Repeal the 19th amendment? -

  • DDoS is active again.

ES 195

have an entire amendment to allowing the flag of the US but illegalizing burning the flag of israel
Pretty sure it's already considered a hate crime. Actually I'm pretty sure it's only legal to burn white people flags.


The most underrated actor of the 21st century
It used to be the law that you needed to own property in order to be allowed to vote. Theory being that property owners had the most invested in society to be the ones to care about the outcome.

I would bring back the general idea but with a change. In order to vote or hold political office, you need to have children of your own. People without children seem to me to lack a certain attachment to the future and success of society.
This is a fucking horrible heuristic; the people who have the most children often also have ideas that are actively detrimental to the future and success of society.

Who decides who has the most valid stake in the country and its elections? Why should I give up my rights and not vote upon my ideals because somebody else's are "more valid"?
Who decides and why is an open question, and I personally believe it would be landowners and those who have participated military service. Functionally speaking, a military exists to protect land rights, and land rights exist to benefit a public of landowners and their tenants. The tenants, however, are transient, and much of their value is human capital- eminently transferable. They could leave the country at any time and have the very same value, or even gain in value. If a landowner was similarly evicted, be it a farmer, businessman, or homeowner, they would be in the hole for much of their worth comparatively and without access to a significant chunk of their skillset.
Like that, changes made to government are much more relevant and permanent for people in military service and land owners, as we have demonstrated with decades in the middle east and incredible taxes on private property for the crime of being too wealthy (abstract the fact that it has done little to curb or siphon any significant portion of the dramatic wealth of the truly wealthy). They do and will always either commit the most man hours or the most effective taxes to the country, or both. I consider that a 'stake'. As someone who does not own land and is not an active duty enlisted or commissioned soldier, I would not, as of yet, be able to vote under my preferred rules. I hold by this view anyway, because I'm aware that a society that suddenly begins to exploit its free land owners, especially a country with such an impressive independence streak, is doomed to fail spectacularly, or at the very least decay into absolute decadence. I also maintain that I would feel much more safe in knowing that, should I ever seek to obtain land myself, the laws of the country would not be willfully designed to fuck me over by an uncaring public.
I will admit that in the modern service economy in fact a rendition of the Prussian three-class system would be more appropriate, to the point that the direct percentage of the total tax base could be used to fraction your vote- contribute a full 1% of all taxes, and you get a full 1% of the vote. With modern technology it would be unprecedentedly easy to implement such a system. No one would claim their taxes were taken unreasonably if it gave them a literal stake in the electorate as opposed to a metaphorical one.
As for why you should "give up your rights," well, don't. I clearly can't force you to, and you're welcome to disagree with what I've laid out here. I didn't actually state out the argument for why this is a good idea in my prior or current post - though I did at least propose an un-cited, un-argued overview of my own conclusions on the topic - I only shared my specific scenario which was relevant for the lead-in question that you didn't answer. If the people who have the most valid stake in my country and its elections also happen agree with me, wouldn't that actually just be a vindication of my politics rather than some effort of mine to curtail opposition?
That is to say, if I am in favor of a system in which I would not yet even be allowed to vote (a system I have been in favor of for many years now, at that), how could it possibly be that "everyone who wants to restrict voting rights is actually saying" that "The vote should be restricted to people I agree with"? I did claim that the people I would restrict voting to happen to agree with me, but I'm not even sure that's the case. Given that wealth in general tends to predict voting patterns for the absolute opposite of my own agenda, there's no way for me to predict whether or not my version would favor my views - in fact, taken more critically I would expect it to only harm them. You can only bank on so many farmers and innawoods before the horde of trendy suburban experts starts running you out of town.
To make things worse, an updated three-class system would probably weigh so heavily against my views that they could not possibly ever win again without major changes in voting trends. Even so, I would still support that system, not because it would do me any favors, but because doing so anyway is simply the right thing to do.
Election and voting reform is a serious issue that gets absolutely fucking railroaded because of common dismissals like "you just want to get votes." Hell, that was basically the joke of the OP, 'just ban women so we can win elections again' as if that's even vaguely similar to the views of people who want reform. With that in mind, I'd really like to hear why you in particular believe that to be the apparent motive, or at least whether or not you still believe so after reading this.

Feline Supremacist

I am a Dog-Exclusionary Radical Felinist
True & Honest Fan
Everyone knows Robert Heinlein figured out who should vote. Only those who have completed Federal Service are eligible to vote and hold office.

Death Grip

Mmmmmn Tasty
@SkeetNYeet posting now that I am sober so this might not be totally coherent.
National pride is being used as a tool to manipulate and control people.
We in the western world are told that living in a democracy is a fabulous thing and we are privileged to do so. I personally do not view our democratic systems as actually democratic. The politicians we vote for are essentially all the same with motivations that are self serving.
They tell us things like Make Wherever Great Again but actually they are serving their own self interest and not trying to improve things for the people they supposedly serve.
This can seen through the amount of power given to corporations and the sabre rattling that is frequently used to bring people together against an enemy.
The two world wars that happened in the 20th century did not benefit the average person. Millions of people died because nation states decided they should. Because nation states are about benefitting the people who run them, not the people who live in them.
The same can pretty much be said for most major religions and global corporations don't even try to pretend they are benefitting anyone but their own self interests.
I am sure that I am going to get rated dumb for this post but I don't actually care. It is all bread and circuses but people don't like facing that.
True democracy has to be done on a much smaller scale than what we see today:


QI 541

The problem with the government is that we cannot incentivize politicians to make decisions that are best for the country. Democracy was supposed to handle that by assuming that politicians who don't do what's best for the country aren't re-elected but somehow that went wrong because that's clearly not what's happening these days. Maybe people are just too stupid for democracy.