The Right to vote should only belong to persons who have all the following requirements:
-people with the nationality
-minimum 25 years old
-no convictions
-married
-male
-pledge of loyalty and patriotism under oath
-honorably served a year in the military conscription
-registration and voter ID
find any fault
You should not be allowed to vote if you don't pay taxes.
replace conscription with taxpayer
remove marriage as a requirement so that people don't marry early in order to be able to vote (and thus causing more ruined childhoods)
Stricter citizenship is always a good thing.
>military conscription
Ehhhhhh
Idk, that could take a lot of good honest guys out of the workforce, unless it was implemented in highschool.
What is the point of voting anyway?
>he still believes in democracy
You think your restrictions will save you, but they won't.
This way you would only vote for parties which will lowet taxes, even if this is not a good idea.
My suggestions is
>min. 21 Years of age
>no felony
>full cititzenship
>voting only possible with Ballot and Photo ID
>have to accept and honor the country and democracy
Why? Because these people may not vote the way you do?
Kill yourself
Honestly, why have voting in place at all? Just so you can enforce your opinions on others? It's inherently unethical and breeds devision.
I'd remove the military conscription requirement, and add a minimum of 100 IQ.
As society progressed, though, the IQ threshold would increase to match the increase on average IQ as well
This. Monarchy or bust.
good point. My idea would be that indeed, high school would be followed with a year of mandatory military service
It's a great idea if your country has no foreign policy commitments whatsoever, like Switzerland or Finland or Austria.
If you actually plan on doing anything with it, or have a country with a population larger than sixty, it's somewhat more problematic.
In my opinion, only those who have served in the protection of the country should have the right to decide what policies the country has.
yea, obviously this would only work in an ethnoationalist country free from foreign treaties, organisations,...
>prove ancestry back to the country you want to vote in for at least 500 years
>be male
>worked at some point
>25 and over
Sorted.
So if I spend a year stripping radios and shoveling gravel I get to vote, because I now have an excellent idea of how the policies of the nation work?
Conscription has its uses but acquiring voting rights isn't one of them. I spent 12 years in the British Army and conscription would have made it immensely more difficult for me.
I would think that marriage would be a good requirement, because it shows you have stability, can provide, and likely will have children for the nation.
And I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who has my listed requirements and who would not be a tax payer
>This way you would only vote for parties which will lowet taxes
Which is why you need to make it "is a net payer" and not "is a tax payer". That way, if they lower the taxes, they lose the vote.
>married
>25 years of age
Looks like 99% of Sup Forums isn't gonna be able to vote
yea, obviously the nationality requirement should be understood as much much more strict than nowadays, best thing you could do is having to show a family tree of atleast ten generations of nationality or something like that. And ethnic/racial requirements tied to nationality.
No but I would think you should serve in the military regardless, mandatory conscription the year after high school. Obviously that stands apart from the professional military. Ideally after that year of conscription the ones who do not join the military for profession would be enlisted in a sort of national guard reserve
Permanently disenfranchising people for any conviction would only work in an already perfect society. I don't think it has any place in democracy. Most states only disenfranchise convicts for felonies temporarily.
>only abbos and injuns are allowed to vote in the americas and australia
Good. Your place isn't there.
Marriage doesn't mean anything anymore, i can already picture the dirty liberals signing marriage agreements to go vote for welfare money
why are you trying to take away trumps right to vote?
Totally this. Based OP.
yea obviously , I was just doing a bit of thinking. Marriage should be the cornerstone of a healthy society, led by a pater familias who has the right to vote. But that is just wishful thinking.
remove military requirement and add landowning requirement.
Very good point..
I don't disenfranchise people for their conviction? If you talk about my requirement of an oath of loyalty and patriotism, that is only logical and should not be seen as censorship. It is an Insurance that self hating losers and globalists don't squander nation sovereighnty.
Requirements to vote:
-white
-male
-heterosexual
-height above 5,11
-knowledge of memes
-does not use reddit, tumblr or facebook
Oh just saw that I forgot landowner requirement. Obviously that one should be included. I forgot to add it. thanks
Why no military requirement? In my opinion only those that have shown they are ready to defend the nation and have been under arms in their conscription should have the right to vote
>gays can vote
>OP is gay
>pledge of loyalty and patriotism under oath
So if you disagree with what your government is doing, you can't vote?
Case in point
>Elect "STRONK" leader
>Leader starts some stupid war that is bankrupting your country
>You don't agree
>But you pleged "Muh Loyalty"
Guess you're shit out of luck for voting. Maybe if you protest you get arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct, DING now you can't vote ever again because of your record.
Your ideas are basically shit OP.
Loyalty to the nation, not to the government m8.and certainly not to a leader/head of state
right to protest should be included in the bill of rights under free speech.
try again
Raise to age to 35.
Married men and women can vote.
Earn x amount
And have a certain level of education.
I agree with the rest.
Women should be able to vote but only if they are married and have children.
homosexuality should be treated like before the 60's in Europe. I think it is pretty hard for faggots to fulfill my requirements, especially when gay unions are not recognized and faggotry is seen as disgusting
but as long as they are not encouraged, they will have no great influence as today in the western world, which is out of proportion
Just say you want to live in the starship troopers world.
>Citizen
>Civilian
isn't 35 a little too old? I think at the age of 25 men are experienced enough no?
Earn x amount seems dagerous to me because you will have a too big amount of neoconservative/capitalist/globalist/cosmopolitan voters who think of their money first and their country second
define level of education
and women right to vote I see as unnecessary. If the man, who is the head of the family (ideally) can vote, why should a woman also vote next to him?
The man's vote should be seen as a vote from that family, not just from an individual.
But if you want a woman's vote, I agree that it should only be given to elder, married women. young women voting is a recipe for leftist disaster
Sound like a good start.
>Loyalty to the nation, not to the government
Except that is an extremely subjective test. History is filled with "Traitor" to the government that were "Loyal" to the nation
hehe yea starship troopersn american revolution 1776 and ancient roman republic are sources of inspiration for this thought
"I swear that I will observe the constitution and laws of the Belgian people, preserve the country's independence and protect its territorial integrity"
something like that you know. search up "oath of office" on Wikipedia, and you will see what I mean. there is choice enough
Youre an alt right dweeb with bad options. That's the main fault.
bad options?
Signing the draft shows that.
We don't need millions more in our army. It's useless and is a waste of money. Great, we just taught these guys to be soldiers just in time for them to leave and do their real job, we sure did benefit from that move. They're clearly much more ready to vote now that they've been yelled at during basic.
And what if you're physically disabled? Or mentally disabled (to an extent)? Some of the brightest minds ever to exist had autism or even schizophrenia. "sorry, you clearly don't know whats best for the country and shouldn't have a say in it because you couldn't serve".
Marriage is equally as ridiculous. Some people are paragons of society who devote their life to great work. Now they're less incentivized to do so because you'll take away their rights. They'll just have sham marriages thus eroding the value of marriage overall.
If you're going to have proto-fascistic ideals about society then you need to actually think about what benefits society in totality, none of your reqs do that.
You should only be able to vote if you fulfill all of the following:
you are 12 foot tall
you weigh over 14000 pounds
you are directly descended from adolf hitler
Fuck that. You need the hard working dumb plebs, they're actually more based and red pilled than most people with >110 IQ liberals at college campuses and what not. Smart people have a tendency of coming up with wild impractical theories but dumb people are gritty and down to earth. We need them.
Most of the people who that haven't visited Sup Forums who hold Sup Forums beliefs probably have less than 100 IQ.
What about a couple years in the reserves
Doesn't that only require a weekend a month or something?
>you are 12 foot tall
>you weigh over 14000 pounds
>you are directly descended from adolf hitler
wtf that's literally me