US Voting Qualifications Thread

[Smitty-48]

Won him two elections didn't it? You think Reagan cared about any long-term negative consequences? Why would he? That's someone else's mess to clean up, not his. Reagan didn't get blamed when shit didn't go so well afterward, because it didn't happen on his watch. Reagan comes out of it being lionized, and Bush takes most of the fall, that's how it works.

The public wont vote against debt unless and until they feel the effects of inflation, there's no point in wagging fingers at them in the meantime, it's a collective will, it only responds to mass stimulus in one direction or another, it's not like one person you could convince with a rational argument about how they would feel the pain in the future, collective human nature is that they will only respond when they feel the pain, in the interim, politically, there's no point in trying to swim against the current, can't do anything if you don't get elected.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

Voting leads to having lunatics like Wilson in charge of the Gibs Empire; which, in the case of Wilson, led the entire world directly to the Third Reich and the USSR and red China and 100M+ laid low.

Less voting, sil vous plait.

From MHF anti-hero Hoppe:

Why Democracy Rewards Bad People

Consequently, under democratic conditions the popular though immoral and anti-social desire for another man's property is systematically strengthened. Every demand is legitimate if it is proclaimed publicly under the special protection of "freedom of speech." Everything can be said and claimed, and everything is up for grabs. Not even the seemingly most secure private property right is exempt from redistributive demands. Worse, subject to mass elections, those members of society with little or no inhibitions against taking another man's property, that is, habitual a-moralists who are most talented in assembling majorities from a multitude of morally uninhibited and mutually incompatible popular demands (efficient demagogues) will tend to gain entrance in and rise to the top of government. Hence, a bad situation becomes even worse.

Historically, the selection of a prince was through the accident of his noble birth, and his only personal qualification was typically his upbringing as a future prince and preserver of the dynasty, its status, and its possessions. This did not assure that a prince would not be bad and dangerous, of course. However, it is worth remembering that any prince who failed in his primary duty of preserving the dynasty — who ruined the country, caused civil unrest, turmoil and strife, or otherwise endangered the position of the dynasty — faced the immediate risk either of being neutralized or assassinated by another member of his own family. In any case, however, even if the accident of birth and his upbringing did not preclude that a prince might be bad and dangerous, at the same time the accident of a noble birth and a princely education also did not preclude that he might be a harmless dilettante or even a good and moral person.

In contrast, the selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it nearly impossible that a good or harmless person could ever rise to the top. Prime ministers and presidents are selected for their proven efficiency as morally uninhibited demagogues. Thus, democracy virtually assures that only bad and dangerous men will ever rise to the top of government. Indeed, as a result of free political competition and selection, those who rise will become increasingly bad and dangerous individuals, yet as temporary and interchangeable caretakers they will only rarely be assassinated.

Other than the Prince who might be accidentally good, what form of government actually rewards good people?

or,

Democracy means government by the uneducated, while aristocracy means government by the badly educated.

[apeman]

I mean, if we randomly selected congressmen, could congress be worse? I doubt it.

[The Conservative]

I mean, if we randomly selected congressmen, could congress be worse? I doubt it.

Hold my beer.

[Speaker to Animals]

I mean, if we randomly selected congressmen, could congress be worse? I doubt it.

We could randomly select a pool of qualified voters and then have an election to draft them into service in the legislature for a year.

Just keep a database of all the voters who hold university degrees, no criminal record, etc. If you get selected and refuse, then you don't get to vote, and if you vote you have to accept that you could be called upon to do this job. Then make it like the national guard where employers have to hold on to their jobs for them wherever possible.

Because it's random, you are likely to usually get people who do not want the job, but because of the qualifications requirements, you will get people who are at least qualified. Then because you are forcing people to set their shit aside for a year and work in the legislature, you are forcing people to accept the consequences of their votes too.

For federal offices you could keep a list of all the highest-functioning citizens like professors, businessmen, top lawyers, etc.

You could do similar things for everybody else. Random draft for community details and other fun times to make the community a better place as the cost of voting.

If you don't want to be on the list, then don't register.

After you serve a year, then you go off the list for like ten to fifteen years, so there wouldn't be any career bullshit going on, and people wouldn't get nailed for community service more than once or twice in a lifetime.

[The Conservative]

I mean, if we randomly selected congressmen, could congress be worse? I doubt it.

We could randomly select a pool of qualified voters and then have an election to draft them into service in the legislature for a year.

Just keep a database of all the voters who hold university degrees, no criminal record, etc. If you get selected and refuse, then you don't get to vote, and if you vote you have to accept that you could be called upon to do this job. Then make it like the national guard where employers have to hold on to their jobs for them wherever possible.

Because it's random, you are likely to usually get people who do not want the job, but because of the qualifications requirements, you will get people who are at least qualified. Then because you are forcing people to set their shit aside for a year and work in the legislature, you are forcing people to accept the consequences of their votes too.

You could do similar things for everybody else. Random draft for community details and other fun times to make the community a better place as the cost of voting.

If you don't want to be on the list, then don't register.

High School Degree, not University. We have University Degree people in there already, and we already can tell how well they are doing.

[Speaker to Animals]

I mean, if we randomly selected congressmen, could congress be worse? I doubt it.

We could randomly select a pool of qualified voters and then have an election to draft them into service in the legislature for a year.

Just keep a database of all the voters who hold university degrees, no criminal record, etc. If you get selected and refuse, then you don't get to vote, and if you vote you have to accept that you could be called upon to do this job. Then make it like the national guard where employers have to hold on to their jobs for them wherever possible.

Because it's random, you are likely to usually get people who do not want the job, but because of the qualifications requirements, you will get people who are at least qualified. Then because you are forcing people to set their shit aside for a year and work in the legislature, you are forcing people to accept the consequences of their votes too.

You could do similar things for everybody else. Random draft for community details and other fun times to make the community a better place as the cost of voting.

If you don't want to be on the list, then don't register.

High School Degree, not University. We have University Degree people in there already, and we already can tell how well they are doing.

LOL, no. I wouldn't mind putting people with high school degrees in charge of municipal issues, but there is zero chance people like that are qualified to be anywhere near a legislature helping to craft laws and public policies.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with avoiding college. Most people don't belong there. But there are some jobs and roles in society that require the ability to complete a legitimate university program.

[The Conservative]

We could randomly select a pool of qualified voters and then have an election to draft them into service in the legislature for a year.

Just keep a database of all the voters who hold university degrees, no criminal record, etc. If you get selected and refuse, then you don't get to vote, and if you vote you have to accept that you could be called upon to do this job. Then make it like the national guard where employers have to hold on to their jobs for them wherever possible.

Because it's random, you are likely to usually get people who do not want the job, but because of the qualifications requirements, you will get people who are at least qualified. Then because you are forcing people to set their shit aside for a year and work in the legislature, you are forcing people to accept the consequences of their votes too.

You could do similar things for everybody else. Random draft for community details and other fun times to make the community a better place as the cost of voting.

If you don't want to be on the list, then don't register.

High School Degree, not University. We have University Degree people in there already, and we already can tell how well they are doing.

LOL, no. I wouldn't mind putting people with high school degrees in charge of municipal issues, but there is zero chance people like that are qualified to be anywhere near a legislature helping to craft laws and public policies.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with avoiding college. Most people don't belong there. But there are some jobs and roles in society that require the ability to complete a legitimate university program.

Then a College degree, not just University, it's time to break the mold as it is.

[Kazmyr]

Under any of the current voting systems today, is there a government out there that actually limits enfranchisement, beyond just women and kids under 18?

[apeman]

I mean, if we randomly selected congressmen, could congress be worse? I doubt it.

Hold my beer.

By "random", I meant random, not you scouring google images for a predetermined population of retards.

I propose an addition to my voting qualifications list in the OP: under no circumstances can TC vote.