# What restrictions should there be on voting



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 9, 2018)

What type of restrictions do you think there should be on voting, and who do you think should be allowed to vote. Personally I think only land owning men should vote.


----------



## Black Waltz (Oct 9, 2018)

non-whites and women shouldn't be allowed to vote


----------



## IV 445 (Oct 9, 2018)

Voter ID, bitch.


----------



## dunbrine47 (Oct 9, 2018)

No dead people, pls.


----------



## Draza (Oct 9, 2018)

IQ higher than room temperature.


----------



## SiccDicc (Oct 9, 2018)

Hortator said:


> Voter ID, bitch.


I love this video, reminds me of this video. The black people were the only sensible ones, "That's still racist, though."


Ratko_Falco said:


> IQ higher than room temperature.


Welp, I'm out.


----------



## Red Hood (Oct 9, 2018)

Voter minimum stats should be INT 8 WIS 12


----------



## CiaphasCain (Oct 9, 2018)

There shouldn't be any restrictions on who can vote.

Sorry for being boring.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 9, 2018)

STALKER said:


> There shouldn't be any restrictions on who can vote.
> 
> Sorry for being boring.


Should 6 year olds and downies vote


----------



## CiaphasCain (Oct 9, 2018)

Ron /pol/ said:


> Should 6 year olds


When I said no restrictions I meant no restrictions on people above legal voting age. If you're over 18 you can vote.


Ron /pol/ said:


> Should downies vote


Yes. Majority of the human race can be classified as "downies" by this point.


----------



## BILLY MAYS (Oct 9, 2018)

Don't drink and vote


----------



## Audit (Oct 9, 2018)

One simple rule. You can only vote for positions that you understand. If you don't know the responsibilities of a state senator, then you're not allowed to vote for one. My system has the decided advantage of affecting all populations that flunked civics class equally.


----------



## Flying_with_the_Penguins (Oct 9, 2018)

Nobody should vote because voting is gay.


----------



## From The Uncanny Valley (Oct 9, 2018)

A basic literacy test


----------



## sasazuka (Oct 9, 2018)

I don't want anyone of legal age to be banned from voting per se, but I kind of wish there was a heavy restriction on PSAs and activists encouraging people to register to vote to keep the people who aren't motivated enough to find out for themselves how to register to vote from voting.

I support the unmotivated and stupid staying home and not voting.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 9, 2018)

No women, duh. Minorities should just flat-out not be in my country.


----------



## BeanBidan (Oct 9, 2018)

You have to be able to beat Metal Slug X without losing a life and free all POWS


----------



## Ask Jeeves (Oct 9, 2018)

Voting is a violation of the NAP. Please Defoo and ask again.


----------



## Lord of the Large Pants (Oct 9, 2018)

No fat chicks.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Oct 9, 2018)

I agree with the land owning shit.


----------



## Trasha Pay That A$$ (Oct 9, 2018)

Only white males, obviously. And get all those darkies and wammens out of office stat.


----------



## dopy (Oct 9, 2018)

no hymen no vote, man


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 9, 2018)

dopy said:


> no hymen no vote, man


Lol, what a nightmare.


----------



## spurger king (Oct 9, 2018)

I'm not in favor of restrictions _per se_, but I think the process should be discouraging and painful for people who lack the qualities that a democracy requires to flourish. To that end, I propose putting the voting booths at the end of a series of obstacles designed to test for wits and physical fortitude.


----------



## Audit (Oct 9, 2018)

spurger king said:


> I'm not in favor of restrictions _per se_, but I think the process should be discouraging and painful for people who lack the qualities that a democracy requires to flourish. To that end, I propose putting the voting booths at the end of a series of obstacles designed to test for wits and physical fortitude.


So it's at the end of an ikea?


----------



## spurger king (Oct 9, 2018)

Audit_The_Autist said:


> So it's at the end of an ikea?



I was thinking a marksmanship test and 100 yard swim for starters


----------



## Audit (Oct 9, 2018)

spurger king said:


> I was thinking a marksmanship test and 100 yard swim for starters


Your country is ruled by rednecks now. I hope you're happy with your social welfare pabst blue ribbon and birth certificate .22 cal rifles.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Oct 9, 2018)

Audit_The_Autist said:


> Your country is ruled by rednecks now. I hope you're happy with your social welfare pabst blue ribbon and birth certificate .22 cal rifles.


Lol, you're a  libtard.


----------



## Rand /pol/ (Oct 9, 2018)

Audit_The_Autist said:


> Your country is ruled by rednecks now. I hope you're happy with your social welfare pabst blue ribbon and birth certificate .22 cal rifles.


A perfect America...


----------



## Káiser Futura (Oct 9, 2018)

First: eliminate the vote.
Second: establish an aristocracy.


----------



## spurger king (Oct 10, 2018)

Káiser Futura said:


> First: eliminate the vote.
> Second: establish an aristocracy.



Moldbug pls go


----------



## AnOminous (Oct 10, 2018)

Everyone should be allowed to vote but if they're goddamn tards their votes should just be ignored.


----------



## Dysnomia (Oct 10, 2018)

Dangerhairs will be turned away from the polls with extreme prejudice.


----------



## Slap47 (Oct 10, 2018)

The voting age should be reduced and the elections themselves should be changed. A proportional voting system with multiple rounds ensures that citizens end up picking a representative government.

The objective of democracy is representation, not efficiency.


----------



## drtoboggan (Oct 10, 2018)

No blacks.


----------



## This+ (Oct 10, 2018)

If you're 19 years old, not currently serving time for crimes (not in prison, not under parole or probation). Also have a valid state/federal ID of some sort to bring with you.


----------



## ZeCommissar (Oct 12, 2018)

Voting?

What the fuck?

Why vote when you can have a dictator?


----------



## SeaPancake (Oct 12, 2018)

No restrictions except age and of course citizenship.


----------



## BScCollateral (Oct 12, 2018)

Anyone who is not me should be banned from the franchise, because I am self-evidently the pinnacle of all human achievement.


----------



## Khayyam (Oct 12, 2018)

I believe in the one man, one vote system.

I am the (singular) man, and I should have the vote.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Oct 12, 2018)

Being a legal citizen of the country means you have a stake in the process as far as I'm concerned.  People have tried convincing me that only landowners/veterans/what the fuck ever protected class should have sole voting rights but that always struck me as bullshit.  If you pay taxes--and you do if you're a citizen and not a criminal--you have the right to help decide what the government can and can't do to you.  Disenfranchising felons I'm fine with because they fucked over society.  But taking that right away from say, welfare recipients is autistic as fuck.

Things like "only vote on things you understand" is totalitarian horseshit.  Not really any point in voting at all if the government can just decide you haven't watched enough Rick and Morty to tell them what to do.


----------



## Diabolical diabetic (Feb 22, 2019)

This topic emerged on the Trump derangement syndrome thread:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/trump-derangement-syndrome.25651/page-1783

Decided to make a tread here since the it seems more fitting and so that thread doesn't get too cluttered.

The basic question is "should we limit voting rights for certain people? And if yes who?"


----------



## XE 600 (Feb 22, 2019)

Yes, only straight white rich cis men should have voting rights.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Feb 22, 2019)

To vote you used to have to be a landowner.
I can't say I disagree with that.


----------



## Red Hood (Feb 22, 2019)

Service Guarantees Citizenship.

I'm doing my part!

Honestly that's not a terrible idea. Not necessarily military service, but proving you're competent and willing to put in some time doing something useful for your country.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 22, 2019)

Only people who will vote the way I do should be allowed to vote

Be honest, any attempt to restrict voting rights is really just trying to keep people who disagree with you from having a say


----------



## Providence (Feb 22, 2019)

If you are a legally citizen of this country,  and you have not forfeit your rights through violent,  felonious acts, you get to vote (currently non violent felonies also forfeit your right to vote). Retards shouldn't get to vote, and for the most part I think they don't. Only when they have a loony caregiver does it happen...I absolutely did not take my autistic brother to vote for Trump, that would be wrong.


----------



## Providence (Feb 22, 2019)

Sword Fighter Super said:


> To vote you used to have to be a landowner.
> I can't say I disagree with that.


 

You don't think the poor should have a vote? They arguably have an even bigger interest in the economy, as they're desperately trying to catch up.


----------



## Ghostse (Feb 22, 2019)

I just think that if you aren't paying taxes, you shouldn't be allowed to vote on new taxes or how collected taxes are spent. 
If you are getting more money from the system than you are putting in, you aren't a citizen you're burden.


----------



## IV 445 (Feb 22, 2019)

I’m just skimming, there’s not a lot of content to the original question.

Basically, should you have skin in the game in order to vote? Or, in other words, you need to be able to be affected by your vote in order to vote.

An example is if somebody in Spain is voting for a minister in Thailand. This does not affect the person in Spain in anyway I can think of.

But, where do we decide? You are basically afffected by your government since they protect you from God forbid China paratrooping over I-95 Red Dawn shit.

So it is in everyone’s interest to participate in politics. The guy in park avenue and the guy on the park bench have similar interests, after all.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Feb 22, 2019)

Sofonda Cox said:


> You don't think the poor should have a vote? They arguably have an even bigger interest in the economy, as they're desperately trying to catch up.


Not necessarily that they shouldn’t vote, but maybe their votes should count less? Let’s be honest here, poor people in general aren’t known for making the best decisions.


----------



## Ghostse (Feb 22, 2019)

Sword Fighter Super said:


> Not necessarily that they shouldn’t vote, but maybe their votes should count less? Let’s be honest here, poor people in general aren’t known for making the best decisions.



I definitely get where you're coming from, but you do see how this could be used to disenfranchise political opposition and/or otherwise create an aristocracy, or do you need examples?


----------



## Providence (Feb 22, 2019)

Ghostse said:


> I just think that if you aren't paying taxes, you shouldn't be allowed to vote on new taxes or how collected taxes are spent.
> If you are getting more money from the system than you are putting in, you aren't a citizen you're burden.



Citizens are a burden. That's what civil servants sign on for.  To "help" and "serve". This is very,  very rarely what they do,  and never before they line their own pockets.  Without a transparent government that is forced to account for every dime, the whole thing is a racket.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Feb 22, 2019)

Ghostse said:


> I definitely get where you're coming from, but you do see how this could be used to disenfranchise political opposition and/or otherwise create an aristocracy, or do you need examples?


No I get it, but I feel like it’s too easy to manipulate poorer people. That’s been the democratic tactic for years. No easy answer for this.


----------



## User names must be unique (Feb 22, 2019)

Maybe if you banned all lobbying or buying of influence from politics, you could create a system whereby the more tax you pay the more your vote counts.


----------



## Ghostse (Feb 22, 2019)

Sofonda Cox said:


> Citizens are a burden. That's what civil servants sign on for.  To "help" and "serve". This is very,  very rarely what they do,  and never before they line their own pockets.  Without a transparent government that is forced to account for every dime, the whole thing is a racket.



No you SSI collecting leech, Citizens should not be burdens, they should be able to contribute to their own welfare not sucking up resources from actually productive people.


----------



## Providence (Feb 22, 2019)

Clearly you've never volunteered in civil service.  Man the phone for any local official and get back to me.


----------



## Diabolical diabetic (Feb 22, 2019)

Hortator said:


> So it is in everyone’s interest to participate in politics.


It is in their interest to participate, but should they?

I'm the opinion that they should since you are still subject to the state and laws, so you should have a say in it.


----------



## Tragi-Chan (Feb 22, 2019)

I do take the view that there are many, many dumb people who probably shouldn’t vote, but I can’t think of a way you could weed such people out without making the system even more open to exploitation than it currently is.


----------



## OB 946 (Feb 22, 2019)

I think you should have to provide 4 years of civil service. Be it military, law enforcement, EMS, firefighting, etc.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 22, 2019)

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
-Winston Churchill
Making suffrage an entitlement and not a right guarantees a slow death for it.



Crippled Eagle said:


> I think you should have to provide 4 years of civil service. Be it military, law enforcement, EMS, firefighting, etc.


Citizen service inevitably leads to stratocracy, with the "servant" class deciding on further rights for themselves and making their class more exclusive.


----------



## AF 802 (Feb 22, 2019)

getting a college education after a certain year automatically disqualifies you from voting.

seriously, doesn't it seem like a lot of the people who only went to college recently end up the woke Marxist types?


----------



## MarineTrainedTard (Feb 22, 2019)

I agree, we should restrict voting rights. Otherwise you wind up with presidents like Trump HAAAW GOT 'EM

In all seriousness restriction on voting rights is beyond retarded, especially because 'restriction of voting rights' basically winds up meaning 'People who disagree with me shouldn't vote' to most people.

Stupid people have been voting in the US since the beginning, and things have more or less worked out fine.


----------



## NOT Sword Fighter Super (Feb 22, 2019)

The Shadow said:


> Service Guarantees Citizenship.
> 
> I'm doing my part!
> 
> Honestly that's not a terrible idea. Not necessarily military service, but proving you're competent and willing to put in some time doing something useful for your country.


ORANGE MAN BAD


----------



## Bum Driller (Feb 22, 2019)

Ghostse said:


> I just think that if you aren't paying taxes, you shouldn't be allowed to vote on new taxes or how collected taxes are spent.
> If you are getting more money from the system than you are putting in, you aren't a citizen you're burden.



In this sense, very few people living in Scandinavia would be regarded as citizens.


----------



## Draza (Feb 22, 2019)

People who pay taxes and have average IQ should vote.


----------



## Love Soze (Feb 22, 2019)

There should be a multiple choice quiz with ballots that include questions based on what is on the ballot. You must get a C or better for your vote to be counted.


----------



## Save the Loli (Feb 22, 2019)

We should repeal the 26th amendment since most 18 year olds are retards like most people here were at 18. The sole exception to that should be if you're serving in the Armed Forces. And we should restrict convicted felons from voting unless they've been pardoned by an appropriate official (governor, president, etc.). We should tighten ID laws since anyone who's allowed to vote, who wants to vote, and ends up barred by those laws is a literal idiot (look what "idiot" meant before it meant retard)--I mean holy shit nigga, get you a goddamn ID, it isn't hard. Also retards shouldn't be allowed to vote since a savvy tard wrangler can use their tards to vote multiple times.


----------



## CatParty (Feb 22, 2019)

Voting and politics are for dummies


----------



## Cosmug (Feb 22, 2019)

I’m in favor of one, arguable, restriction. Voter ID. You have to prove who you say you are, that your not casting a dead persons vote and that you’re a citizen of the nation. You can attach a basic civic literacy test everyone has to pass to it and I’m talking basic. Who is the president, how many senators does your state have, just enough to establish you live in reality. I’m not sure about dual citizens though. Do they vote in two elections or do you make them choose one? Maybe whichever one their primary residence is in.


----------



## 1864897514651 (Feb 22, 2019)

If humanity was not spiraling down the drain, I would want hereditary monarchies to make a comeback. If not to tone down the volume on political banter, then to also provide us one day with a monarch that has Down syndrome or some other mentally retаrding genetic abnormality. The USA is positioning itself to  elect active homosexuals into the presidential office, and I believe a mentally retаrded king or queen could do better than whatever our neo-Sodomite population democratically votes on.

I also would find it transiently interesting to see just how many pro-choice people would protest for the abortive murder of a potential monarch if information were to leak that the baby was not developing correctly. Such protests would just prove that not even democracies can survive in a world conducted by sinners.


----------



## Your Weird Fetish (Feb 22, 2019)

All men and certain exceptionally intelligent dolphins.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 23, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> The USA is positioning itself to  elect active homosexuals into the presidential office.


We've had cripples, negroes, Catholics, and lunatics in that seat.  Faggots aren't going to make a difference.


----------



## 1864897514651 (Feb 23, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> [redacted]



Still waiting for Obama to be publicly executed, but as for "cripples, Catholics, and lunatics": they are not consumed with a satanic passion to drag as many souls down to Hell with them as humanly possible. Homosexuals are psycho-spiritually bankrupt. They cannot love, and they have a very limited emotional palette that is governed by pride and envy. Look at how much damage they have already done to our country without having an active homosexual in the presidential office. But I would even wager that Barry Soetoro is a homosexual, although not overtly. He put the American people nearly $9 trillion USD in debt. Economic warfare like that can only come from a satanic faggot.


----------



## John Titor (Feb 23, 2019)

Abolish voting, bring back trials by combat.


----------



## dirtydeanna96 (Feb 23, 2019)

White cismales shouldn't be able to vote, we already screwed this country up.

No, seriously only people who own real property. People who lease or rent shouldn't get a say. Section 8, sorry. Tenant in an apt building? Nope. This land is your land, but only if you pay for it.


----------



## Hellbound Hellhound (Feb 23, 2019)

TalmudSperg said:


> White cismales shouldn't be able to vote, we already screwed this country up.
> 
> No, seriously only people who own real property. People who lease or rent shouldn't get a say. Section 8, sorry. Tenant in an apt building? Nope. This land is your land, but only if you pay for it.



People who are forced by economic circumstance to rent _technically_ are paying for it, they just don't have any ownership over it.

Restricting voting to land owners (or veterans, or civil servants, for that matter) would just be a slippery slope to a new aristocracy.


----------



## BScCollateral (Feb 23, 2019)

TalmudSperg said:


> No, seriously only people who own real property. People who lease or rent shouldn't get a say. Section 8, sorry. Tenant in an apt building? Nope. This land is your land, but only if you pay for it.



I rent, not Section 8, pay my taxes, have no tugboat, and would find it criminally simple to purchase one square foot of my parents' front yard to evade that.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 23, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> Still waiting for Obama to be publicly executed, but as for "cripples, Catholics, and lunatics": they are not consumed with a satanic passion to drag as many souls down to Hell with them as humanly possible. Homosexuals are psycho-spiritually bankrupt. They cannot love, and they have a very limited emotional palette that is governed by pride and envy. Look at how much damage they have already done to our country without having an active homosexual in the presidential office. But I would even wager that Barry Soetoro is a homosexual, although not overtly. He put the American people nearly $9 trillion USD in debt. Economic warfare like that can only come from a satanic faggot.


It's incredibly easy to decide gays are evil when you decide that everyone who does something evil must be gay.


----------



## Krokodil Overdose (Feb 23, 2019)

Replicant Sasquatch said:


> Being a legal citizen of the country means you have a stake in the process as far as I'm concerned.  People have tried convincing me that only landowners/veterans/what the fuck ever protected class should have sole voting rights but that always struck me as bullshit.  *If you pay taxes*--and you do if you're a citizen and not a criminal--you have the right to help decide what the government can and can't do to you.  Disenfranchising felons I'm fine with because they fucked over society.  But taking that right away from say, *welfare recipients* is autistic as fuck.



I've located a small problem. Welfare recipients effectively don't pay taxes. 

FWIW, "no welfare recipients" is a restriction I can see my way clear to. If you've inverted the normal financial relationship between yourself and the state and are a beneficiary of it's charity, saying you can't vote until you get off the dole seems fair, just to make sure that Tytler's maxim ("Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government, it can only exist until the people discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse") doesn't happen. The decisions need to be made by people who are paying the bills, because they're paying the bills.


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 23, 2019)

Krokodil Overdose said:


> I've located a small problem. Welfare recipients effectively don't pay taxes.
> 
> FWIW, "no welfare recipients" is a restriction I can see my way clear to. If you've inverted the normal financial relationship between yourself and the state and are a beneficiary of it's charity, saying you can't vote until you get off the dole seems fair, just to make sure that Tytler's maxim ("Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government, it can only exist until the people discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse") doesn't happen. The decisions need to be made by people who are paying the bills, because they're paying the bills.


Define "welfare".


----------



## PT 522 (Feb 23, 2019)

How about, nobody gets to vote anymore.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Feb 23, 2019)

Krokodil Overdose said:


> I've located a small problem. Welfare recipients effectively don't pay taxes.
> 
> FWIW, "no welfare recipients" is a restriction I can see my way clear to. If you've inverted the normal financial relationship between yourself and the state and are a beneficiary of it's charity, saying you can't vote until you get off the dole seems fair, just to make sure that Tytler's maxim ("Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government, it can only exist until the people discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public purse") doesn't happen. The decisions need to be made by people who are paying the bills, because they're paying the bills.


A lot of people who aren't on welfare don't pay much or at all in taxes either.

The core problem with saying "oh well people on welfare shouldn't vote because they'll just vote for more welfare" is by that logic voting should just be done away with period.  Of course people will vote for something which directly benefits them. That's Republicanism 101 and our system was literally built on that principal over a century before welfare even existed.


----------



## 1864897514651 (Feb 23, 2019)

Senior Lexmechanic said:


> [redacted]



You are misunderstanding me. All neo-Sodomite homosexuals are evil by the very fact of their aberrosexuality. I would not want my son or daughter to partake in the acts that neo-Sodomites engage in. A lunatic might drink water from a public toilet because they do not know any better. A neo-Sodomite might drink water from a public toilet because it sexually arouses them. Normal men might go to the doctor and allow the doctor to insert his hand into their rectum to check their prostate. Homosexual men might have other men insert their arms even into their large intestine because it sexually arouses them. At least dogs tend to limit themselves to eating only their own fecal matter. Homosexuals are not as picky. From such men, it should be obvious to you that they are not limited to just committing profoundly destructive mortal sins against the Sixth Commandment.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Feb 23, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> You are misunderstanding me. All neo-Sodomite homosexuals are evil by the very fact of their aberrosexuality. I would not want my son or daughter to partake in the acts that neo-Sodomites engage in. A lunatic might drink water from a public toilet because they do not know any better. A neo-Sodomite might drink water from a public toilet because it sexually arouses them. Normal men might go to the doctor and allow the doctor to insert his hand into their rectum to check their prostate. Homosexual men might have other men insert their arms even into their large intestine because it sexually arouses them. At least dogs tend to limit themselves to eating only their own fecal matter. Homosexuals are not as picky. From such men, it should be obvious to you that they are not limited to just committing profoundly destructive mortal sins against the Sixth Commandment.


How go your efforts to make homosexuality punishable by death in Uganda, Pastor Ssempa?


----------



## KimCoppolaAficionado (Feb 23, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> You are misunderstanding me. All neo-Sodomite homosexuals are evil by the very fact of their aberrosexuality. I would not want my son or daughter to partake in the acts that neo-Sodomites engage in. A lunatic might drink water from a public toilet because they do not know any better. A neo-Sodomite might drink water from a public toilet because it sexually arouses them. Normal men might go to the doctor and allow the doctor to insert his hand into their rectum to check their prostate. Homosexual men might have other men insert their arms even into their large intestine because it sexually arouses them. At least dogs tend to limit themselves to eating only their own fecal matter. Homosexuals are not as picky. From such men, it should be obvious to you that they are not limited to just committing profoundly destructive mortal sins against the Sixth Commandment.


Extreme sexual deviancy isn't exclusive to homosexuals by any measure of the imagination, and our nation isn't a theocracy.  I would unironically recommend moving to a nation that practices _sharia_ if you're so concerned with absolute moral right being built into the legal system.


----------



## Nacho Man Randy Salsa (Feb 23, 2019)

Slow in the minds like Chris shouldn't be able to vote. OPL's vote is just one more for Barb.


----------



## Sargon's wife's son (Feb 26, 2019)

white men of good moral character with two years of mandatory service if you do not complete you do not get to vote.


----------



## Burgers in the ass (Feb 26, 2019)

I think a voting restriction should include prior voting patterns
Anyone who draws a dick is banned from voting, so are people with a history of donkey voting.


----------



## uncleShitHeel (Feb 26, 2019)

No one should vote and the world should instead simply do the sensible thing and make Tony Gaga emperor.


----------



## Niggernerd (Feb 26, 2019)

Have to win the national battle royal. One vote makes the difference.


----------



## Burgers in the ass (Feb 27, 2019)

Niggernerd said:


> Have to win the national battle royal. One vote makes the difference.


Thats the autists way of voting


----------



## Niggernerd (Feb 27, 2019)

Burgers in the ass said:


> Thats the autists way of voting


Something a weakling would say.


----------



## Corbin Dallas Multipass (Feb 27, 2019)

1864897514651 said:


> Spoiler: Unadulterated stupidity
> 
> 
> 
> You are misunderstanding me. All neo-Sodomite homosexuals are evil by the very fact of their aberrosexuality. I would not want my son or daughter to partake in the acts that neo-Sodomites engage in. A lunatic might drink water from a public toilet because they do not know any better. A neo-Sodomite might drink water from a public toilet because it sexually arouses them. Normal men might go to the doctor and allow the doctor to insert his hand into their rectum to check their prostate. Homosexual men might have other men insert their arms even into their large intestine because it sexually arouses them. At least dogs tend to limit themselves to eating only their own fecal matter. Homosexuals are not as picky. From such men, it should be obvious to you that they are not limited to just committing profoundly destructive mortal sins against the Sixth Commandment.



OK... so can we come up with a restriction that prevents just this dude from voting? Take your meds crazy numbers.


----------



## Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost (Feb 27, 2019)

Here is the list I'd like to see implemented though it never will be.
I fully acknowledge it's more authoritarian than I'd personally like, but the alternative is universal suffrage which historically just doesn't work IMHO. 

1) 21 is the legal minimum voting age. 

2) Every student must take a neutral bias civics class in school to make sure they understand how the government and governance is supposed to work. 

3) Voters are required to register for voter ID, or opt out. Those that opt out cannot opt back in. Additionally there would be a use it or lose it clause, which meant that if you didn't poll a vote, then three successive rounds of abstaining from polling would result in exclusion. A ballet choice on none, would be added to all ballets.

4) Anyone considered to be either dependent on government payments or welfare would be excluded from voting, as well as anyone who had a personal debt load over 50k would be prevented from voting. 

5) All current prisoners of the state would be excluded from the right to vote until they had served their sentences. Anyone incarcerated on repeat offenses would be excluded. 

6) Voters must be able to show a consistent level of either employment, or if at retirement age or otherwise temporarily unemployed must be able to show a record of voluntary civic or community work. 

I think you'd find by implementation of those laws you'd immediately see a huge demographic shift in terms of voting patterns, especially implementing 3 & 4.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Feb 27, 2019)

Kaiser Wilhelm's Ghost said:


> I think you'd find by implementation of those laws you'd immediately see a huge demographic shift in terms of voting patterns, especially implementing 3 & 4.


Yeah, it would immediately disenfranchise most of the country, including literally anyone with a college education earned in the last fifteen years.


----------



## deodorant (Feb 28, 2019)

Voting should be restricted, period.

Democracy is a failed experiment, the people don't need to vote to protect their liberty, they just need guns.


----------



## Secret Asshole (Feb 28, 2019)

1) You must be 18

2) A national ID system that functions similarly to a driver's license, which is connected to your social. All citizens will be issued one at school, like picture day. There, everyone would register to vote, pick their political party and the like and get their ID. This will be provided free of charge, cost on the state and federal government will be split. Citizens who don't have one can get one from state places such as the post office, police station, DMV, etc. This is free of charge.

3) Elections are a paid national holiday

4) A standardized, national system of paper-only ballets. No digital voting at all.

5) All IDs will be scanned at the door, allowing for tracking of who voted and when. There will be no such thing as voter rolls anymore, since the national IDs will be checked against the social security database. No more needless purging of non-felons and no more dead people voting. Voting will still be secret, because this only records if you voted and when, not who you voted for.

6) On your ID, your district will be listed along with a web address of where to find your polling place. This could also be implemented via QR code.

7) This could be expanded to having your voter ID tied to a unique app on your phone, so if you lose your ID, you can still vote. Only specific election hardware would be able to read the generated code, so you don't even need your ID if you forget it. The app could also send you reminders of local/national/federal elections.

All in all, these are very simple solutions to secure elections. They'll never be done, however, because nobody in power wants voting to be easy.


----------



## AF 802 (Mar 5, 2019)

Anyone with legitimate threats to democracy, such as (((them))).


----------



## George Oscar Bluth Jr (Mar 6, 2019)

NEETs don't get to vote. Incels don't get to vote. People with gender studies degrees don't get to vote. People with more than 3 identity descriptors in their Twitter profile don't get to vote.


----------



## We Are The Witches (Mar 7, 2019)

I've seen some people in this thread, as well as in other social media websites, mentioning that non-whites and women should not have the right to vote. Whenever they do this, jokingly or not, (often not clear, because of 'Poe's law'), they fail to provide an adequate argument for their claim, other than faulty generalizations, ad hominems, anecdotal claims and sometimes no arguments at all.

It's obvious that voting rights are not going to be taken of non-whites and women, and if you think otherwise, (I don't underestimate the intellect/perspective of people on the Internet, nor the lack of it), you will be disappointed.
In other words, you're expressing your desire of what should happen, (a desire/political stance that is based on racism/sexism by definition, or if you prefer, "race/sex realism"), without providing a convincing reason.

My point: Not seeing comments like: "Women/Blacks should not vote.", (which won't happen), works better for everyone rather than seeing them, something that fuels the idea of 'systematic', or simply 'wide spread' racism/sexism.
I'd encourage people to actually fight against laws or beliefs that are truly archaic, whenever there is an acceptable argument against it, instead of being a moronic masochist saying: "Women belong in the kitchen."


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 7, 2019)

I should get all the votes and everyone else's should just be ignored.


----------



## Slap47 (Mar 7, 2019)

I think adolescents and felons should be allowed to vote.

The ban on felons encourages governments to pass laws that turn more of their rivals into felons. 
Any age restriction allows the government to screw over newer generations to appease older generations. 

The point isn't to have responsible citizens but rather to have a system where all peoples interests are represented so that we can create a balance that benefits everybody. People act in their own self interest and part of that is screwing people over.


----------



## AnOminous (Mar 7, 2019)

Apoth42 said:


> The ban on felons encourages governments to pass laws that turn more of their rivals into felons.



Felons should be given a double vote to discourage making more felons.

Murderers should be given a quadruple vote to encourage more murders.


----------



## Jeremy Galt (Mar 29, 2019)

If you don't own land, you have no skin in the game, No voting for you...... That would take most of the cities out of contention and the rural people would be in charge, as is right, fitting and proper.


----------



## Replicant Sasquatch (Mar 29, 2019)

Jeremy Galt said:


> If you don't own land, you have no skin in the game, No voting for you...... That would take most of the cities out of contention and the rural people would be in charge, as is right, fitting and proper.


Then the government will just spend even more money to pay farmers for popcorn that'll just rot in silos forever.


----------



## Warecton565 (Mar 31, 2019)

Democracy in general sucks, but only letting land-owning, native men vote would probably give the best results if you were gonna have it.


----------



## ProgKing of the North (Mar 31, 2019)

Warecton565 said:


> Democracy in general sucks, but only letting land-owning, *native men* vote would probably give the best results if you were gonna have it.


Yay, casinos and cheap cigarettes for everybody! 

I like this plan.


----------



## Slap47 (Apr 1, 2019)

AnOminous said:


> Felons should be given a double vote to discourage making more felons.
> 
> Murderers should be given a quadruple vote to encourage more murders.



I get that you're poking fun at the idea but that would actually encourage a certain party to make more felons.


----------



## ProfDongs (Apr 1, 2019)

This would probably work out terribly but only letting people with a record of military service (2-4 years), with that same requirement on any government job.


----------



## Jeremy Galt (Apr 1, 2019)

I would make an excellent king. 

This voting situation is way overblown. Why even have it if so many idiots pull the levers???
 Just judging by the people in congress, or government in general, these are supposed to be the "smart" people. If that's the case, then voters must be the "stupid" ones.

Oh, OK, I get it now........


----------



## SheerHeartAttack (Apr 1, 2019)

No Chads or Stacies should vote. Only epic GAMERS.

Though seriously I'd advocate for a proportional voting system as opposed to creating anymore restrictions on voting.


----------



## downwardspiral (Apr 1, 2019)

no restrictions/as little as feasible. any one that finds ways to exploit the system obviously cares more/is smarter anyways


----------



## ICametoLurk (Apr 4, 2019)

Everyone should run for office and everyone should vote. If your country can't handle a 14 year old who goes about making Hitler Did Nothing Wrong jokes then something is wrong with your nation.


----------

