Culture Privilege and Voting

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
5,661
One of the main presuppositions of modern western society is the idea of universal suffrage. That is every adult has a right to vote and participate in the political process, and less formally has a right to be heard and express opinions which others should take seriously.

It is an article of faith unquestioned that everyone should vote except children, felons, and foreigners. And the left advocates to extend the franchise to all of them. (Why not let rocks, dogs, and ants vote too?)

There are a number of problems with universal suffrage.

Firstly when it comes to women-it was women who have been swayed for some of the worst ideas in the last century-women are more easily manipulated on emotional grounds, whether this be for legalizing sexual degeneracy, gun control, and abortion. As well as pro refugee/migration policies.

Obviously not all women have been manipulated for these purposes-but in the aggregate a lot of the rot in the modern west is due to women having the right to vote.

On less specific grounds-everyone’s vote is equal in the democratic world. No one’s vote legally counts more. Even if some votes may matter more. For example a swing state vote in a US election matters more than a vote in a deep red or blue state. This isn’t what I’m referring to-every vote counts as one.

As opposed to votes being structured in more inegalitarian manner. For example a man with property-his vote counts as five. A man with less property three, a man without property one.

We don’t have property requirements anymore-while I would not advocate bringing these back due to urbanization and the fact large swathes of the population will simply never own land or businesses far more than should be disenfranchised, this did in earlier days benefit society in that only those with a clear stake in the state could vote. A landless peasant or street urchin-had no stake in the state and in fact the state’s destruction, conquest or elimination may have been to his interest. Not to mention that due to his lack of a stake-his vote would not be made in accordance with the greater interests of the community in alignment with his self interest. But either in the interests of himself outside the polis or in someone else’s interest(i.e demagoguery).

Today, you can be a poor working man and remain informed so long as you put in the effort. You don’t need a Ph.D, just a civic interest and a willingness to care.

Our voting system should be based on such grounds-that is knowledge and interest. For example you must be able to master basic civic knowledge, have a general idea of international affairs, and a basic understanding of history. When did the US declare independence from Britain? Who is the current prime minister of Canada?

If you cannot answer these questions on voting day-you should not be allowed to vote.

Go look at any Twitter feed, or Tumblr, and you will see why universal suffrage is a mistake. Ignorance is rife and spread easily on the internet. Dumb and outright malignant ideas have high social currency.

To prevent this-there should also be a test of virtue. To determine voting requirements. For example-a test might be given to see if a subject will lie if he perceives he will not be caught. Or how easily he is tempted into drunkenness or fornication. Everyone makes mistakes-but a voter should be able to demonstrate moderate discipline-that is for example they shouldn’t jump into bed with a stranger, if they are seduceable it should take hours, indulging in hedonistic behavior should not be grounds for disqualification-being a hedonist should be. Those with weak moral constitutions weaken the body politic if they are allowed to vote.

Other under desirable elements-those with subversive ideas-“I think the US is like based on slavery and bad and needs to go away and uh reparations should be made”. Opinions that are subversive to the integrity of the state and the polis should be tolerated but be grounds for disqualification. Lie detector tests and other measures-such as tests of patriotism and examination of one’s personal and social statements should be made to determine if one has subversive beliefs. Subversive beliefs should be grounds for denial of the franchise. This includes subversive religions.


But wait you say, isn’t this awfully tyrannical? Well no. Non voting citizens will have certain rights-such as the right to a fair trial, the right to reproduce and marry , the right to buy property, and so on. They just won’t be allowed to vote.

If they can prove their worthiness-then the state should reconsider. Though they must jump through hoops lasting a decade or more.

There are so many people who I am absolutely disgusted that my vote counts as much as theirs-when mine should either count a lot more or they should not have the vote at all.

In fact-those with greater knowledge, virtue, and proper requirements-their votes should count more.

But LI, isn’t this just so mean? Shouldn’t we allow everyone or most everyone to vote because it impacts their lives? Well no. Children and felons are impacted by decisions voters make-but only the mad and the subversive and the wicked advocate for them to vote. My dog is impacted by decisions I make. Should he have a vote?

I dunno. This sounds really reactionary? Well of course it is.

Wouldn’t denying the vote to people on your criteria lead to unrest and either social collapse or concessions(i.e. people get the vote again)? Yes which is why the unwashed and undeserving-those without the wisdom or character to have the vote should be defended against as the greatest internal threat to society. Voting is too important for the stupid and the degenerate. If they are unhappy with this state of affairs they can correct themselves, leave, or should they cause trouble be firmly reminded that rebellion has severe consequences.

So your arguing for inequality? Backed up by some degree of force? Yes. Without a doubt. If necessary, ruthless means should be used to endure those without any business voting don’t try to overthrow a righteous and wise order.

But Lord Invictus, isn’t your criteria arbitrary? Unfortunately so-due to a lack of a common morality or framework on which to judge wisdom and virtue. This state of affairs is largely due to extending the franchise.

But what about people who are ignorant learning? Or those without virtue acquiring it?

Well wonderful! If you can prove to government and civil interrogators your development then upon consideration you should be given the franchise.



TLDR: Universal Suffrage was a mistake. And needs to be replaced by a more limited franchise.
 
Last edited:

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,227
Location
A Boat Unit in the past.
Just Spaceship Troopers the vote. No voting unless you serve in the military to become a real citizen.
No just no. Because that would disenfranchise disabled people who can't join the military. Aka Blind and def citizens. Then you have people who are decent people but are pacifists. Not to mention if you are a citizen and pay Federal, State and Local Taxes. You damn well have a right to voice you opinion and pick the person you want to be elected.
 

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 25, 2019
Reaction score
1,202
Perhaps what's needed is a "Bill of Responsibilities." A constitutional list similar to the Bill of Rights, but detailing what citizens are required to do for their country.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Reaction score
692
No just no. Because that would disenfranchise disabled people who can't join the military. Aka Blind and def citizens. Then you have people who are decent people but are pacifists. Not to mention if you are a citizen and pay Federal, State and Local Taxes. You damn well have a right to voice you opinion and pick the person you want to be elected.
Have a citizen service as an alternative, for 4 years, compared to say the militaries 2. Make trails, fix up things, ect. That way even disabled people who pay taxes can still earn citizenship.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,227
Location
A Boat Unit in the past.
Have a citizen service as an alternative, for 4 years, compared to say the militaries 2. Make trails, fix up things, ect. That way even disabled people who pay taxes can still earn citizenship.
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.
 

PeliusAnar

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2019
Reaction score
692
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.
Make no weaseling out. Sure there would be easy posts, Japan is a good example of this. But don't allow any exceptions. Do your time to get the vote or not.
Benevolent AI Overlord as an alternative then
All hail Skynet, our new machine overlord.
 

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
5,661
A national service isn’t a bad idea per se.

Could be less a time in a pseudo military organization and more a required number of hours of service. Say 1000 hours of community service.

Or 500-750.

If your not willing to put in the time-you don’t get the vote. Of course people are busy with school and work. So the time limit should be between say 13-21. Or 18-30. After which you may not vote-unless your willing to put in the hours in your early adulthood. Which would serve to incentivize it earlier.

If your an expat’s kid or have real disabilities or something like that. Then you simply don’t get the vote. Because you have next to no stake in the state.

Knowledge tests should also be applied. People should be able to demonstrate basic critical thinking skills and awareness of important facts Maybe we need a Confucian style exam system-but instead of teaching bare memorization it would aim to demonstrate knowledge and appreciation for why said information matters.

Non voting citizens, as I outlined would have certain rights such as the right to marry and reproduce, the right to buy property, and the right to a fair trial and the other rights associated with trials(speediness, a public attorney, etc...).
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Reaction score
762
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.
There will always be ways to get around things, but a simple system that blocks the lazy and disinterested will weed out ~90% of those people.
Knowledge tests should also be applied. People should be able to demonstrate basic critical thinking skills and awareness of important facts
I did briefly consider that people would just figure out the bare minimum needed to pass and do that. Like how if you made land ownership a requirement you would suddenly have people selling land in square foot parcels. The difference with a knowledge or virtue requirement is that any increase is a net good. We already kind of have very ineffective forms of these. Unvirtuous people have the right removed from them (felons), and the parties make try to use gerrymandering and other methods to make voting difficult for their uneducated opponents.

The trouble is, as far as I can tell, a group has yet to be disenfranchized in a democratic system. Made it harder to gain sufferage, yes, created chriteria for removing indiviudals (felony, long term expat), sure, but not an entire class of people. The conceit of the systems says "citizens gain suffrage upon reaching majority".
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,227
Location
A Boat Unit in the past.
A national service isn’t a bad idea per se.

Could be less a time in a pseudo military organization and more a required number of hours of service. Say 1000 hours of community service.

Or 500-750.

If your not willing to put in the time-you don’t get the vote. Of course people are busy with school and work. So the time limit should be between say 13-21. Or 18-30. After which you may not vote-unless your willing to put in the hours in your early adulthood. Which would serve to incentivize it earlier.

If your an expat’s kid or have real disabilities or something like that. Then you simply don’t get the vote. Because you have next to no stake in the state.

Knowledge tests should also be applied. People should be able to demonstrate basic critical thinking skills and awareness of important facts Maybe we need a Confucian style exam system-but instead of teaching bare memorization it would aim to demonstrate knowledge and appreciation for why said information matters.


Non voting citizens, as I outlined would have certain rights such as the right to marry and reproduce, the right to buy property, and the right to a fair trial and the other rights associated with trials(speediness, a public attorney, etc...).
Um lets not do what the Jim Crow South did for nearly 100 year okay. Because that is what they did.
 

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
5,661
Um lets not do what the Jim Crow South did for nearly 100 year okay. Because that is what they did.
I mean...are we going to reject any idea because it might be associated with waaaaycism? That's a recipe for consistently achieving nothing.
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Reaction score
3,227
Location
A Boat Unit in the past.
I mean...are we going to reject any idea because it might be associated with waaaaycism? That's a recipe for consistently achieving nothing.
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.
 

Lord Invictus

Never Forget Injustice.
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Reaction score
5,661
I'd also include education-that is college or graduate school.

Anyway, that's just me. NEETS definitely should not have the vote.
 

Yinko

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Reaction score
762
Because that is what they did.
Could you expand on that? I'm not aware of what exactly you're talking about, Crow policies were quite extensive.
I mean...are we going to reject any idea because it might be associated with waaaaycism? That's a recipe for consistently achieving nothing.
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.
 
Top Bottom