Who should be allowed to vote?

[Betonhaus]

A lot of our election problems, aside from "fortification" can be traced back to people voting for whoever their parents did, or whichever party makes the strongest emotional appeals and the flashiest promises, even if they have a strong track record of breaking promises and making things worse. Right now we make it too easy for anyone to vote, especially people who are clueless and easily duped by politics. What firm and clearly defined restrictions would you place on who is allowed to vote? I think banning voter rolls and requiring voters to register every time, and having to show proof of valid land or home ownership would be effective

 

[Chilson]

I think it's as simple as "if you are dependent (at least a 1/3 of income being government funds) on the state you cannot vote".

This would stop the mentally ill, unemployed bums, and those who demand more gibs from voting and should be fairly easy to track votes. It should also create incentive for getting off the government teet for the average citizen.

 

[Higgs Bonbon]

I think there should be an aptitude test that accounts not just for mental faculty but also vulnerability to things like pathological altruism, but I'm not sure how you'd implement that without it being rife for manipulation by the next party up.

 

[A Cardboard Box]

Me. Just me. I have your best interests at heart, I promise.

 

[Jewthulhu]

Anyone who perfectly understands all the issues that are involved with the functioning of a government and the relevant history and context to make an informed decision.

So, in other words, literally no one.

 

[Betonhaus]

I think there should be an aptitude test that accounts not just for mental faculty but also vulnerability to things like pathological altruism, but I'm not sure how you'd implement that without it being rife for manipulation by the next party up.

Being a land owner with accounts in good standing?

 

[DumbDude43]

nobody.
voting is a meme. elections are a farce.

 

[Troonos]

Male land owners who receive zero government handouts.

 

[Boss Hawg]

I believe that democracy is a farce; however, if we were to have democracy in this thought experiment. The people that vote must have a stake in society beside existing. These are the parameters that should be required to be able to vote for representatives and/or propositions/amendments.

• Own land or a homeplace.
• Have a stable source of income/financially independent of the state, charity, banks (debt), or family.
• Be married and have at least one child (can be lenient to married men and women that medically cannot produce children).
• Have lived in area in which you are voting for at least 5 (or more) consecutive years. (This is most important for local politics)
• Must be literate and know elementary math.

I could add more, but this a good baseline. Basically, filter out most people that are dependent on the state or those that are incapable to make decisions for the best interest of the future generations.

 

[rel=alternate]

Tbh, I have struggled with this question for a long time.

I loath the idea of democracy. People are not equal, most are stupid. They should never have the right to vote.

But then again, when the whole political systems is held up by mafias who call themselves parties and basically jump in/out gang members we call politicians, I don't know if it evens matters anymore.

And you could argue with other political systems, like monarchy or dictatures, they all fail too for the same reasons.

The only answer I can come up with does not address the issue or offer any answers; society is too big for itself, there is no right way to go about it, it's just not sustainable on large scale.

Then again, I consider myself self aware enough to know I am too retarded to vote on most things, so take my opinion on the subject matter with a grain of salt.

 

[FudgeFish]

Probably some version of a basic series of test questions - who are the candidates? What parties do they represent?

Perhaps some basic IQ questions, testing for mimimum-requirement levels of literacy. An ability to speak English (I assume we're talking about the US here) seems like an obvious requirement.

I'm extremely hesitant of using mental health as a limiting factor. On the one hand, it disturbs me that extremely mentally-disturbed individuals can vote. On the other, I don't trust that the government wouldn't then seek to expand that definition to include people they just don't like.

I understand why people are suggesting income and/or ownership of property as a requirement - again, the only reason I'd be against this would be the government's ability to manipulate those spaces. We saw in Canada how the truckers had their bank accounts frozen during the protests, and it's not as though governments have zero history with forced land aquisition.

 

[Higgs Bonbon]

Being a land owner with accounts in good standing?

Good luck lmao

 

[Betonhaus]

Probably some version of a basic series of test questions - who are the candidates? What parties do they represent?

Perhaps some basic IQ questions, testing for mimimum-requirement levels of literacy. An ability to speak English (I assume we're talking about the US here) seems like an obvious requirement.

I'm extremely hesitant of using mental health as a limiting factor. On the one hand, it disturbs me that extremely mentally-disturbed individuals can vote. On the other, I don't trust that the government wouldn't then seek to expand that definition to include people they just don't like.

I understand why people are suggesting income and/or ownership of property as a requirement - again, the only reason I'd be against this would be the government's ability to manipulate those spaces. We saw in Canada how the truckers had their bank accounts frozen during the protests, and it's not as though governments have zero history with forced land aquisition.

maybe the ballots must be blank and you require to write-in your candidate, printed clearly and spelled correctly?

 

[DeadwastePrime]

everyone except me cause i dont wanna do it

ive seen who you cheer for, you disgust me

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

Democracy only works on the local level. The modern political landscape is so large, nobody can truly understand it. So maybe everyone for local and state elections, but frankly no one on a national level.

 

[Betonhaus]

Democracy only works on the local level. The modern political landscape is so large, nobody can truly understand it. So maybe everyone for local and state elections, but frankly no one on a national level.

So, like the people vote for the mayor, the mayors vote for the state senator, and the state senators vote for the president?

 

[Anonymus Fluhre]

No one, it should be considered a crime punishable by death of the voter followed the next ten people in their line.

Democracy only works on the local level. The modern political landscape is so large, nobody can truly understand it. So maybe everyone for local and state elections, but frankly no one on a national level.

I think something like cellular democracy is what you want. Similar idea to demarchy I think.

 

[FudgeFish]

maybe the ballots must be blank and you require to write-in your candidate, printed clearly and spelled correctly?

That seems fairly ripe for fraud, to be honest.

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

So, like the people vote for the mayor, the mayors vote for the state senator, and the state senators vote for the president?

More like people are able to vote for their city, county and state representatives, but there is a monarch of some sort that is able to be kept in check by these representatives should he go overboard and abuse the population or not do his job. The representatives typically meet with the king in order to effect policy and to make sure their people's voice is heard. The judicial system makes sure that both of the other branches of government are kept in check and is itself kept in check by the other two. It's not a perfect form of government (I'm probably missing a fatal flaw somewhere), but it's more stable than changing out leadership every 4 years to different people based on the whims of the people instead of achieving long-term goals and ruling in a manner that can benefit all of the population. I think fundamentally democracy doesn't work just due to how hierarchical humans are. There are the big dogs and the little dogs everywhere we go in every social setting we are a part of, yet somehow this doesn't exist on the macroscopic level and we are all equal members of society. I know it's not possible, but monarchies and dictatorships are more consistent with human nature than democracy, but there are aspects of democracy placing value on the concerns of the people rather than that of an aristocracy that definitely give it some value as compared to a pure monarchy or dictatorship.

 

[Gig Bucking Fun]

Nobody. We should be living in a capitalist monarchy.