Should the right to vote be restricted?

[Theodarzna]

That's nepotism.

Nepotism: "Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business."

Actually that is not the thing I described. Nepotism isn't even a related word to what I described.

Actually I'd modify it to maybe must be married and have made a kid or even two.

[Elim Garak]

Nepotism: "Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business."

Actually that is not the thing I described. Nepotism isn't even a related word to what I described.

Actually I'd modify it to maybe must be married and have made a kid or even two.

It is exactly what you described. Only those who have children and grand children have the greatest voting power, because they are invested in their children and grandchildren. That's nepotism on a bigger scale than just business or state. They will be shaping the country to favor their children. Not all children. THEIR children.

[Theodarzna]

It is exactly what you described. Only those who have children and grand children have the greatest voting power, because they are invested in their children and grandchildren. That's nepotism on a bigger scale than just business or state. They will be shaping the country to favor their children. Not all children. THEIR children.

Nepotism is giving favors to your own kin over others despite qualifications. I.E. I hire my cousin or half-brother over someone else simply because they are a relative.

Granting increased political power to family at-large isn't what that word describes. It is literally an irrelevant term to what I said.

[Rudkobing]

It didn't turn out so well on Starship Troopers.

[Strawberry]

The only people allowed to vote should be people aged 30-50. The rest is either too young to have their brain developed enough/don't care, still in school or too old to understand world modernization. Of course there are exceptions, but they are in minority.
Damn I'm gonna get flamed by our frequent 50+ visitors here, but hey lets say you're in the minority and not into politics, so it just proves my point

[Elim Garak]

Nepotism is giving favors to your own kin over others despite qualifications. I.E. I hire my cousin or half-brother over someone else simply because they are a relative.

Granting increased political power to family at-large isn't what that word describes. It is literally an irrelevant term to what I said.

Nepotism is when a person of power or influence favoring their own relatives. It can be jobs, but is not limited to that.

By granting families increased political power you make them "a person of power or influence" (the head of the family obviously), and they will favor their relatives and kids. Including in the job market as well. If the more kids you have gives you more political power - that will lead to significant sociopolitical changes not to mention overpopulation.

A person with a big family spanning several generations will be one of the most powerful - as he is one of the most powerful voter. Everyone will be very nice around them.
Their power will go beyond just voting. Lobbyist will be targeting them. People around them would not want to be on their shit list. Because a voter of such power can tell the people they elect WHAT TO FUCKING DO.

Do you like the utopia spawning out of your idea?

[Theodarzna]

Nepotism is when a person of power or influence favoring their own relatives. It can be jobs, but is not limited to that.

By granting families increased political power you make them "a person of power or influence" (the head of the family obviously), and they will favor their relatives and kids. Including in the job market as well. If the more kids you have gives you more political power - that will lead to significant sociopolitical changes not to mention overpopulation.

A person with a big family spanning several generations will be one of the most powerful - as he is one of the most powerful voter. Everyone will be very nice around them.
Their power will go beyond just voting. Lobbyist will be targeting them. People around them would not want to be on their shit list. Because a voter of such power can tell the people they elect WHAT TO FUCKING DO.

Do you like the utopia spawning out of your idea?

Ummmm that isn't what Nepotism is. Even one parent cannot have enough kids to substantially wield government power to benefit their specific family. Nepotism is based on specific families. Like Trump hiring his kids or something.

I get that you don't like the idea but you are just barfing up words that are irrelevant. And I never said it was a utopia.

[Elim Garak]

Ummmm that isn't what Nepotism is.

It is. No amount of you saying it is not is gonna change that.

Even one parent cannot have enough kids to substantially wield government power to benefit their specific family. Nepotism is based on specific families. Like Trump hiring his kids or something.

This is why you don't get it. You are talking abstracts not reality. When a boy from family A marries a boy from family B - Family A and Family B merge into Family AB. And it doesn't stop there. Each family has a head, no matter who, but there is a head of a family. The merger family will also have a head or several - a council. If you give them political power - they will align their goals because it's in the best interest of the Family (see mafia, but with political power instead of criminal power). The family does what the Donniest of Dons says. He says (and it will be a he most of the time) vote for Trump's pinky finger next elections - the family will vote for Trump's pinky finger, well those who have kids that is.

That's how you get nepotism on such a scale.

It's not uncommon for different families and their dons having an agreement, etc. Basically a head of such a family will be like "this neighborhood's" senator. And he will have a power over the neighborhood. The power of who can have what business in the neighborhood, etc. and who to employ (his family members).

I get that you don't like the idea but you are just barfing up words that are irrelevant. And I never said it was a utopia.

I never said that you did say it was Utopia, I called it utopia. Because it is, and like any other utopia it's crushed by reality.

[Independent voter]

nep·o·tism
ˈnepəˌtizəm/Submit
noun
the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs.



But if you were in charge of handing out food aid to your village and you favored your relatives, that's nepotism too although the word is rarely used that way.

[Theodarzna]

It is. No amount of you saying it is not is gonna change that.

This is why you don't get it. You are talking abstracts not reality. When a boy from family A marries a boy from family B - Family A and Family B merge into Family AB. And it doesn't stop there. Each family has a head, no matter who, but there is a head of a family. The merger family will also have a head or several - a council. If you give them political power - they will align their goals because it's in the best interest of the Family (see mafia, but with political power instead of criminal power). The family does what the Donniest of Dons says. He says (and it will be a he most of the time) vote for Trump's pinky finger next elections - the family will vote for Trump's pinky finger, well those who have kids that is.

That's how you get nepotism on such a scale.

It's not uncommon for different families and their dons having an agreement, etc. Basically a head of such a family will be like "this neighborhood's" senator. And he will have a power over the neighborhood. The power of who can have what business in the neighborhood, etc. and who to employ (his family members).

I never said that you did say it was Utopia, I called it utopia. Because it is, and like any other utopia it's crushed by reality.

No, it isn't. You are misusing the word.



The issue is that nepotism is literally a person hiring someone or appointing someone to a position that is their relative. Granting increased voting powers to people who've made children isn't really the same thing since it isn't an individual giving jobs or positions to relatives. That is not what the word means at all.

Also what you describe is basically any problem in a democratic system, I.E. a demographic with any power that votes as a block.

It isn't a utopia if I didn't describe it as such. So you are both using terms incorrectly but not even talking about what I described.

[Elim Garak]

No, it isn't. You are misusing the word.

The issue is that nepotism is literally a person hiring someone or appointing someone to a position that is their relative. Granting increased voting powers to people who've made children isn't really the same thing since it isn't an individual giving jobs or positions to relatives. That is not what the word means at all.

Also what you describe is basically any problem in a democratic system, I.E. a demographic with any power that votes as a block.

It isn't a utopia if I didn't describe it as such. So you are both using terms incorrectly but not even talking about what I described.

It's almost like you didn't even watch the video that you linked. Oh wait, it's exactly like you didn't.

[lucky21]

The only fair, unbiased, effective [& therefore] necessary way to do distribute voting should be those who want to vote opting in to take a test. The test would consist of objective facts. So once a voter has a knowledge and understanding of the objective facts involved in the current election, then it means they are capable of making an informed decision regardless of who they vote for.

The idea of anyone being able to vote with little information, corrupt information or none at all literally translates to unqualified people deciding the fate of our world and becomes just about as dangerous as letting people obtain their driver's license without having to pass a test.

[shifu]

As much as i like the idea you are attempting to push. That unless you have skin in the game then why should you have any say in anything.

Unfortunetely in this day and age. Far too many have no skin in the game. And far too few have too much skin in the game. And in our current system that would lead to even more abuse.

Unless you could qualify as having skin in the game by paying income tax hell idk. . . .

[Deianeira]

-It is a problem if more than 100 fake ballots are cast, and many many more were in California.
-Mandatory Voting is not necessary for the same reason as the ACA's Individual Mandate. [U]It's people's right to abstain[/U].
-We have that already, and it would be streamlined if a Voter ID was required to log into the ballot system acting as the 'key'.
-I'm always for that. California is rife with a lot of that. Hell lets get rid of the "all or nothing" rule while we're at it.
-I'm completely fine with that. No politician should have a "War Chest" like a certain female in recent memory.
-Again completely fine with that. Google should be broken into smaller companies for competition's sake.
-Fine with Lobbying being illegal. Same with Conspiring Politicians. Schultz should be in jail for what she did to Sanders.
-If they divest their finances to a third party for the period of the Campaign, that's probably enough.
-Agree with all of those things. A federal holiday set aside so people can vote (or take the day off) would be ideal.

I guess this is the part where you agree with me then. Cheers.

You do know that people can vote Blank(ie not choose any of the available candidates). That way you know they have been atleast paying attention.

[Machismo]

This is a terrible idea, there really is no other way to say it. It's an excuse to oppress others, limiting their freedoms, because you don't happen to like something about them. Fuck that.

[Deianeira]

You can care for the land without owning the land. Especially since a country is more than just land. Its a society.

and having rented, renters are for sure going to care about what they rent (mostly0, because f losing a security deposit and then being sued for excessive damages.

Not only that, i dare anyone to find a propertyowner that dont try to save on repairs if they dont HAVE to fix the property for it to be even livable. Because lets be real people that own property be it land or housing they do it to make money most of the time and if they can let it be in bad order and get away with it they will.

[Annamarine]

Only white male landowners who have a degree and are married should be allowed to vote and only if they served 4 years in the military.

[Draco-Onis]

Free as in regular business hours. No fees. Zilch. The local drunk off the street can get one as well.

I'll even add a delightful wasabi core, in the form of the above bullshit you described; resulting in immediate termination from one's job.

No exceptions.

Regular business hours are well the time people work so that is probably the only part I would change but if IDs were free and no hassle to get then voter ID laws would be 100% fine but that is never the case. The reason most voter ID laws end up being voted down in court is because those states make it a huge hassle for people to get them especially poor people. The point of these laws is to stop people from voting, republicans don't give a shit about voter fraud.

[Deleted]

The fair thing to do would be quiz voters on what the party's policies were. It should be mandatory to read a manifesto. If you don't know what a party's stated policy is that's not a matter of opinion, it is just ignorance, and you don't deserve a vote.

The problem is this would probably never be allowed because in the short-term it would result in a string of victories for hard left anti-establishment parties. In the longer-term it would result in a permanent advantage for right-wing establishment parites.

[zenkai]

Its a question I play with from time to time. Why should those that have no investment in a country have any sway in how it's run?

Would we be better off redistricting the much abused right to vote to smaller subgroups of society ? Perhaps those who served in the millitary or at a minimum owned land.

I am curious to hearing people's thoughts on it.

I don't think there's a way to restrict it with being fair. However I think we need to stop asking people to vote, if you need to be asked to vote chances are you don't give a shit or know what is really going on in the government.