Yeah a "big brain" tax on voting, just means we end up with Plato's Autismfest that was the "philosopher king" idea. I'm not a fan of that..
But I do believe some people should be denied the Franchise.
For example I do believe that anyone not in the military or who works in a fire department but works in the public sector should be barred from voting until such time as they are either over 60 years old or are gainfully employed in the private sector for five years. Soldier's and Fire rescue operators gain the franchise through blood sacrifice, Police as well (Though I'd argue police and Teacher Unions need to be criminalized). I'd extend the same thing for those who work for a major Silicon valley firm.
At that point, if you're with Google you're actively employed by an agent hostile to the United States and essentially you're an extension of the foreign policy of the illegal usurpers on the mainland of China. Beyond that, content curators and moderators and social media employees in general, wield a disproportionate amount of power, power over the civil liberties of others. These people are neither elected, nor appointed by those who are and they swear no oath yet at a moments notice our lives can be destroyed by their says so or the say so of their proxies and in an age where Social Media is rapidly becoming a utility.
Well.
A national service isn’t a bad idea per se.
"Is this person an American citizen, either via birth, or naturalization? Does this person Speak english fluently?"
And
"Does this person either earn more than 45,000 dollars per year, or do they hold more than 25,000 dollars in physical assets or do they hold more than 10,000 dollars in some kind of interest bearing account or does their employers hold one for them that they contribute to on a semi regular basis"
That would be the criteria I'd find the most smoothe.
Um lets not do what the Jim Crow South did for nearly 100 year okay. Because that is what they did.
umm lets not turn into tumblr and have a panic attack because something superficially resembles something else. Especially when the "competency test" would actually empower more African immigrants, Caribbean islanders and Indians to vote than Black and white Americans.
More South Americans would be voting as well, which would be lulzy. Since a lot of us are "Trust me I'm white" Celtic supremacists and view Anglos as "miscreant, civilization destroying welfare junkies" (The words of Javier Milei not me). And are pretty damn big on "Constitutions are things that can be suspended every time Antifa annoys the middle class"
Ie...I'm not defending this idea, even as a Soof Amerikan..I think government by the big brain nibba meme would be the worst possible government to exist.
Buuuuutt not for such silly reasons as "dis looks waycist"
I don't really give a fuck about optics and no one who isn't broken by the radical left should give a suck about it either.
Yes we can reject it. Because the standard should be.......
Does said person pay taxes.
Does said person have a clean record. With no felony or felonies attached to them.
Does said person have a mailing address.
Is said person a productive member of society. Aka has a job or seeking to have a job.
Is said person disabled. Blind, Deaf or with some physical disability and no mental defect.
Is said person a citizen of the Nation.
If said person can meet all of the above they get to vote. Anything else can be used to deny people the right to vote. Jim Crow already proved that over and over again.
But there are people who should legitimately be denied the right to vote for a myriad of viable and earnest reasons?
You justed disenfranchised people by your criteria after all.
The Rich would still weasel out of it. Like they do with most things today. And you would have right and left leaning people in high places making excuses for why they should weasel out.
Naw, specifically add in an amendment to say that failure to serve or to have another serve via proxy or to be caught using your wealth to lobby for people to vote the way you want them too as opposed by their own conscious equates with, if convicted "Execution for treason" or "the total and complete forfeiture of assets and the loss of the franchise of any of your family members currently in service until such time as they can be investigated and it is determined that they played no part in such action"
For the record I'm not defending this, merely saying other republics throughout history
did have ways to ensure this.
Those ways created a pretty ugly pretext for when people stopped caring en masse mind ye...And a rather unfortunate precedent as well.
More precisely, it's a logical fallacy to reject something merely because of its association. It is essentially an inversion of the Appeal to Authority, in this case assume that the argument is wrong because of who supported it. The argument must be able to succede or fail on its own grounds.
Agreed, the time for worrying about optics is over.
Also the Jim Crow thing is a misapplication, a false equivalence because most urban whites would have failed those same standards and routinely did (Italian Americans in New Orleans for example), but went and voted just fine.
It was exclusively applied against blacks, often by people who were too stupid to pass their own criteria IIRC.
Back in the Bad Old Days. The racist poll workers would employ such tests to weed out Black People from voting. Even if the Black person in question aced the test. It was still counted as a failure. Because the Poll Worker could literally fudge the numbers. The same can happen here. Do you really think a far left leaning Poll Worker is gonna say a Moderate or a Conservative person passed the test. No they would do the same as the Jim Crow racist did.
And most of those poll workers didn't even know the answers and on average most urbanites did and would still fail the same "tests" when research was one on the matter.
The problem wasn't the testing itself, the problem was the proctors.
Which goes back to my point...Public Employees by and large should lose the franchise.
One household, one vote.
Married people raising their own genetic offspring are consistently the people who have the most stake in making sure society is set up for the future, as opposed to instant gratification—i.e. degeneracy, consoomerism, and government handouts.
My logic is based on the ground that the family, and indirectly then marriage, is the building block of society. Single people really aren’t a part of that building block in a meaningful way. They may be useful contributors to society, but they’re not nearly as important, in general, as the family unit.
Married people DO vote differently than non-married. Look it up.
No question that you can be unmarried or single and still want the best for future generations, but it's not as sure of a thing. Whenever you see someone pushing for insane, unsustainable, or wicked policies, they are almost universally single. That is the norm. Well-meaning and low time preference singles are the exception, and you shouldn't set up your society based on exceptions. This is true even if I don’t like the results of the voting, and even if this system disqualifies me myself from voting, but at least it's honest in what it's selecting for.
One household, one vote.
Two votes, one for each spouse.
But this is a good idea, being married and having at least one child by birth or adoption as a criteria isn't bad.