should unemployed people be allowed to vote?

should they?

  • yes

  • NO

Results are only viewable after voting.
Taking the vote away from those who don't contribute might sound like a good idea, until you realize that a system like that would actually end up rewarding any political party that was responsible for a major economic crash, as the people with the biggest interest in voting them out of power would be unable to do so.

I used to think that some kind of opt-in poll tax might be a better idea - that if it were a nominal amount that anyone in employment could easily afford and even most people on social security could find the money for, that and the process of keeping registered and up-to-date with the payments would weed out those who really shouldn't be allowed to vote. However, not only would that be very easily abused ("hey, I'll pay your poll tax if you vote for this candidate!") the people that system would weed out are apparently the type who tend not to bother voting anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: veri, TurdFondler, ManInTheBlarms and 1 other person
Under our current system, the unemployed should absolutely be allowed to vote. Our society is very ill right now, and restricting their votes will just push things even further towards a total collapse of the system as we know i-

..nevermind, take their votes away. Speed this shit up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mickey339
Stephanie Bustcakes said:
What if you've been employed for most of your life, but you happen to be out of work temporarily (as happens to many people) and haven't found a new job yet? Should there be a cutoff, like maybe if you haven't worked for 6 months or more then you can't vote? I can also see some ways that someone could find loopholes or ways to exploit this, such as take a crappy entry level job just so they could vote, then quit right after, or even just mow someone's lawn once right before elections and say "See, I'm self employed!" Or maybe an employer might need to downsize his workforce and he picks the people he knows will vote opposite to him so they can't vote. You'll have to come up with a really airtight plan for this to work.
Click to expand...
Positive employment status for three quarters of the last election cycle or something
 
  • Agree
Reactions: veri
Unemployment on its own should not preclude one from voting, and I actually think we need more restrictions on who can vote (receiving welfare, any felony record at all, dishonorable discharge). There are a lot of people in bullshit jobs, jobs that have a vested interest in one party or ideology being in power, jobs working for the government itself, and a whole lot of other things that can lead to people being employed but pushing for destructive government policy. Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Lockheed Martin probably keep millions employed, all of whom have a vested interest in exporting democracy to ungrateful brown people, regardless of how many future Osamas it creates. This to me is far worse than having someone extend payment of the money they already paid into while they were employed.
Unemployment itself is also a temporary situation for most people, one that I have rarely experienced for more than a few months. Should you really miss out on voting because you lost your job in October but quickly picked one up, but onboarding did not begin until the middle of November (or whatever your local election time)? Long-term mass unemployment is a symptom of major societal problems and by precluding the unemployed for no other reason than their being unemployed I think is a recipe for civil unrest.
 
God of Nothing said:
Oh dear god, no. I say this as someone currently unemployed.
and it would kill the nigger vote so yeah
Click to expand...
Same. I'm unemployed and voted no.

I also think politicians and state workers shouldn't have a vote, either.
Cyanide said:
...with the US of voting history, apparently dead people voted, i want to assume they were unemployed but we are a bit questionable about zombie voting rights.
Click to expand...
Well, judging by RGD and Biden the undead can run for office. I don't see why they can't also vote.
 
Last edited:
IMO, a persons franchise should be entirely dependent on their contribution. If you pay more in taxes then you receive in gibs, you can vote. If you receive more in gibs then you pay in taxes, then you can't vote. This rule also applies to the officers of any corporate entities, and the amount of money those corporations receive in government contracts is added to the corporate officers sum total of gibs to tax franchise ratio. Not an aggregate. Each government contract is added to each corporate officer and board member as if they personally received 100% of the money. If a public corporation has government contracts, any dividends paid to shareholders are counted towards their gibs to tax ratio.

Furthermore, anyone with more gibs to tax ratios is not only barred from voting, they are also barred from elected office. Government employees are included, as their pay is also considered gibs and counted against their gibs to tax ratio. 100% of a government employees pay is considered a gib. If someone wishes to stand for public office, they must not only pay more taxes then they recieve in gibs, but must also repay any deficit gibs to the treasury they owe to create a net positive gib to tax ratio.

And before someone says "but that means no government worker could ever become president", that's the fucking point you mong. But what about college students on student loans? Also the point.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Kermit Jizz and Certified_Autist
MT Foxtrot said:
But any loser is capable as long as they have a penis?
Click to expand...
By and large, men support less retarded policies. Jobless men are more likely to support policies that will result in jobs, so men who were down and out voted for Trump. Women, by contrast, are just going to support whatever the TV tells them will make them good people, so they'll vote for a pants-shitting retard who promises to send trannies to their schools to teach kids how to have buttsex.

Obviously, some men support dumb policies, like allowing women to vote, but this can be prevented by having a deadlift minimum at the voting booth. Doesn't have to be too heavy, but if you can't deadlift your own weight, your political opinions probably don't matter.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Brahma and Kermit Jizz
The Ugly One said:
By and large, men support less retarded policies. Jobless men are more likely to support policies that will result in jobs, so men who were down and out voted for Trump. Women, by contrast, are just going to support whatever the TV tells them will make them good people, so they'll vote for a pants-shitting retard who promises to send trannies to their schools to teach kids how to have buttsex.
Click to expand...
Nick Fuentes, is that you? You been spying on our threads, Nicky?
 
mindlessobserver said:
If you pay more in taxes then you receive in gibs, you can vote. If you receive more in gibs then you pay in taxes, then you can't vote.
Click to expand...
This is the best approach but even then it still lets in do nothing libtards with cushy sinecures who make $150k/year to push paper around. I guess any system will have its flaws. Best part is that niggers really don’t care about voting much and the ones that do are more likely to qualify to vote.
 
Landless plebs and women should not be allowed to vote. 😎😎😎
 
RussianParasite said:
Pretty sure most stay at home parents have a huge stake in the direction of a country, why wouldn’t they be allowed to vote? I’d prefer that they stay at home and actually take care of/ educate children rather than allow the state to do the bulk of that for them.
Click to expand...
i don’t have a problem with those ones, maybe it’s my bias cause where i’m at most of the stay at home parents still send off their kids to expensive schools and just get wine drunk or spend their husband money or something all day. they don’t actually parent the kids any more than a working parent does

even in the case that they do raise the parents i still believe that whoever earning the money should be the one able to vote. they’re the ones that actually pay the taxes
mickey339 said:
Sounds like a good way to completely destroy traditional homemakers.

Even the very most trad women would seek employment under such a system.
Click to expand...
where’s the problem? don’t “trad” women already think only their husband should be allowed to vote and women shouldn’t?
 
I don't know if it should be outright based on employment, but there definitely needs to be some sort of filter. The notion that everyone deserves a say is fucking insane. We literally have a party whose entire slogan is "vote for us or you'll lose welfare". Why the fuck should the nigger who sucks off the teat of the middle class worker have equal say in whether or not he should get to steal some of the worker's income? Wolf-sheep vote on what's for dinner metaphor, etc you get my point.

Although the question of what should earn your right to vote is complex. Employment is tricky, how do you factor in independently wealthy people? Small business owners, investors, retirees, trust fund kids, etc. Do you lose your right to vote the instant you're unemployed, and if not how long until you do? I see the idea of net-tax payment being a factor, but even that would be hard to compute. People benefit from taxes in more ways than just welfare, so someone who is not taking welfare but also not paying taxes is still a net drain. Further compound this by certain states needing bailouts from other states. For example in the recent COVID bill california received more money per captia than Texas, so should californians have to pay more for their right to vote than a Texan? The answer is obviously yes, but imagine calculating this value for all 50 states. The COVID bill alone would be excessively complex before factoring in all other FED spending. Another example would be, how do Floridians account for NASA bux? Is that a deduction, an increase, does it apply to all Floridians or just people in the NASA vicinity? Does that mean there's a hardline where on one side you're penalized and on the other your not?

Point is this system would be unfeasibly complex. It'd be much simpler if we could just boil it down to a couple simple indicators of whether someone is a contributing member of society. Maybe... white male landowners...? Nah, who would ever come up with something crazy like that.
 
The only people allowed to vote should be: man between the age of 30 and 60, has a family with kids and owns property, is employed or own a business.
The only people exempt of the age restriction would be imo the military, the police force, ambulance workers, border patrol and fireman for any decisions made by the government can make their jobs or society very unsafe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back