etc. test.
It'd probably be part of some specific technological faction/syndicate. The thing is people would also be voting on issues that indirectly affected them, which means that people would be voting on a lot of things they wouldn't expect, like you could possibly be doing something related to advertising research. Theoretically anybody could or should be able to educate themselves on economic, political, technological, etc. issues to pass a test or entrance exam into different specific fields by having enough knowledge in order to vote on the matter.

I know the basic systems were designed for unlimited growth.

>They probably wouldn't get much of a say unless they could prove their expertise, knowledge, or merit in something via passing something like a specific knowledge, IQ, skills, etc. test.

Why?
Being old isn't a skill.

What? What about what I said implies old people would get some special right to vote?

He's a Malthusian -- the type you get when you invite only the """qualified""" to vote.

Wouldn't work because the impact of each topic isn't isolated to that field. Specialists don't tend to be particularly pragmatic people.

Being smart doesn't make you good. Unfortunately being intelligent makes you better at lying to yourself; try being intelligent and having a personality disorder. You'd be completely fucked. The horrors of the Soviet Union were perpetrated by smart people who
>Just.
>Kept.
>Fucking.
>Lying.
Thus you always need to check in with the normies to make sure you haven't gone totally off the rails. Also it's extremely unfair to impose policies on normies without their consent. That's the entire point of a Republic

Because if we let people who took Gender Studies control our opinion on it, we'd be cucked.

No, you don't. You read it on a proto-Marxist blog.

Dumn idea, because everyone is effected by everything both directly and indirectly in govt. This is what Trump didn't realize when he made all his promises. I.e. who knew ________ could be so complicated

kek, savage

Exact same plan that Oswald Mosley had for Britain back in the day. He wanted to erase the political voting system and replace it with things like worker unions voting for their leader and what they see as best for their field of work. The idea isn't as bad as an answer to the flaws of democracy. The only thing I disagreed with fascism on is that most of it's policies were left wing. Banning import completely, controlling markets and agriculture and when you combine these things with the fascist system you're not that far away from communism.

>farmers voting on agricultural issues
Why? So they can rob the rest of the country by unaninmously supporting new farming subsidies?

make some things voted on by all?

hey, we all eat

Who gets to vote on who gets to vote about what?

>what would it be like if you never got to vote on anything

Not good I guess

Like I said,
> Different interest groups could vote on issues related to them and compromise to create legislation, which would prevent groups just voting themselves power/funding.
Farmers would be compromising/vying for funding with every other interest group.

So idiots who don't own any guns wouldn't be allowed to vote on gun control?

YES FINALLY

me

People who don't know anything about something shouldn't be voting on that thing, they should be voting on things within the domain of what they actually know about.
People on here complain about democracy all of the time and stuff like niggers getting free shit, well maybe if there were interest groups to counterbalance that then democracy wouldn't devolve to just people giving shit to their largest client bases by promising broad programs which their client base can't possibly know about beyond how it directly affects them from getting gibs.

Ancient Greeks had it right in 750BCE

Birth male only citizens. No women, no aliens, no shit cunts.

NO, all people should have 1 Vote.

A two pence hooker has enough self-preservation and common sense as a Harvard professor to vote sanely. Fuck off now.

it would turn authoritarian fast because the people controlling who gets to vote on what would become the rulers and would start doing anything to stay rulers

>BCE
>E
GET THE FUCK OUT YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST PIG

>What if people were only allowed to vote on issues they were qualified in?
then there would certainly be a lot of top down force projection to keep people from rebelling.

it would also provide an incentive to completely pervert education for political expediency

the fact is that if you can't explain in simple terms your claim, then chances are that you don't understand it yourself

The best part about BCE is it doesn't even change anything beyond some technical definition about 33 years of uncertainty or whatever it is, and "BCE" is almost like "BC."

It's so shameless, just like drawing a kikel instead of a cross at Ellis Island. It's so irrationally obvious what's going on.

Lel I just googled BCE


I always assumed it just meant Before Christ Existed.

Government would find a way to abuse that and only allow select people to vote how they want them to

Just because someone isnt qualified doesnt mean he isnt affected or doesnt have the right to vote.

For example, there is more to mining legislation than simply knowing how to mine stuff. You need to take enviromental aspects into consideration as well

since when does before common era make someone a commie

cmon man stop nit picking, not all of us are christians.

It's just a designation, like metric vs. standard. What's it to you? Why do you want to take the the trouble to change it?

oh piss off, it's BC and that's all there is to it.

I'm completely triggered by your claim that not all of us are christians. stop your hate speech.

>implying you have to become a Viking every Woden's Day, Thor's Day and Frey's Day

Then the education system controls the way everyone will vote. We all know how thats controlled by the marxists and jews.

So true.

That's why they've been targeting free speech. It threatens their chokehold on the minds of the youth.

I've been advocating this for years. Liberal bourgeois democracy is a sham.