Culture Privilege and Voting

Bear Ribs

Well-known member
The issue with the idea of tests is how easily abusable it is. You have to consider what will happen if somebody really freakin' terrible gets control of that system and uses it to seize even more power.

And I'm not saying "a random democrat" by that I'm thinking more Joffery. Because eventually you roll that natural 1 and your system needs to be robust enough that the natural 1 doesn't kill the entire party. Always make sure whatever you come up with is robust enough that it can survive Joffery Baraetheon coming to power.


Additionally I think any attempt to limit the franchise is going to be ultimately doomed. Both sides have a significant incentive to increase the franchise on the theory that if they bring the vote to a group, that group is more likely to vote for them in gratitude. We see that now with pushes to give the vote to noncitizens and convicted felons.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
Democrats are magicians in the art of vote manipulation as @Sailor.X pointed out. They must have entire cabinets on how to alter the vote count of various systems. This is an especially bad one since the Democrats have also enthroned themselves as the ultimate arbiters of sane and intelligent, and would probably be the ones to design this Sane And Intelligent And Not Cooties Enough For Represenation test. Y'know, I got a new question, why do all these Final Solution To The Femoid Question posters keep coming up with shit that would make us beholden to the neoliberals? Is this forum a testing bed for mind control programs? Is that the malware people were talking about?
Basically this. It'd start with an education level minimum. Then they would sneak in mandatory gender studies or whatever classes into the education minimum. This doesn't end well.
 

TyrantTriumphant

Well-known member
I think the easiest and most fair way to restrict the franchise would be to ban anyone currently on welfare from voting. It would keep of a lot of the people not invested in the system from voting and be fairly hard for the left to abuse. Any more restrictions and we wouldn't really be a republic anymore.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
There's a saying, popularly attributed to Churchill, that democracy is the worst form of government, save for all the others. There's a certain wisdom to that, in that democracy has to deal with the fact it gives input and power to people that probably shouldn't. But I think the OP and other people suggesting that we set up various barriers to block those people from voting are trying to solve the wrong problem.

Idiotic voters exist. Openly malevolent and evil people exist. Otherwise intelligent and capable people with one huge blind spot that compromises their judgement exist. However, I think it's hard to say that those people are the root cause of the issues with government, because as far as I'm aware these....call them bad voters, I guess, do not neatly break down like that. It would be great if we could say "well yeah, the problem is that the bad voters always vote for this party, giving them too much influence and power"....but I don't think that's the case. Those people vote on every side, perhaps not always in exactly equal numbers, but equal enough. Boot them all out, and you'll still have the same debates and divisions, just maybe at a slightly more polite level.

But let's say you decide that doesn't matter, the bad voters should be excluded regardless of if they actually cause harm, because voting carries power and power should only be given to those that can wield it responsibly or something. Fine. Who sets that criteria? How do you ensure they're uncorruptable enough to not use this to seize power? The one advantage that democracy has over a more authoritarian system is that it allows bad leaders to be removed. The minute you start dismantling the people's ability to do that, you start playing with fire. Let's say we grant Trump that authority. How many times has Trump had to fire staffers for various failures, or had people quit or run to the media crying about how he's so terrible? Does Trump strike as being a sufficently good judge of character that he should decide who gets to vote and who doesn't?
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
It will be programs that just tell you how each branch of the government works and what citizenship is. All you need to do is give the old School House Rock Cartoons a visual update and you are golden.
Really you don't even need to update them. My kids(11,7,and3) watch them and think they are great. There's newer stuff that's animated as well which kids enjoy. The "Extra history" video series for example is educational. My kids at least love stuff like this especially when I watch with them.
 

Strigan44

Well-known member
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.
Hmm, that's interesting. Would you consider "I will violently overthrow the government if a political party I disagree with is in power" to be a subversive idea?

Also, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable. Their only real use to scare people who aren't aware of how useless they are into making confessions.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Hmm, that's interesting. Would you consider "I will violently overthrow the government if a political party I disagree with is in power" to be a subversive idea?

Also, lie detector tests are notoriously unreliable. Their only real use to scare people who aren't aware of how useless they are into making confessions.
Depends, the person would need to explain they believe the party in charge is treasonous, has usurped power, or is otherwise illegitimate. Saying, "I believe the democrats must be overthrown and rooted out of government"? No that would not be grounds for disqualification, so long as the person saying this can articulate why this would be good for the nation.

If your referring to insurrection...well that operates under a far more primal set of rules. If you prevail, your a hero, if not your going to be treated like the rebels and insurrectionists who failed in history.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
As an alternative to restricting the franchise, I would like to discuss a political idea that, over time, I have come to believe would be more effective at dealing with the issues than Republics than almost anything else we could now prepare, and which would tend to mitigate their negative effects. It was used to a limited extent in some European countries starting in the 1890s (particularly Belgium), and was popularised by Nevil Shute, the famous author of "On the Beach", whose really good works are actually In the Wet and Round the Bend.

Nevil Shute was, despite the hijacking of On the Beach by leftist anti-nuclear activists, actually something of a modern, practical conservative but committed monarchist, a true believer in the unity of the Dominions and Britain, and of course a very distinguished aeronautical engineer on "The Capitalist Airship", the R.100, with Barnes Wallis, and several later projects in the 1930s.

In In the Wet, Shute imagines a future in which the Dominions have adopted the Multiple Vote, and ultimately the Queen flees a socialist Britain to force it (by the popular affection of the common people for Her) to adopt the Multiple Vote as well. The hero of the story, David 'Nigger' Anderson (note--this is reproduced for authenticity from the original in which the name is presented as a nickname which Squadron Leader Anderson does not object to, and in fact actively introduces himself by that nickname, being a quadroon with indigenous Australian blood, showing his easygoing disposition in which he doesn't get offended--he is a perfectly accomplished Three Vote Man with a rank equivalent to OF-3, after all), a decorated member of the Royal Australian Air Force, uses his indigenous Australian sixth sense or instinct to dream the threat of a bomb and disarm it in midair on his aircraft as he executes the Queen's perilous escape from the socialist government in Britain.

The central plot of the book is the need for the Multiple Vote to combat socialism and correct the problems of modern democracies (both republics and constitutional monarchies). To summarise the multiple vote:

  • The first vote is given to every citizen on reaching the age of 21.
  • The second vote is for university graduates and commissioned military officers.
  • The third vote is earned after living and working abroad for at least two years.
  • The fourth vote is for raising two children to the age of fourteen without divorcing.
  • The fifth vote is for earning at least £5000 in the year before the election. (This is a pretty elite-level income. A newly-built three-bedroom house, we are told, costs four or five thousand Australian pounds.)
  • The sixth vote is for officials in any of the recognized Christian churches.
  • The seventh vote is given only at the discretion of the monarch. (At the novel’s climax our hero, a “three-vote man”, saves the Queen’s life, earning the rare and prestigious seventh vote.)
In the story the Multiple Vote began in West Australia, to wit:

“Aw, look,” said David. “West Australia was walking away with everything. We got a totally different sort of politician when we got the multiple vote. Before that, when it was one man one vote, the politicians were all tub-thumping nonentities and union bosses. Sensible people didn’t stand for parliament, and if they stood they didn’t get in. When we got multiple voting we got a better class of politician altogether, people who got elected by sensible voters.” He paused. “Before that when a man got elected to the Legislative Assembly, he was an engine driver or a dock labourer, maybe. He got made a Minister and top man of a Government department. Well, he couldn’t do a thing. The civil servants had him all wrapped up, because he didn’t know anything.”

“And after the multiple voting came in, was it different?”

“My word,” said the Australian. “We got some real men in charge. Did the Civil Service catch a cold! Half of them were out on their ear within a year, and then West Australia started getting all the coal and all the industry away from New South Wales and Victoria. And then these chaps who had been running West Australia started to get into Canberra. In 1973, when the multiple vote came in for the whole country, sixty per cent of the Federal Cabinet were West Australians. It got so they were running every bloody thing.”

“Because they were better people?” asked the captain.

“That’s right.”

The essential idea is to increase the number of ballots as a reward for obviously meritorious accomplishments across the political spectrum which are fixed and can't be altered by the Government, which serve to actually reward more socially acceptable people with more political power, while still maintaining universal suffrage. This, then, would counterbalance the tendency of mob rule which we see to grow stronger and stronger in modern western democracies, and promote accomplishment as a legitimate and straightforward way of improving one's political power.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
A multiple vote ends the same way as a restricted franchise, with those in power promising additional votes to those who will vote for them. If you can trust the politicians not to give out these votes for stupid/selfish reasons, then the democracy is working and nothing is wrong. If the democracy isn't working, then you can't trust the politicians, as they are usually the first to be corrupted.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
A multiple vote ends the same way as a restricted franchise, with those in power promising additional votes to those who will vote for them. If you can trust the politicians not to give out these votes for stupid/selfish reasons, then the democracy is working and nothing is wrong. If the democracy isn't working, then you can't trust the politicians, as they are usually the first to be corrupted.

The solution is to make it constitutionally impossible to alter the Multiple Vote.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Also, the multiple vote proposed wouldn't have the effect you want. The problem of socialism mostly comes from 'educated' wealthy whites, who are likely to also work abroad. That puts them at 4 votes.

I am not saying Mr. Shute’s categories are the correct strategy, I am saying the concept is the correct strategy.
 

sander093

Well-known member
As always the problem will be deciding which activities get you an extra vote as every faction will have their own idea as to what merits being worth the extra ballot.
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
I am not saying Mr. Shute’s categories are the correct strategy, I am saying the concept is the correct strategy.
I see. I have issues with the strategy on an ideological level first of all. But on a practical level, it leads to a couple of problems.

First, it creates a new overclass that is politically favored. This will result in that faction voting themselves privileges. In addition, for the underclass, it serves as a constant, real inequality in law that is very easy to campaign against. Second, this is a solution that can't be enacted in response to problems, as then it is too late, and you will giving the bad power. This is especially true if this is to be done by constitutional amendment. So it must be done in times without trouble, and by someone who successfully foresees the coming problem, because if they see the wrong problem, then they might have screwed things up even worse. This is tied in with the third problem, that this system needs to be robust against multiple different types of problems, coming from multiple levels and multiple directions. And if the person has that much foresight, why not get amendments that directly address that problem instead?

The solution is to instead limit what people can vote for, which is much less divisive, and much more effective.
 

The Immortal Watch Dog

Well-known member
Hetman
Okay MovieBob.

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.
 
Last edited:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
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.
Not a good idea. This will be extended to cover any host of unfavored people, and then the people who are in charge will stay in charge by disenfranchising the others.

There is no good way to disenfranchise adult citizens. When you do, you encourage all manner of gaming the system so that the ruling class stays in power.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Not a good idea. This will be extended to cover any host of unfavored people, and then the people who are in charge will stay in charge by disenfranchising the others.

There is no good way to disenfranchise adult citizens. When you do, you encourage all manner of gaming the system so that the ruling class stays in power.

Honestly, no system is perfect, but honestly, the solution is to NOT compromise principles and end up getting some horrible "Voting-Caste" and instead WAIT for people to get smart or actively try to make as many people aware of stuff as possible

Failing that.....leave....though not many places to go to that isn't owned by any other country or rich dude with private island or something....can't go to the moon and establish arcologies....yet
 

Sailor.X

Cold War Veteran
Founder
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.





"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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.




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.
jones.bigiside.jpg


How about no. The Majority of the country has already made a decision on what you are advocating. And the only ones considering it are people you don't want given the reigns of power.
 
D

Deleted member

Guest
Also, the multiple vote proposed wouldn't have the effect you want. The problem of socialism mostly comes from 'educated' wealthy whites, who are likely to also work abroad. That puts them at 4 votes.
I am not saying Mr. Shute’s categories are the correct strategy, I am saying the concept is the correct strategy.
I see. I have issues with the strategy on an ideological level first of all. But on a practical level, it leads to a couple of problems.

First, it creates a new overclass that is politically favored. This will result in that faction voting themselves privileges. In addition, for the underclass, it serves as a constant, real inequality in law that is very easy to campaign against. Second, this is a solution that can't be enacted in response to problems, as then it is too late, and you will giving the bad power. This is especially true if this is to be done by constitutional amendment. So it must be done in times without trouble, and by someone who successfully foresees the coming problem, because if they see the wrong problem, then they might have screwed things up even worse. This is tied in with the third problem, that this system needs to be robust against multiple different types of problems, coming from multiple levels and multiple directions. And if the person has that much foresight, why not get amendments that directly address that problem instead?

The solution is to instead limit what people can vote for, which is much less divisive, and much more effective.

Let me amend my first response. I actually think that very few of the problem people these days have traveled overseas, for instance. They're college educated, sure, but at a time when the value of the college degree has declined. They're not truly international in the sense of having traveled and lived internationally. Shute's class would be international business leaders, really. Remember that most of the leftist college educated types are working at latte stands; they're too poor and unsuccessful to even make it into academia, which is just a small but vocal fraction of their number.

As for the other issue, Shute saw the multiple vote as coming about because it was sensible and aspirational. Anyone, man or woman, could aspire to all of the terms of the multiple vote (except maybe religion, but women pastors of Christian religions were a thing at the time, and there are also other non-pastoral ways for women to be ordained). So you could see demand for it out of an aspirational sense -- that people want rewards for what they have done. And that aspirational identity with a higher class is, for example, a fundamental part of why America was so successful for so long. So it seems that you actually could achieve a large mass of people supporting the Multiple Vote, simply because they all see themselves as "seven vote men"--they're just not there yet.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top