Should families (a married man, woman, and at least one child) vote instead of individuals?

Should families (a married man, woman, and at least one child) vote instead of individuals?

Other urls found in this thread:

pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph59dabc06740eb
npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/05/492748832/conservative-icon-phyllis-schlafly-dies-at-92
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Nah. Only those who served the nation can vote


pornhub.com/view_video.php?viewkey=ph59dabc06740eb

Only landowners should vote.

Yes.
This ends individualism. No more 'vote for me I'm a woman!!' stuff. You vote for what's best for you and the family instead of just yourself.
Also women make way better choices with men around

No because then I would never get to vote.
I can accept this. I plan on owning a home at some point.

this is reasonable..

would make places like nyc and san fran where everyone rents totally irrelevant.

Yes, one vote per family, like it used to be.

Why not both?

No.
Aside from voting itself already being an awful Idea, giving voting rights only to a percentage of your population is even worse.
It really is one of the dumbest Ideas out there, completely insane.

I agree, let the rich Jews get even more power, what could possibly go wrong here?

>implying the homeless have any power to begin with
nice try. you don't have to sell to him and he only gets one vote regardless.

1 vote for anybody with a documented IQ above 110

Taxpayers should, the landowning idea came at a time where people had property taxes and there was no income tax but the tax system has changed today and living arrangements have changed a lot too with many more people renting in the city than owning a farm on the countryside. Also it could easily be circumvented by people buying up 1 square meter of land, people do that to get titles today.

>>implying the homeless have any power to begin with
It is not about the "homeless" it is about that most people RENT their apartments.
Most whites are NOT land owners and you would get a huge increase in the Jewish voting power.

It is a completely retarded Idea, even worse then democracy.

Idiotic idea, democracy is already bad enough, you don't have to make it even worse.

I like the idea of it promoting a family but I imagine fraud would be so rampant just because voting is so important to people they'll fake a marriage for it. Marriage fraud for the tax cuts is already happening. Something tells me people would view the right to vote as more valuable than tax cuts. Not only would marriage fraud increase but that means all those fraud cases will involve voter fraud as well.

This sounds like a huge fucking hassle for all the investigations people will be doing.

If you don't advocate for democracy in even a limited sense (i.e. a limited franchise or Mosley- or Strasser- style industrial/syndicate estate program/system) what do you actually advocate for, meritocratic oligarchy? Monarchy? Fuhrerprinzip?

Anyone can vote, but your vote's weight is proportional to how much the government nets off of you. If you are a net cost to the government (NEET faggots), your vote's weight will be zero and will continue to be zero until you pay off your cumulative net cost.

How about no one votes because democracy is a failure.

This could incite a class war as dumb people are more likely to be poor and there are just so many more of them. Then for all we know all those retards will win and kill all the people who were oppressing them. Now there are no people left with an IQ of 110 except the poorfag ones (assuming they're spared.)

It would double as a voter ID law, as you would have to present your marriage certificate at the polls.

It really does not matter so much (I am not delusional), but I would prefer a monarchy or some form of small elite ruling the country.
You correctly identified the problem with democracy that stupid people are allowed to vote, who then vote for stupid Ideas which they really do not understand.
But the solution really can not be to restrict voting to a very large group of "smart" people, you still have the same problems, since even 110+ IQ are mostly fucking retarded and have no understanding of economic, foreign politics or anything else and those who do (eg. the economists) are a small minority even in the 110+ IQ people.

yes
I unironically believe voting should be delegated to nuclear families, because they have the future (their children) in mind

Yeah but wouldn't marriage fraud increase which would make voter fraud increase? Then actually having to investigate that shit if the validity of the votes ever come into question or not. Sounds like a bitch. Also sounds like an attack on marriage could be made and people would cry they're doing it because voter fraud. You might as well just take away women's rights to vote. It would be so much fucking simpler.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fraud". Do you mean just people getting married for the sake of it? Well, guess what, that just happens already. Voter fraud happens because we do not have an adequate system to ensure each person votes only once. I would assume this new voting arrangement would entail some system to match up marriage certificates with votes.

The main thing this fixes is that you cannot pit man against woman at the polls, because you need both man and woman to agree to vote for you, or at the very least, you cannot trick a woman into voting against her husband's interests.

>You might as well just take away women's rights to vote. It would be so much fucking simpler.
This is not politically palatable, and its transparent in its aims, the idea of making voting a thing for families at least has the facade of "family values".

What do you think of Mosley's technocratic-esque idea of industrial syndicates running a country/making laws?
It would ensure that people who actually knew what they were doing or had expertise within a specific domain could write policy, govern, have influence, etc. within that domain (i.e.doctors and consumer agencies making health laws, economists dictating economic policy along with other groups like labor, etc.)

Yes I know it already happens for tax cuts, but it will entice more people to just not get divorced after having a kid. You know there are plenty of leftists out there who would have kids and get married just to abuse the vote. I'm sure there would be the same on the right, just far less of it. So you'd be having to not only investigate the marriage fraud but that automatically means marriage fraud would be voter fraud. I'm just saying that sounds like a shitload of work to prove if it's voter fraud as you'd have to prove the marriage was a fraud.

That's what I meant about removing women's rights would be easier because all the fucking red tape. I don't mean it would be easier to push in society. But I guess that's a moot point if the reasoning behind it is to advocate family.

I don't know what line of work you've found yourself in, but in mine, we have a saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good". Yes, your solution would actually fix a lot of problems, but it would be next to impossible to implement without armed revolution, and the backlash would possibly be worse than the situation we find ourselves in now.

Instead, I propose a simple revision to the law which would accomplish 90% of the same things. Yes, it has its flaws, but it actually has a snowball's chance in hell of actually happening.

Finally, your suggestion doesn't cover the case of the unmarried, do-nothing male who votes against his own interest to virtue signal, mine does, at least by half.

It should stay the same but democracy should become "participative" i.e. if 10k people vote for a dude, he should get a spot in the "Senate" or "Assembly" to decide the laws. There should be no president.

I mean I completely agree I was just imaging some implications it could bring. The whole comment about it being easier to remove a woman's right to vote was not meant to be taken literally. It was just myself trying to explain what I meant. Maybe I went too far in trying to explain a hypothetical situation. Which obviously had the opposite effect so I shouldn't have even said it.

I've literally been up for 66 hours. I'm not the in the clearest mental state.

Just saw a couple instagram posts about friends engagements. They've literally been only dating a year and others maybe 2yr at most? Is this normal? I don't even really trust a woman at 6months dating let alone consider engaged? Am I backwards here?

Its always been a thing but it has certainly became more normalized. Back in the day most of people would think you're crazy and rushing.

Just ask Taiwanese people what they think.

Only property owners

No as men who are unmarried still can earn their right to vote (aka by paying taxes, by being responsible for their actions and by military service).

You cannot just reject a single war vet from voting because he is not married because having his legs blown off really adds to his SMV

>only rich kikes and whites living in disconnected, gated communities should vote

Honestly, I think it should be any American citizen with a job who pays taxes should be the only ones to vote. Fuck the welfare rat queens (of all races) and their brood, manchildren living in their parent's basement, those on disability, and any border hopping illegal scum. My tax dollars shouldn't go to fund these drains on society.

No, voting rights should be limited by the citizens tax balance - only those in black numbers should vote.

>voting
how about no

>muh fairness
What's fair or just doesn't matter. We need to create a political system which will be stable, promote right-wing politics organically, and fosters beneficial values. Sure, it sucks for the vet, but it's better for the country if he can't vote. Keeping the vote behind a family means a direct promotion of family. Also it would ensure right-wingers dominate all levels of government forever. Fairness only matters in legitimizing the political process in the eyes of the masses.

The only issue is mechanically deciding how a family vote is distributed. There's only 2 people and it could be easy for them to disagree. If we could sort that out, this idea might work.

You must be terrible at math if you think that's not the best option. Kikes immediately outvoted. You know they need the niggers and the spics to vote, right? Or is this your first day thinking about politics

>No because then I would never get to vote.
Single female, childless Boomer and welfare trash logic.

Heads of household should vote. Back in the day owning land meant you were a dad.

>those on disability
Even if they paid into disability for 50 years? I gotta say taking away their right to vote because they got crippled when a dindu shanked them in the spine is pretty fucked up. I'll just assume you didn't actually mean all disabled people. But "disabled" people, like Autists and fat fucks then absolutely. I also feel if you truly don't have the ability to work then there should be another way to prove your worth and earn your right to vote. Even if it means you do community service or something instead.

How do you differentiate the involuntarily disabled from pill popping Boomer trash?

should lefty pol be buried neck deep and ran over with lawn mowers?

Some 18 year old shithead should get the same vote as a plumber who owns his own business and is supporting 5 kids?

Only white landowners should vote.

Half of niggers are too lazy to get off their asses to vote. I really doubt people would enter a sham marriage to vote in any significant number

>What's fair or just doesn't matter
That is what a woman's bases her shit on as male morality is fair in its nature.
> promote right-wing politics organically, and fosters beneficial values.
No we need a system which promotes libertarian values over all rather then just right wing values. Individual freedom is what matters most in a society.
>Sure, it sucks for the vet, but it's better for the country if he can't vote.
Go fuck yourself as the vet clearly has shown he deserved the right to vote by joining the army and fighting in combat.
>The only issue is mechanically deciding how a family vote is distributed. There's only 2 people and it could be easy for them to disagree. If we could sort that out, this idea might work.
Fine the man is the one who votes and the woman gets no control over it.

Only whites should be allowed to own land. Only landowners should be allowed to vote

This.

It used to be only property owners, but I think this is a good compromise. Unfortunately it will never pass because of all the black, who will remain forevermore the lowest number of property owners, and thus this will always be shot down as being racist.

Taxpaying men only

>There's only 2 people and it could be easy for them to disagree.
If a woman marries a man and disagrees with his politics, obviously she doesn't care that much so fuck her opinion

Women obviously should not be allowed to vote

>Go fuck yourself as the vet clearly has shown he deserved the right to vote by joining the army and fighting in combat.
Alot of people join for gibs
Many don't see combat

One of the biggest political mistakes leading towards out current degenerate state of affairs was giving women the right to vote.

Devils advocate

70 year old woman with 16 grandkids, recently widowed, living on her husband's savings. No vote?

No vote

No vote

Voting "rights" were expanded long before women voted. Started with lowering land requirements, then finally abolishing them. Then the nigger vote.

So she gets no representation because her husband died?

>Some 18 year old shithead should get the same vote as a plumber who owns his own business and is supporting 5 kids?
As long as it is a man it deserves the right to vote. A man does not need a wife and a family to vote as a man already will pay the bulk of taxes and be responsible when it comes to hte law (meaning if he breaks it the courts will not cuck out on him and he will serve his sentence).
No vote as the bitch clearly did not deserve the right in the marriage.

No she never got representation because she's a woman

So only top 7%.

Taxpaying, intelligent, and knowledgeable about country and politics. Being on welfare in any form (sans military) bars you from voting. The taxpaying condition can be waived for veterans and the elderly (provided they paid taxes in the past).

Politicians aren't allowed to vote.

Banning the rights of some just to make sure you ban the the right people isn't the best ideology to have in my opinion. Because everyone will know that there are these people who got their rights revoked "just in case" and a true American would not be happy about that. What's to stop it from happening to them one day? But obviously serious medical proof and no longer classify certain things as disabilities. But if a doctor can prove that you really are a fat fuck for real uncontrollable physical reasons, and it makes you unable to work, you should still be able to vote. But if you're a fat fuck due to depression that would not qualify. Also regular reviews every few years or so, I guess.

>Many don't see combat
And many of those are getting ratings from the va at over 50%. Maybe some legitimate injuries but others you just know are cashing in on "I'm a veteran"

She was represented by her husband who loved her and voted in the best interest of the family unit because he was a patriarch

Unfortunately true. Honestly, I don't have problem with women voting in such case. Main point is that people must have some form of a stake in the country (tax investment in this case) in order to make a good judgement while casting a vote.

Considering the current state of home ownership and how common renting is, is land ownership still be a viable necessity for voting?

>A man does not need a wife and a family to vote as a man already will pay the bulk of taxes and be responsible when it comes to hte law
Men as a group do pay net taxes, however there are plenty of INDIVIDUALS who are lazy NEETs and/or disability/welfare/criminal trash

The money maker should vote.

You bring up a fair point. I was referring more to those who are mentally handicapped or falsely claim disability to not work. I guess one exception could by made for retirees who paid into the system for 50+.

That's funny, i was thinking about this recently.

IMO, women not having the right to vote is an injustice
Our solution to this injustice, giving them the vote, was the wrong solution.
The right solution would be to give them equal voting rights through giving voting rights only to families.

Society is a continuous being. The individual is not. The family is. An individual lives from birth to death. The family lived when the individual was born and continues after the individual dies, but only provided the individual reproduces. The nonreproductive individual should not have a say in the future of society. His interests lay in maximizing his comfort during his lifetime. These interests lay opposed to the interests of society.

>Politicians aren't allowed to vote.
I don't think anybody who draws a check from the government should vote, especially people in unions

In Ontario the worthless teachers block vote in a corrupt lesbian witch the vast majority of voters hate. If you're in the executive branch of the gov you already have enough government power on your side

>intelligent, and knowledgeable about country and politics
This is stupid how are you going to judge this? How are you going to keep your judgement process from being subverted? Land ownership is the only reasonable answer.
His vote had nothing to do with her thoughts or opinions on politics. He voted based on his own ideas and understanding.

I agree but when I see how far the left will go to shill, to the point of saying things they don't even believe for no other reason than to fuck with the right, makes me believe they'll stoop to fucking anything. Especially if it awards them brownie points. The left already encourages voter fraud. The thought of that it would seriously happen is hilarious. Some lefties would be brainwashed into having a family, just to push the leftish agenda.

Should be replaced by paying net taxes desu

A test of course

How are you going to keep your judgement process from being subverted? The test is stupid because it can be manipulated in such a way that only those who would vote a certain way would pass

Only Protestant Anglos should be allowed to vote

good post, Colgate

>His vote had nothing to do with her thoughts or opinions on politics. He voted based on his own ideas and understanding.
Almost no marriages work like that, and even if that were the case, the husband still voted in her general interest. For example, there's no way he would have voted to decriminalize rape

How would you even implement this? What about sterile people? This would increase adoption rates, which is no good. Orphans should be euthanized if they are orphaned before age 10.

Only business owners should be allowed to vote

So basically all right wing women, who constitute almost 50% of women, are immediately disqualified from voting while single left wing cunts continue voting

You're missing the point. The woman is incapable of making a decision that should be considered at the ballot box. Women can, will, and have voted directly against their own interest. No matter how many children she has she will never have the mental capacity necessary for a voting citizen

When you discuss policies that involve collectives, I.e. Men as a whole, women as a whole, your individual examples of NEETs and criminals are irrelevant.

100% agree with this. This was basically the system we used to have. The problem isn't the female vote, it's the single childless vote.

Childless Boomer couples shouldn't be voting. Of course they will vote to rob your kids for their benefits.

Women hating NEET whiners who can't attract a wife and sit on the internet all day bitching about women shouldn't vote. They're evolutionary dead branches. Fuck them

Please tell me how this will not lead to a population of castrated slaves working to support a few families?

Why?

100% of women are politically incompetent
100% of men are politically competent

?

>100% of women are politically incompetent
Yes
>100% of men are politically competent
51% of land owning white men.

>cant start my own family because im autistic beta faggot
>government punishes me for my misery and takes away my right to vote

t-thats not fair.

>How are you going to keep your judgement process from being subverted?
Continuous surveillance by involved and interested voters

>Orphans should be euthanized if they are orphaned before age 10.

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/05/492748832/conservative-icon-phyllis-schlafly-dies-at-92

This woman is politically incompetent?

Voting rights for tax paying men only.
Women do not care about anything other than feels and gibs.
If you don't pay taxes, you should not be allowed to decide how they are spent.

I would vote against such a statist approach because it appears riddled with vulnerabilities from the ground to the top. As an example, the glaring hole that doesn't guarantee the test isn't subverted the moment it is created.
Are you trying to cherry pick a single case to prove a point? If so have you read the sticky? If so why are you cherry picking a single person in an attempt to provide an argument?

To answer OP, ABSOLUTELY 100% YES YES YES

While I doubt this will happen in our lifetimes it is clear one vote per family is the only way to run a long term society.