Votes for married folks only?

I've had an idea lately that I've been mulling over for a while and was curious to hear what other anons would think about it.

What if the right to vote was restricted to married couples, and each couple only had one vote to cast? What impact could this have on society and how feasible would it be to implement?

Obvious advantages would be promotion of marriage and family, reducing the negative effects of women voting based on emotions, removing entirely single women from the pool of eligible voters, reducing the number of black voters and increasing the percentage of eligible voters who are active in the workforce (more likely to be married).

It'd be interesting to hear arguments for/against this proposal.

Fuck off jew. The only restriction there should be is being over 25 y/o.
Young fucks are too damn stupid.

This is my favorite voting system. It encouages stable family structure, and prevents houses falling apart over couples voting opposite ways.

It also pretty much nullifies the nigger vote, though if we had control over the voting infrastructure to the point where we could implement this, obviously nonwhites would not be voting.

first post as always, pretending to be (((((one of us))))) while inserting shitty and cancerous opinions.

the white population needs to procreate and breed, having vote restricted for married couple should motivate marriage and breeding twice as much, if you have a shitty wife thats your fault you fucking kike.

It wouldn't help, as people would start changing what married actually means, and you'd end up with a fucking mess.

And there are a ton of single men too, such as almost everyone on the chans.

A lot of what should be good criteria for voting can unfortunately backfire in a non-homogeneous society. Look at muslims for example, their women don't have the option to not be married while liberal propaganda will ramp up even more to discourage white marriages

Not sure if you are an American, OP, but the founding fathers here in the U.S. had a system where you had to 1.) own land and 2.) served in the military, and then it was one vote per household. It would be a big improvement from what we have now, but it is obviously flawed otherwise we would not be where we are now. Democracy is the problem, and will always move towards mob rule. It is just the nature of the beast.

...

No, votes for property owners, White, heterosexual, male.

addition: no one w/ citizenship in another country can vote. USA only.

No need for the draft in such an enormous country

checked, although that wouldn't do well with a country crawling with libshit cancer in every corner.

Trump is already putting stormclouds over the heads of (((dual citizens))) in govt, this might be on the horizon

Are you talking about gay marriage? Fags are such a small proportion of the population they're not a concern of any significance.


This guy is onto something

This is stupid with the confiscation-level taxes applied to property. Most respectable families have already lost all their property. Have to make it possible to obtain and hold property for this to work.

It would trivialize marriage even more as a process done only for benefits, not about creating lasting relationships and a strong family.

user, please.

Things like this are terrible ideas. If you want to restore family values then treat it with respect yourself. Dangling a carrot in front of something only makes that something an object caught in the middle.
You should be looking towards fixing the education system if you want the masses better educated and developing better values.

Impossible without a civil war. You can't regress rights propagandized as the cornerstone of our society and culture without first destroying the system, or without causing the destruction of it by making said changes. We can't revoke rights. We can't revoke citizenship. We can't do anything drastic without causing a civil war, or without those actions being proceeded by a civil war/coup.

Tbh it hardly matters if the plebs want to be married, as long as they stay married, live together and do not get divorced, the structure is upheld.

Thanks captain obvious.

This is a hypothetical policy discussion, it's fun to chew over ideas.

No it's not. These ideas are worthless and will never be implemented because none of us have any impact on the real world. Why talk about ideas so grand it would take the literal collapse of our society to implement them? Not happening…

We better not talk about ANYTHING, because you want us in the streets with muskets or something, right fbi-kun?

Why are you here if you're so convinced that talking about ideas is a sin? All we fucking do here is talk about ideas.

Here comes the idiot with the knee-jerk shill/FBI claims…


I ask myself that as I spend the bulk of my time on here annoyed these days.

...

What a waste of trips.

Contribute, or leave. Coming in here arms flailing trying to derail and shut down the discussion isn't helping anyone. Find something you do like, and contribute to that.

So all you care about is the structure over the quality of that structure?
Meanwhile the pressure builds up on the inside, making a shitty family and popping out ill-raised children from the terrible environment.

That's how we end of with the liberal "revolutionaries" who gain mass sympathy, fostering a generation that is easily manipulated.

The structure comes first, and the quality comes from the structure. One generation of children raised in homes that aren't broken will vastly improve society. Then, since they've grown up seeing nothing but monogamy, it once again becomes the norm.

If people don't want to get married, they don't have to. They can wait on voting, then. But once they've found someone they like, it gives them incentive to stick with it and actually fix the problems instead of running away from them like a child.

I'd go even further and say: Married couple, with at least 2 children

Everything < 2 children is below replacement rate, therefore they are not properly participating in the future of the country, therefore they should have no say in it.

Maybe in a hypothetical whites only nation, but right now this would only help spics.

I can agree with this stipulation. A family with two children is ensuring the country will continue to exist. If you can't continue the country's existence, then you clearly don't have a stake in it.

This is all pretty hypothetical. If we could implement this, we would also have the power to implement racial laws, so it's safe to say that the hypothetical refers to a white ethnostate.

If you are writing fanfiction of your perfect ideal state, why is it a democratic state at all?

What's your plan for the Fuhrer's succession?

End no fault divorce, and the man gets automatic full custody of the children unless he refuses. Plus, end marital rape laws and make false accusations punishable equal to the crime the man is accused of.

Adoptive succession, as practiced by the five good emperors of Rome. We need philosopher kings, not elected rulers. The winning streak only stopped when Marcus Aurelius adopted his own son.

OP's suggestion is throwback to 1800s; women were not able to vote, which has it's merits. Only property holders were able to vote, which would most-commonly be married men.

Property holders voting makes the most sense; offers incentive to prosper as well as exercise the franchise.

It's not quite as far-fetched as you make it out to be. As long as you're effective with how you brand things it's well within the realm of possibility to restrict votes for only married/military citizens, certainly a more practical goal to work towards than a pure white ethnostate. At least given current circumstances.

No reason to not work for both simultaneously.

But if we were going to try this shit in modern america, we'd have to simultaneously d&c the mexicans out of wanting marriage.

Property holder makes no sense. We want contributors to society voting, not slumlords.

A more pressing priority regardless is reducing the inflow of spics and reducing the number already here.

My face burned off in a fire. I look terrifying and will never get a woman. I still manage to contribute to society in my own way and make an honest living. I should be represented.

Creepy.

Tbh I don't want to make an exception for mr. skeltal. There just aren't enough of you to matter. Government by exceptions is how we got in this mess.

do you wear the mask?

Actually property ownership makes good sense. Property is more than rental real estate; property includes real estate, business, chattel (portable property), collectibles, metal, etc. The primary reason governments are set up are to protect people and property.

My face got burned off while saving a family. I was a firefighter.

Yes I have one.

Look at it this way, far more niggers would be unable to vote in return.

I'm not denying this idea of mine has downsides but I'm playing with the idea of what the overall effects would be.

or an extra vote for (traditionally) married people, that way you'd get less resistance from liberals, I guess

That is going to accomplish nothing when the majority of the people in the country are idiots. If you are going to have voting at all you may as well let everyone do it

If anyone tried this now, the kikes would probably give niggers one vote per impregnated sheboon. Every state would immediately turn blue and stay blue.

thats a bad idea OP
you're letting women have a say in the vote

why don't you just let it be white males only that can vote? I would include land-owning but in recent times its just too hard to own land

even males only would be better than the current system and what your proposed

How about no one votes. Democracy is jewish anti human trash.

No.
1. Plenty of single Holla Forumsacks
2. Tons of sham libtard marriages during election years which would then be annulled

It would make as a big a mockery of marriage as letting the fags pretend to be married.

/thread

Yes.

This should be one of the first laws on building a new white society

Baby steps

This also maximises the muslim vote…

The best way is probably by determining who is a net benefit to the system. I.e can only vote if you have paid taxes and not taken more back in welfare/other govt expenditure. Military service or other service for the country could count towards this. Also need to ban criminals that have been convicted for 3+ years in prison forever. (And sterilize them eventually but eugenics is like way outside the overton window).

Married taxpayers with at least 2 children, fully-employed and with no debt.

I would say a voting competency exam, you get your percentage worth of a vote:
Your pleb on the street gets say 0.4 votes, your student of historical patterns gets 0.95 votes.

It'd be an alright idea in a traditional society, but in today's culture where whorish behavior is celebrated and rewarded, and governments reward women for getting divorced, it would be a disaster. Getting married these days is just telling your girl - "You got my balls in a vice now, do as you please."

Much better to just be in a committed long-term relationship without getting the state involved, and make sure she understands that you won't hesitate to leave if she starts being a bitch.

There goes that pesky military industrial complex

There's only one solution to the muslim problem

It doesn't require an active military engagement, only that someone be willing to face the consequences of the things they vote for, and to have some direct stake in the wellbeing of the country. Military service itself shouldn't be the requirement, just being signed up for the draft and maybe also to have gone through basic training.

And another user suggested some measure of how much a person contributes to the country vs how much they take. For example, people who have been on welfare for years should not be able to vote, because all they vote for is more benefits and social services. Look at the democrat voter base, for example. Leeches should have no say in the future of a country.

Except you would effectively prevent three fourths of Holla Forums from voting, in favor of what, spics?

Just drink bleach OP.

Why

Democracy with some voting standards is fine. Democracy that lets just anyone vote is fucked. The concept that anyone should be allowed to vote and that everyone's voice is equally valuable is a recent and fucked up development, traditionally democracy has had standards.

We don't care about your fucking fantasy political world which will never happen.

Focus on actual existing things, go write a book and stop dreaming.

sage

You must of missed the 20 stickyed threads about "pizza gate"

People who vote should be people who have actual interest in the countries well being, for example
Even if those people are not nationalist, they are still conservatist and barely interested in giving free gibsmedat or fighting for minorities or other shit. There are nearly no females and absolutely no left/liberals among that group too. Although we should take away the female vote at one point anways.

No fuck you cuck.

Fuck you Moralist scum, you're not taking this robot's vote.

Democracy is anti hierarchical and the ideal system for the jews since it allows them to corrupt and manipulate society easily.Morality in a democracy can only go down, not up. For a country and a people to improve you need a leader to direct the mases. A democratic country is also inevitably weaker than it would be under a competent dictator, since the politicians are enslaved by popular opinion which thinks short term. A democracy can't bring about radical changes when they are needed even if the politicians want to, because they will surely loose power if they don't bow down to popular opinion, so often times they don't even try.
This is just off the top of my head. Hitler also makes some very good points in Mein Kampf, which is also available in audiobook format.

anti-Americans detected.

Godless commie scum.

Wew

land owners, White, male, heterosexual.

Nice Satan trips, fag. But I'm not gonna be forced to 'settle down' with a filthy roastie who rode the cock carousel for twenty years just so I can have a say in the Republic.

how about votes for married men and enlisted men? those are the only two constituencies that count anyway

Veterans don't get a vote?

...