Raising the Voting Age

Sorry, I thought there were reasonable people here, my mistake.

and then Holla Forums says they aren't tumblr

Physically, not emotionally.

Make like presidential eligibility. 35. White men only.

butthurt underageb& detected

Grow up, get your mind right, then you can vote. Maybe, if you earn it via service, having a stable family and property ownership.

35 seems to old man. the age should be around the age most men start a family. you're liable to vote for the interests of the future when you have kids

/thread

So in your Orwellian world, the government needs to have you by the balls before you're allowed a voice? Shoo, shoo, sneaky jew.

You are being laughed at because of your vast oversimplification.

Instead of pointing and shrieking, how about learning WHY we think universal sufferage is a mistake. You're on Holla Forums after all, we assume you've done the reading before the lecture.

jesus christ i agreed with you in an earlier post in this thread you retard.
you're the kind of hysteria-driven idiot that will do absolutely ANYTHING for the jews with very little effort manipulation, for example, pointing at a guy they don't like and saying hes a pedophile with no proof.

I've said this for awhile concerning voting: if I was in power, and wanted to forever stay in power (if I were a liberal), I'd try to lower the voting age as low as possible since it's been shown time and time again that the lower the age of the voter, the more likely they are to vote for a liberal (whatever the fuck "liberal" has become) candidate.

I remember here in Canada when I was in 7th (i think) grade (which would have been for 2005/2006 school year), CBC did this poll for students our age to see how we may be voting once we were eligible; at the time it seemed like nothing but looking back, I can't help but to put on the tinfoil and wonder if there was more behind it (which I'm sure there was). As I vaguely remember, I think that the Liberal Party won with like 40%, the Green Party had like 25%, and I forget whether it was the Conservatives or the NDP who finished third (I think it may have been the latter.

Do any fellow Canadacucks remember this or remember having it at your school at all? I'm in Ontario so perhaps this was just a thing we did here.

tldr:

Lower the age for voters (and frankly this largely applies to adult female voters, too), and the following happens:

>more aid to foreign shitholes countries like those in Africa, Middle East, etc.

I know exactly why.
Because you don't like the way people vote, so you would prevent these people from voting. Citizens of a free country have a right to a voice, if you don't like it, then leave.

Reported for shitposting.

...

We should consider killing all elected officials and banning voting all together

NEVER, EVER FORGET

Someone needs to post that Bismark (i think) quote about if you're not a socialist when you're young which I think perfectly reflects the fundamental nature of why children vote liberal - it is inherently childish and naive.

commie pls

...

...

It was kike loving drunkard Churchill who said that. And it is a shitty sad fact of life.
Young men, smart or dumb, just slurp up every single Jacobin bullshit ever.

I think we were both wrong or at least you mistook the quote I was searching for, here it is

It's because you can't, so you just say it's stupid. Are you a liberal, by chance? Because you're sounding like one.

Outta my way, civilian shits. Best democracy bouncing through.

I wouldn't stop with just raising the age. There should really be some sort of mental competency test to be able to vote, there are plenty of stupid people at any age. Hell I think the same should apply to procreation.

Kike lover churchill popularized it I believe.

You haven't come up with any arguments yourself tbh
Just stating a country's laws and saying "wow oh wow I just cant even" isn't much more of an argument than "go back to Holla Forums newfag"

This is you.

25 YEARS OLD +
OWNS PROPERTY
IS MARRIED WITH CHILDREN
ONE VOTE PER HOUSEHOLD

...

Seriously, why would it be a good idea to let everyone vote? Deciding who shouldn't be able to do isn't easy and is debatable, but if you allow everybody, as soon as some people realize they can vote money from the treasury to themselves, all is ruined. This isn't even taking into account that most of the people that vote in a general election wouldn't be able to name 3 policies from their candidate (a bit different for Brexit, but most people on both sides don't really know that much about the real impact it could have). Whoever can promise the better deal to people NOW wins and who gives a shit if that destroys the future. When I was 19, I had a neighbour who believed his dog was Cristobal Colon. Why should his vote be worth as much as yours? If you get in trouble with the law you go to a lawyer, so why are specialists completely out of the question here?

I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, just hoping that you give this more internal thought than "everybody deserves to vote because we all need an equally strong voice". Because we're not equal and lying to ourselves about that is causing us a lot of pain.

There is no source. Brexit is actually winning atm according to theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis

Not sure about the land owner part.
I'd say just limit it to tax payers (people that actually work), alongside your other proposals.

Can you imagine how much different the country would be if we had that voting set up?

Ubungo would not have won, for starters.

Who develops the tests? Who administers them? That seems like a prime territory for corruption and abuse of power. Imagine the current administration having that power.

If the test measures anything other than racial minority or female targeted trivia knowledge, the right people will vote.

The problem isn't that they're young. The problem is that they're treated as children until their hair starts graying.

Daily reminder that childhood is a Jewish creation.

One of the problems with universal suffrage is that it is so difficult to get rid of.

In my ideal nationalist utopia, there would be a weighted voting system so that certain people could have more votes than other based on merit. To get a single vote, a person would need to pass a citizenship test (and to get all other benefits of citizenship- no birthright citizenship). Then there would be more votes granted for service beneficial to the nation. Military in combat roles would get 100 more votes, for example. Married man get 10 more votes. And so on. No female vote, though. Her husband has her vote.

What happens if a large number of people who have a large number of votes band together to form a party which then fucks over the rest of the citizens?

“To vote is to wield authority. It is the supreme authority from which all other authority derives, such as mine to make your lives miserable once a day. Force if you will! The franchise is force, naked and raw, the Power of the Rods and the Ax. Whether it is exerted by ten men or by ten billion, political authority is force.

To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster To hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority, other than through the tragic logic of history. The unique 'poll tax' that we must pay was unheard of. No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority.

If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”

Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers.

“‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death. Or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader. The barbarians enter Rome.”

Robert Heinlein.

“With national governments in collapse at the end of the XXth century, something had to fill the vacuum, and in many cases it was the returned veterans. They had lost a war, most of them had no jobs, many were sore as could be over the terms of the Treaty of New Delhi, especially the P.O.W. foul-up, and they knew how to fight. But it wasn’t revolution. It was more like what happened in Russia in 1917, the system collapsed. Somebody else moved in.

The first known case, in Aberdeen, Scotland, was typical. Some veterans got together as vigilantes to stop rioting and looting, hanged a few people (including two veterans) and decided not to let anyone but veterans on their committee. Just arbitrary at first, they trusted each other a bit, they didn’t trust anyone else. What started as an emergency measure became constitutional practice in a generation or two.”

Robert Heinlein, Starship Troopers.

Well, guess what the progressives did in Argentina.
It is true that younger people vote socialism, as they are naive, and they do not need to make their own money, so in the end mommy gives them their allowance and for them that's it.

I don't believe there would be parties because there would be no need for them. The legislation could all be done by direct voting, so there would be no senators or anything like that. There would be a führer, but I don't see why parties would be necessary with this sort of system.

If we assume there are parties for the sake of argument, then these people would deserve to vote how they please because they have proven themselves to be superior. And those with less votes would have proven themselves to be inferior. It is basically an aristocratic method of governance, which is the best kind.

By the age of 18 most have not worked and paid tax. They just leech of. Yes, it would be nice. Maybe even 30.

I say let the women keep it, but force them to sign up for the draft in order for the right to be granted. Treat them like men and only give them access to the benefits they get by default if they sign up. You'll see how quickly they lose interest in politics and feminism.

Raise it, 25 is a good age.
In my younger days I was a Greens voter simply because I thought they were an environment first party - not the refugee loving SJWs they actually are.

After years of working shit jobs without any security, paying a shitload of tax, falling into the higher education scheme and thus putting myself into debt with education costs and then not being able to find a job in that field because of immigration from countries that offer cereal box diplomas, my views have drastically changed. I was sick of seeing my taxes go towards unthankful shitskins that shit out welfare funded babies.

Life experience makes the whole difference here. At 18, most people are in school and don't know what it means to struggle for a living and will vote accordingly.

Wat? I have access to all of those without signing up for selective service.

youre going to jail if you dont sign up

this right here.

great image. can't wait to share with women. i'm sure i'll get an emotional response.

care to elaborate?

They let 16 year olds vote to make sure scotland wouldn't leave the UK. They also tried to allow illegal aliens and scots outside scotland to vote as well.

I've argued that your tax returns - as it pertains to your family deductions should be based on how well your kids do in school. - that grading being adjusted for intelligence of course.

The 1 household 1 vote was how the US started before suffrage and your example is how it functioned. Households were partnerships between mother and father.

Anyone who thinks only men voted when they were responsible for casting the vote are ignorant.

16 year olds were slightly more likely to vote for Independence. But mostly their voting intention was inline with 18-35 year olds. It didn't really make any difference.

Why don't we ever have a vote for immigration? Shouldn't we control who lives next to us? They only allow us to vote when they like the outcome. They let those vote who are easier tricked into voting against their own interests.

That's not all there was to the story - but it's a large part of it. The other large part is that corporations started to learn how to skim off of the taxpayer and defer the payments to generations farther and farther into the future.

Women didn't help at all because they were too self-interested and these corporations used them as useful idiots to vote through, year after year, decade after decade "hidden" pork. Before women's suffrage corporations wouldn't have been able to pull the BS over on men - they knew what was up. (Cliche of father reading the paper when he got home and on the weekend - mother fucker was doing research and staying abreast).

The worst part is the nu-male is the new generation of "useful idiot" and are being functionally raised to be a second line of "female voters".

We're fucked.

I think that he was trying to say that arrested development is a plot to ruin and weaken people; as first world nations have grown prosperous, its people (specifically the young who will one day mold the young) have grown up slower and have become soft. Some of these things manifest themselves in ways like the naivety of thoughts, or rather the inability to weigh them and conjure both pros and cons of them. It also shows itself in the interests of the people; specifically we face an issue (much like Japan in the east) of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of 18-30+ year old (and you could argue that 18 should really be like 16) manchildren who shirk any sort of responsibility for fruitless activity such as video games (not saying that playing is bad, but spending your life like many do doing it certainly is) which stagnates both the mind, and wastes their best years.

I could go on and on but I think you understand where I'm going with what I believe that user was speaking of.

He's talking about sitting in a room for 13 years pretending to do fake work that you know doesn't matter isn't better than getting something actually done and learning responsibility. Children in the past were thought to be in a temporary stage to prepare them to be adults. Now childred exist just to exist and are treated as children who exist to have fun their entire lives.

Ah, that makes sense.

Haven't we repeatedly seen how crooked their polling methodology has been? If it didn't make a difference why did they push for it so hard? Why are the self reported surveys so very different than the actual votes lately?

I believe that is a naive take on that.

It does make a difference both in the immediate and the long term. The benefit of the former is that it secures the present goal by using their (the young voters) leanings. The latter is helped to be secured by creating a certain brand loyalty; while yes, it's true that with age comes more conservative leanings with many, we also know that at such a young age, actions taken then can forever leave an impact (for good and for bad), and we also know that many people are naturally easily susceptible to "liberal" thought (see: tumblrettes) or frankly, any group which can reach them via the right circumstance.

I think that lowering the vote is playing the long game, and I also said this in my first post here (my ID changed for some reason - I could prove with a screen shot that it's me should anyone request it for some reason [not that I see a reason for such a request]): .

THIS, obviously the white knights on here wouldn't agree with this

It's far from a perfect definition of workers. Trust fund kiddies who pay taxes on their capital (albeit a very small percentage) would have the right to vote, on the other hand, low income workers who can't afford taxes would be excluded.

How does pampering children make childhood a jewish invention again?
You're right on the matter that children are pampered and aren't taught to be adults in modern times, but you versed it in a completely retarded manner.

No, just lower them to 10 to speed the collapse procession up. Democracy is not worthy to preserve.

You know that that would be racist and anti-Semitic, goy.

I'd fuck off the over 70's too tbh.
They're basically useless, won't be around long anyway… so why do they have a say in the future?

In your dreams*

How about something realistic like raising the voting age to 21, but at the same time raising the age of the draft to 21, with restrictions such as currently incarcerated felons cannot vote in any election.

*You'll need 100 years of Trumps or a 100% white nation.

"A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they will never sit in"

It was strange atmosphere sitting on the train this morning in London during rush hour. It was eerily quiet. The whole of London practically voting to remain, there was definitely an air of defeat, and severe disappointment. I saw a woman crying on the bus. This truly is evil triumphing over good. And there is definetely a very obvious divide in the country, with the voting ratio almost 50:50. I expect a lot of tension in the next coming years.

You should've wished everyone a happy independence day. That's what I did.

Ring that bell, shout for joy, the limeys’ day is here!
Gather all those “equals” up and herd them on the pier!
Great Britain is for whites, Africa’s for blacks!
Give those golliwogs the boot, ship those niggers back!

Married women tend to vote correctly, bc of the husband redpilling her and becoming more secure. A woman should be able to vote if married to a man, all the other stuff I agree with

Copypasta. I'm currently in the U.S., I'll wish everyone when I get back.

IS WHITE