would you be in favour of a family based voting system?
>marry
>get a kid
>get a vote
I see women's right to vote getting a lot of flack and I agree that it is used just to drive a wedge between the genders. I believe the best idea is to not make the individual but the family the smallest political unit.
No more political parties. Absolute freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and plebiscites when possible on critical longterm issues.
...
If men can vote women must be able to vote and have their vote counted equally. Voting disrupts social order and divides the country, it should only be done for symbolic purposes or for critical issues.
Trash idea. Plebascites would clog up the system something awful, a dozen people can't decide on where to go out to dinner let alone constitutional revision.
I'd never be in favor of a family based system because it'd be skewed in really awful ways.
Like people could rationalize that if the husband of the house dies then the family no longer gets a vote.
More so how to define a family is also an odd thing because we have to take into account do adopted kids count? Is the legal voting age still 18 even though the marriage age can be as low as 14? Can infertile people simply not vote because they can't have kids? What if the parents disagree with who to vote for, does their vote even count? Can you run for office if you have no family? When your kids get old and leave your family unit can you still vote? Does this family rule carry to all levels of governance or just The Presidency, which mind you is voted on by an electoral college and not citizens directly?
No thats fucking retarded, the only people who should vote are land owners not parents. only people with a stake in the country(hold deeds to land) should get to vote.
>Voting disrupts social order and divides the country, it should only be done for symbolic purposes or for critical issues
Goddamn, that's dumb.
You's a dumb motherfucker.
Plebiscites only on critical issues. Such as your 1965 immigration bill, the patriot act, the wallstreet bailouts, etc. Day to day running of government should be done by a capable group of people selected on merit. Essentially how every single modern military is run.
not with family voting. that would ensure that genders cant be played against each other and that only people with an interest in the future (kids) have a say.
I dont say it simple but I would bet that it would be better for the country at large.
I even would put min age at 35. in the core it's about not allowing to play man against women and only people with stake in the future should vote.
19th century called.
It would be a much better and tested system then a fucked up family based system that would only benefit immigrants.
great idea when selling land to foreign aliens is allowed.
>immigrants
>getting a vote
>ever
"no"
Well frankly making the age 35 would skew the votes towards conservative so hard we'd likely never need another election outside of the primaries again.
5/8 Americans are born to non-Europeans, your entire government is dominated by kikes, and you have to borrow half a trillion every single year just to keep society from falling apart. You send more interest money to China every year than they spend on their entire armed forces annually.
All of these problems are caused by political parties that divide the nation against each other on small issues while being corrupted to all support the big issues that threaten the nation. You're a dumb motherfucker.
maybe. but I dont see people below around that age generally as adults. wasnt different in many cultures like the romans.
if you want to stop immigrants from getting a vote then a family based system won't work either, immigrants are the ones having all the children in the west, well them and niggers.
If you had a one party government, instead of a two party government, America would probably be 99% European and nigger free. You'd surely already have a Mars base by now.
that's an easy fix. people WANT to get married and have a family. switch the propaganda to pro family and that single provider works again.
Well then at the moment we send many non-adults to war. Would you then be insisting that the age of service be updated to 35 as well?
Not to mention life expectancy was 40-50 in Rome and you could join the army as low as 16.
dying for the jews isnt service. in my opinion to be part of the defence of your homeland in young adult life (18- ca. 30) is a pre requisite for voting right later.
bad idea in a interventionist country of course.
You cant just say "single provider works again guys" when our economies have taken such a huge turn and have become reliant on women working and paying taxes and buying shit.
>Would you be in favour of giving up your right to vote
No.
>Want to be politically active
>Join the military so you can vote
>Die
>Never get to vote
Your system sucks.
so get married and have kids
there are trillions ready for all kinds of low iq apes running into our countries. I bet we could have used that money for tax cuts for families with children
One vote per family unit is a fundamentally good idea. Dividing votes between man and woman only serve to drive further wedges in the societal foundations.
when your country is being attacked then you cant vote anyway, you dingus
We could have but we didn't and that money is long gone, either the vote would be dominated by blacks and immigrants or the economy would take a nose dive so fast people would elect someone to change the system back to what it was.
Should be based on service, but not only military service. People who can't fight and also those who can't have kids can still be valuable members of society and should do some service to it and then get a vote. Families get a shared vote which should count for more than 2 individual votes.
fuck it, who are we kidding, democracy will never work
so, let's call it a post-nigger utopia
So taking away voting rights will lead to less corruption? Am I understanding that correctly?
Again, that just sounds insanely stupid. Installing a dictatorship defeats the entire purpose of why this country was founded.
America has always had elections during war time, boy.
Soldiers even voted absentee in WW2.
I don't give half a shit about the cause of any past wars, but the fact is that in future wars if we have people being cucked out of their voting rights by a bunch people that already served before them, possibly during peace times, and all the while these younger soldiers have NO ability to vote on who they want to lead them in the next coming years of the war then you can take your powerhouse state worshiping beliefs and shove them right up your ass.
I don't know what kind of self-blinded world view you've convinced yourself is right, but this is America, and in America if you can die for your country then you better be able to have a say in who's going to be giving a speech at your war memorial.
>50%
What are you quoting, friend?
percentage of whites left in MURRIKA. enjoy your minority status and getting run by jews and spics. but hey doing something against this is [insert hamfisted patriotic speech about dying for the jews]
What a stupid idea.
Here's how it should be: do you pay taxes? Then you get a say in how they're spent, i.e. a vote. Don't pay taxes? Then you can fuck off, come back when you're of use to society.
Done.
civic nationalists are the worst
No, because 99% of Sup Forumsacks would have no right to vote.
My opinion on the matter:
1) minimum voting age - 25
2) you can't vote if you don't have work, if you're "freelancer" you should go through a process of validating of the fact that you're working to get a document that allows you to vote. Basically you need to present all documentory on you income for the last year till one month before voting.
3) if you're married and have at least one kid (adopted kids count) your family has a right to vote (as one).
Basically only people that look into the future that is deeply connected to their present should be allowed to vote.
>Say that it's not right for people to go to war and not be allowed to vote.
>Starts saying Whites are a Minority.
These points aren't related.
You are not good at arguing.
so, selfish reasons and you fly the nazi flag. the irony
That's why you nazis piece of shit are the same danger as commies. I will be happy to to give you helicopter ride just after your local antifa members.
*threads on you*
im okay with this.
>tfw Nazi Trolls use the same argumentation tactics as Muslim Trolls.
>it's ok to die for the jews as long I can vote for shillary or drumpf
well ok
only good post itt
no, I'm for. system where only people paying tax can vote, so the whites can decide where there votes go.
>Actually thinking Jew Conspiracies are more important than voting rights.
Okay then, user.
What people should have to do is pass a test in order to gain the right to vote. That would stop all the retards from voting.
I rephrase it for you: if the illusion of a say is enough to go and die for the jews then ok.
you just lower the voting pool but the same problem persist
>the illusion of a say
What did he mean by this?
You realize most people with kids these days are non-whites, correct?
You would essentially be handing over the country to spics and niggers.
immigrants should never be allowed to vote. they are always act as a fifth column. that just how it is.
>Obviously a woman
No
Only property and business owners should be allowed to vote.
>introduce family voting
>become a caliphate within 3 Muslim generations (around 50 years)
>putting the county in the hands of the Jew
>he doesn't venerate the craftsman or the farmer
this, we gave women the right to vote and now its too late
Yes.
But the divorce laws should be reformed before.
None of this is a problem.
>Like people could rationalize that if the husband of the house dies then the family no longer gets a vote.
Noone would strip a widow from the family vote.
>Is the legal voting age still 18 even though the marriage age can be as low as 14?
Yes, why changing it ?
>Can infertile people simply not vote because they can't have kids?
They can adopt.
>What if the parents disagree with who to vote for, does their vote even count?
Literral non issue.
Couples disagree everyday about spendings, next holiday destination, how to deal with the kid's problems, etc... Then they discuss and reach an agreement about the best way to deal with the issue, if you managed to agree on life goals then there is no reason you can't agree on who you should vote.
>When your kids get old and leave your family unit can you still vote?
Yes, why wouldn't you ?
>Can you run for office if you have no family?
People with no kids often take awful decision for the country's future, see Merkel with migrants. They shouldn't be able to run.
The land owners system degenerated in ancient greece by accumulation.
Also at the era of urbanization where people are asked to have high mobility inside the country itself it's obsolete.
>Farmers can't own their land
>Craftsmen can't own their own business
Achmed stop being retarded
yes in a white country, no in a multicultural one
whites are having fewer kids and having them later in life; at this point family voting essentially just makes it harder for whites to exercise power politically
>JaMarcqualine gets 6 kids
>gets 6 votes
Wow what a BASED system what could ever go wrong
be retarded somewhere esle
>voting
it's all trash
just fucking incentivize white people having children
No.
>finish military service (prove that you are willing to defend your country)
>work and pay taxes (contribute to society instead of beeing a NEET)
>get a vote
No.
>If men can vote women must be able to vote and have their vote counted equally.
And then women voted to steal a bunch of shit from men, fuck over men in marriage, take kids away from men permanently, and pass a bunch of special rights and privileges for women at the expense of men.
Enjoy MGTOW eroding what's left of western civilization's will to fight off the islamic invasion. You caused it.
This. At the very least you should be required to be paying taxes and not receiving any sort of welfare to vote.
>falling for the family meme
Military service and IQ test before voting.
SNAP!
Anyone can be self-employed and able to vote.
>putting the cart before the horse
It'd be easier to sell this idea if you advocate suffrage for married people not one vote per family. It's too obvious that's it's essentially limited males.
*limited to
>Vote Hillary or I divorce you and take the kids!
Wow user.
>divorced
>bitch can't vote anymore
Neither can the man.
This. Otherwise you're incentivising people to marry along ideological lines and indoctrinate their kids leading to further political strife.
voting only for:
rich, white men above the age of 30
and you will have an everlasting paradise on earth
Good. He married a cunt. Sucks to be him I guess.
You are a retard, the woman is going to control the vote in the family.
First off I was arguing earlier that it would be better to give the vote to both married people separately. Second you're the retard if you think men are just gonna let themselves get walked over by women. Even with these modern betas it's the women who adapt. And if they don't the marriage wasn't gonna last anyway.
I said this in another thread when it came up, but only people who pay taxes, own property, or complete a term of service (either civilian or military) should be allowed to vote. Now this will disproportionately result in families having votes, but in general I think such a system would work to weed out a substantial majority of shit voters.
People who are too lazy to work or serve wouldn't vote, people who can't manage property wouldn't vote, and people who are either too unproductive or too greedy to contribute wouldn't vote.
Sounds good, althought having a kid shouldn't be necessity, since there can be many reasons not to be married or having a kid. Every family would get a singular vote and they had to decide what to vote among theirselves.
>reduces political ignorancy in votes.
>brings people together.
>stronger family relations
>actually get something done.
>brings people together
How does it bring the couple together if they're both quarrelling over who to vote for?
What is the point in holding elections at all?i Dignitaries would be appointed by their superiors, or in meritocratic examinations like it was in Imperial China. It is strange, that someone with nazi flag believes that any form of democracy is good.
still you forget the ethnic component.
I think its even more important than the rest. kids are the future. if you pay taxes at that moment? no one cares.
>yes a randomly picked flag does reflect 100% my opinions