Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fear not, there won't be many of these. Most will be disqualified because they are either students living away from home for less than five years, or unstable non-students who aren't able to take or pass the test. Those who really want to vote can marry and set up their own household.
You really gave this alot of thought didn't you? You have it all figured out.
Let's be honest here. Wives generally conform to their husband's politics anyway. That's the natural way of things, and there's nothing wrong with that. Very few wives will lose their cherished independent voice.
I thought the whole idea of your plan was that the entire household but one "will lose their cherished independent voice"?
Let's be honest here. Wives generally conform to their husband's politics anyway. That's the natural way of things, and there's nothing wrong with that. Very few wives will lose their cherished independent voice.
1950 called. It said things have changed and you need to move on and accept it.
I am not aware that the family demographic is underrepresented the voting block. Just because Bob has 2 children, with one vote. . doesn't mean that the market research people and the politicians aren't aware of his segment and how to cater to him.
I've got a better idea, since it more accuratly reflects how the country is run
Annual Taxable income voting blocks
less than 50k (one vote per household)
51-100k (two votes per household)
101-200k (4 votes per household)
201-300k (16 votes per household)
301k-400k (256 votes per household)
401k-500k (65K votes per household)
501k and above (429K votes per household)
Why not just charge $1 per vote and you get as many votes as you are able and willing to pay for? That would be more honest and transparent.
No system is perfect. I just changed zip codes myself: five more years for me!
But my proposal would encourage stability, responsibility, and civic-mindedness overall. Try to think beyond your own potential little vote, OK?
It's not my "own potential little vote" when it could cancel out your "potential little vote." Everyone only has their own potential little vote, including you, so it would benefit you and your case here to not be snarky about it.
And no, it would not encourage stability, b/c crap happens and people have to move, so by saying you have to live in the same zip for five years means less upward mobility, which arguably benefits all of society when it can happen.
So, a lot of you are worried that welfare mothers, illiterate rednecks, fecund polygamists, and other non-mainstream citizens will have more political power than high-earning, well-educated, predominantly white taxpayers.
Just relax.
Not only are high-earning, well-educated, predominantly white taxpayers not having children, they're also not conservative and they're definitely not voting Republican anymore.
Who's having children these days? Conservatives in every economic class, across the board - chiefly religious conservatives. People unafraid of commitment, responsibility, and sacrifice. It makes perfect sense that the people actually raising and taking responsibility for the next generation have a proportionate share of political power.
It makes no sense to leave political power in the hands of the highest earning taxpayers, whose narrow economic interests and trendy causes already have a stranglehold on the system.
As for otherwise unqualified voters, that can be dealt with via parallel reforms, such as:
1. A 12th grade level test of historical and political knowledge - in English.
2. Returning the voting age to 21.
3. Requiring a minimum 5 year residency in the same zip code.
I hate using this cliche, but we need to "think outside the box" if this republic of ours is going to have a future.""
You want to think "outside the box" with antiquated sexist misogynistic crap? Ya, but you want women tightly confined in your sexist "box" because YOU can't think outside THAT!
"""""
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
The head of household is in a position of responsibility. He is charged with voting for the interests - and not necessarily the desires - of the members of his household. If there is disagreement, so what? There is only one head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Of course not. The husband is the head of the family, even if his wife is the Queen of England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WesternPilgrim
Leadership is a predominantly male trait. List all the exceptions you like, they just prove the rule. Why fight it?
Your Back in the Cave Days, sexually frustrated, MISOGYNISTIC, agenda is showing. Too bad for YOU women have so much POWER your kind will never prevail again.....
It was a better system for the nation, when only property owners could vote.
A smart man once said: When the people realize they can vote themselves the nations treasury, the experiment will end in a bloody mess.
What's to stop property owners from exempting themselves while soaking non-owners with high taxes?
Half the states give homeowners preferential property tax rates while soaking rental property (where non-owners live) with higher taxes.
Michigan has a nonhomestead tax which makes the school property tax rate on rental property 4x the tax rate on owner-occupied homes. It is a millage which must be periodically renewed and homeowners overwhelmingly vote for it because they don't have to pay it.
Considering WP religious stance I wonder why he did not include church membership and attendance in his criteria for voting. At least he could have included a property ownership restriction and a poll tax. That would get those irresponsible poor people off the voting lists where they dilute the votes of righteous and properly affluent men.
"Well adjusted"? "Millions"? Uh, no. Trust me on that. We have every reason to disenfranchise most of them.
As for married women, here's another good reason for them to choose their husbands carefully. And it seems that more reasons are needed. A marriage where husband and wife agree politically - on the big issues, anyway - has better odds for success.
Let's be honest here. Wives generally conform to their husband's politics anyway. That's the natural way of things, and there's nothing wrong with that. Very few wives will lose their cherished independent voice.
"""Wives generally conform to their husband's politics anyway""""
Well this is the most taliban-esque idea I've seen in awhile. Seriously, can we not just make a time machine and send anyone who believes this back 1500 years?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
your kind will never prevail again.....
