Close. Personally, I think voting should be based on productive family unit. 1 vote per household. The ‘white male land owner’ thing was a proxy for that. In today’s world you can be any race you want and we can redefine land owning, but it makes sense. Letting children vote was also a bad idea.
Agreed to some degree, but not fully. However, I surely would prefer to maintain my right to vote, since my husband and I co-own property. Also, if two are working in a household, even if one is working part time so as to care for /homeschool children I believe that sort of woman is more qualified to vote than an unemployed single person who owns nothing (regardless of sex or age).
I think it’s fine if one person’s working and agree anyone employed should have more of a say than someone unemployed for reasons that aren’t they’re rich enough to not need to work. I’m not necessarily saying women should not vote, but that the vote should be by family unit. One way to handle that would be that you and your husband split a vote, each of you contributing .5 to the total.
My opposition to how voting has changed isn’t so much that women do it but that it got away from family units doing it. We’re a democratic republic and not a full democracy because that’s mob rule, but even when the concept of democracy was being developed, it wasn’t usually just anyone voting. It was typically different houses voting, or those involved with what was being voted on, not 12 year olds and a purple haired vagrant living on scraps from the state on the outskirts of town, or a hostile of people voting.
Making it by family also prevents people from shitting out a bunch of kids and swaying the vote. They’d only be able to do that if those kids went on to start successful families. I’m fine if gay people and whoever else votes too, it’d still be by the same standard. You’d have your household and still be splitting the vote among it.
If we made property owning a criteria I would personally lose my right to vote, but if we couldn’t figure out a way to have rentals work into then I’d still be fine with it because I think the overall direction of the country and quality of vote would be higher. I don’t have kids or own property so if someone else does and made a family and it’s working out for them, maybe they should have more of a vote than me. It’d reward and incentivize it. I’m not against people that chose to be single but it might be for the best if we prioritized making successful families and not living on Tinder indefinitely. The breaking of the family unit’s one of the main ways the establishment is establishing itself. It pretty much broke black America to break their family units, which used to have less divorce than others. Now they have fatherless children that end up under a knee after doing enough drugs to kill them and using counterfeit money.
I would raise the age requirement to 21, unless the person has gainful employment and/ or lives on their own or pays rent... I believe working for a living sobers one up, especially when you see how much in taxes are taken out by local, state, and federal taxes. (but then, I would also eliminate the draft as well, except in national emergency, and exclude only sons even in NE.)
Except that women have a biological imperative to vote for taking resources from men. So we'd just end up fucked anyway.
And that's why things will collapse instead of reversing course. Because the chain has been thrown over the edge. Women vote for more power and resources for themselves, regardless of merit. And once they get more, it just becomes that much harder to stop the inertia. Where we are now, there is nothing that will stop it.
Close. Personally, I think voting should be based on productive family unit. 1 vote per household. The ‘white male land owner’ thing was a proxy for that. In today’s world you can be any race you want and we can redefine land owning, but it makes sense. Letting children vote was also a bad idea.
Agreed to some degree, but not fully. However, I surely would prefer to maintain my right to vote, since my husband and I co-own property. Also, if two are working in a household, even if one is working part time so as to care for /homeschool children I believe that sort of woman is more qualified to vote than an unemployed single person who owns nothing (regardless of sex or age).
I think it’s fine if one person’s working and agree anyone employed should have more of a say than someone unemployed for reasons that aren’t they’re rich enough to not need to work. I’m not necessarily saying women should not vote, but that the vote should be by family unit. One way to handle that would be that you and your husband split a vote, each of you contributing .5 to the total.
My opposition to how voting has changed isn’t so much that women do it but that it got away from family units doing it. We’re a democratic republic and not a full democracy because that’s mob rule, but even when the concept of democracy was being developed, it wasn’t usually just anyone voting. It was typically different houses voting, or those involved with what was being voted on, not 12 year olds and a purple haired vagrant living on scraps from the state on the outskirts of town, or a hostile of people voting.
Making it by family also prevents people from shitting out a bunch of kids and swaying the vote. They’d only be able to do that if those kids went on to start successful families. I’m fine if gay people and whoever else votes too, it’d still be by the same standard. You’d have your household and still be splitting the vote among it.
If we made property owning a criteria I would personally lose my right to vote, but if we couldn’t figure out a way to have rentals work into then I’d still be fine with it because I think the overall direction of the country and quality of vote would be higher. I don’t have kids or own property so if someone else does and made a family and it’s working out for them, maybe they should have more of a vote than me. It’d reward and incentivize it. I’m not against people that chose to be single but it might be for the best if we prioritized making successful families and not living on Tinder indefinitely. The breaking of the family unit’s one of the main ways the establishment is establishing itself. It pretty much broke black America to break their family units, which used to have less divorce than others. Now they have fatherless children that end up under a knee after doing enough drugs to kill them and using counterfeit money.
I would raise the age requirement to 21, unless the person has gainful employment and/ or lives on their own or pays rent... I believe working for a living sobers one up, especially when you see how much in taxes are taken out by local, state, and federal taxes. (but then, I would also eliminate the draft as well, except in national emergency, and exclude only sons even in NE.)
Except that women have a biological imperative to vote for taking resources from men. So we'd just end up fucked anyway.
And that's why things will collapse instead of reversing course. Because the chain has been thrown over the edge. Women vote for more power and resources for themselves, regardless of merit. And once they get more, it just becomes that much harder to stop the inertia. Where we are now, there is nothing that will stop it.