Universal suffrage was a mistake.

1  2018-09-25 by RMFN

If people of low information were not allowed to vote Trump wouldn't have been elected. This proves that the current state of elections, or glorified popularity contests have led us astray.

The founders of this nation never thought all people were qualified to vote. Some people have more of a vested interest in what happens in the nation. That is why the land owning restriction was originally in place. Today with the way cities are structured this type of restriction would be impossible.

But we can both agree something needs to be done, what can we do to prevent another Trump from being elected? What can we do to get our country back? We need to stand up for true American values of Freedom liberty and justice based on what the founders envisioned not what social justice Warriors and the diversity industry envision

105 comments

1  Nick11288 2018-09-25

What you're encouraging is a very dark and dismal view of how the government should treat citizens based on their perceived worth.

Who exactly do you think should not have the right to vote?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Capable and informed members of the of age population with a vested interest in its future. People who understand the relationship between the people and the government and who know how to uphold a social contract.

People with severe mental illness and or dementia will have their franchise revoked. Felons will continue to have a state by state restriction on voting.

1  Nick11288 2018-09-25

Capable and informed members of the of age population with a vested interest in its future. People who understand the relationship between the people and the government and who know how to uphold a social contract.

How do you determine that? A test? Sort of like those literacy tests we used to require certain people to take?

1  Nigel-Tufnel- 2018-09-25

Don't encourage him dude, he's a forum agitator.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

You can say it to my face.

1  Nigel-Tufnel- 2018-09-25

Rule 1 is don't feed them.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

A council of respected and qualified elders most likely.

I think if people can demonstrate that they can make decisions based off of available information i. E. Pieces of conflicting propaganda then it should be no problem to allow them to vote. But if someone is shown propaganda and unable to see the lies and contradictions in logic presented then they should not have the franchise.

Basically people who are unable to identify contradictions in logic presented to them by politicians should not be allowed to vote. If you are just swayed by emotion and not logic then the franchise is not for you.

1  Nick11288 2018-09-25

A council of respected and qualified elders most likely.

Who determines this all powerful council of "respected and qualified elders"? It sounds like something out of Harry Potter.

I think if people can demonstrate that they can make decisions based off of available information i. E. Pieces of conflicting propaganda then it should be no problem to allow them to vote. But if someone is shown propaganda and unable to see the lies and contradictions in logic presented then they should not have the franchise.

That's a pretty intense exam - and how would we administer it? Who determines what "conflicting propaganda" gets used in this exam? And who determines what is a lie and a contradiction? This sub is a perfect example of: One man's propaganda is another man's red pill.

Basically people who are unable to identify contradictions in logic presented to them by politicians should not be allowed to vote. If you are just swayed by emotion and not logic then the franchise is not for you.

We are all swayed by emotion. It's called being human.

Your idea is, by definition, discriminatory and dangerous. It's based off of a perceived set of expectations of a "qualified voter" that would change constantly (certainly from administration to administration) depending on who is handing out these orders to determine who is eligible and who is not.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Democracy is Stockholm syndrome.

1  Nick11288 2018-09-25

Yes, you've posted that statement on both threads now. While it's kind of a cool bumper sticker idea, it does nothing to actually support your argument.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

In your opinion just everyone should vote? Even people that can be demonstrated to show that they cannot tell the difference between propaganda and news?

1  Nick11288 2018-09-25

In your opinion just everyone should vote? Even people that can be demonstrated to show that they cannot tell the difference between propaganda and news?

Your belief hinges on the requirement that some entity (the government?) makes a decision based on a specific set of guidelines or principles. You don't see how that could be misused? (For the record, America has done that...it didn't work out too well).

1  Mcfussdaddy12 2018-09-25

Dude the government made propaganda use on Americans legal. You’re not going to be able to tell the difference 100% of the time. I guess nobody can vote!!

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

That's true. But if you show me two stories that have contradictions in their logic I will be able to find them.

1  Mcfussdaddy12 2018-09-25

You will not be able to find the every time and eventually your subconscious bias will show through. It’s just a part of being human. You’re post should be more about how to get the government to make propaganda illegal again.

1  StThomasAquina 2018-09-25

Middle America, anyone right of Bernie, people who don’t watch CNN/NBC.

1  Blakwulf 2018-09-25

Alright kids, that's enough Dickens for today.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Going to formulate an argument? Or just be smarmy?

1  Blakwulf 2018-09-25

Well i was just going to be smarmy, but alright. The short short version is that if you only let certain people vote, let's say educated and at a certain financial status, you're just creating a folded elite class system where the poor and middle class have no say at all and get horribly oppressed. It's the exact reason (well one of them) why the colonists fucked off from Europe and came to NA instead.

So ya. No, bad idea.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Do you think people that cannot see contradictions in logic presented to them should be allowed to vote. Say people work below 70IQ? Do you value the vote of someone who is easily swayed by propaganda?

1  Blakwulf 2018-09-25

I believe that if you make people take a test before they're allowed to vote, then you're eventually going to end up with riots in the streets.

1  Th3_Admiral 2018-09-25

Not to mention the obvious problem of who gets to make the test. If it is the people in power, what's to stop them from changing the test to disqualify a portion of their political opponents? As broken as our system is, taking away the right to vote from even more people will only make it worse.

1  Blakwulf 2018-09-25

It's the same thing that they did with IQ tests, making them racially biased. Turns out that people who live in the jungle can't solve for X when a train goes from NY to Chicago. They must be retarded savages, so we don't need to give them any rights.

1  Ls2323 2018-09-25

High IQ people can be surprisingly dumb and swayed as well.

1  f_k_a_g_n 2018-09-25

These kinds of posts are getting old RMFN. Why not just carry on a regular conversation instead of using "satire" to bait people?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

This is a serious topic. People dumb enough to vote for a literal Hollywood actor should not have the franchise.

1  HGpennypacker 2018-09-25

What is the bar for "smart enough to vote?"

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

A show of basic logical cognition.

1  HGpennypacker 2018-09-25

So what is that? Have a bunch of blocks you have to fit into holes of corresponding shapes in each voting booth? Maybe hold off on the government regulating your protected freedoms for a day or two.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Voting is not synonymous with freedom. I don't know where you're getting that.

1  QuintonFrey 2018-09-25

Considering the whole point of the American Revolution was to put an end to taxation without representation, I'd say it's a pretty important component.

1  bennysanders 2018-09-25

basic logical cognition.

Using your Reddit posting history as evidence, I'm just gonna go ahead and say you're not qualified to vote under this criteria

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

And that's a good thing? Right?

1  TheDaisyCutter 2018-09-25

It's all an opinion ... and frankly, if you're allowed to have one, so should the next guy. You feeling you're better than most proves nothing, and certainly solves nothing. Next to Einstein, you're likely an idiot as well. If you judge a fishes ability by the way it climbs a tree, then your test isn't proving anything. I'm sure there's a 70IQ out there that could mop the floor with half the folks here given the right situation.

You are part of the problem. You don't want harmony and structure, you just want whatever makes your world turn.

Luckily it's not so bad here yet that people like you and me are still allowed to post. Imagine if you had to take an aptitude test to see if you were allowed to Reddit ... and imagine if it was written in hieroglyphics... would you be above the required 70, or would you look dumb?

1  moparornocar 2018-09-25

I was having a convo with them about this in another thread, but guess they wanted their own thread.

1  Th3_Admiral 2018-09-25

This is his whole shtick. He even admitted to it in some of the leaked screenshots from the conclave. I don't understand why this obvious trolling is not only allowed but apparently protected by the mods. He has been banned and unbanned close to a dozen times now. No one else gets that kind of leeway around here.

1  Adamarama 2018-09-25

I can’t think of a way of doing it, because who gets to decide who is worthy of a vote? I could say we’ll only allow votes forpeople who are more likely to vote for people like me, so we can all entrench our wealth and power etc. You could have some kind of test you have to pass to be allowed to vote, but then who gets to decide what’s on the test? I think the best way of improving democracy would be getting rid of 2 party systems and enabling more proportional representation so that people feel free to vote with their beliefs rather than being forced to vote tactically. Then government would be more of a coalition working together really representing the people instead of just 2 parties that end up taken over by financial military interests etc, and pursue essentially the same policies that destroy everything for the majority. All types of democracy have their issues though and there are def problems with PR just fewer I think than what the US has now.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Definitely. The first step is dismantling the factions.

1  action_turtle 2018-09-25

Probably just use the current education scoring system to make a cut off point.

I feel everyone should be able to vote, but I do agree that millions, world over, not just USA, are of very low intelligence and just follow whoever shouts words they like the most

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

of very low intelligence and just follow whoever shouts words they like the most

This is the reason democracy doesn't work.

1  Nigel-Tufnel- 2018-09-25

Universal internet access was a mistake.

1  Mcfussdaddy12 2018-09-25

Yes censor all of the sheep!

1  Nigel-Tufnel- 2018-09-25

No, just op.

1  Nigel-Tufnel- 2018-09-25

Nice alt account you've got there... Would be a shame if someone

1  Mcfussdaddy12 2018-09-25

This isn’t any alt account. Not really sure what that means tbh

1  Nigel-Tufnel- 2018-09-25

That's convenient.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

We need to stand up for true American values of Freedom liberty and justice

Yes truly the way to Freedom and Liberty are to remove the vote from the many and give it to the few!

We live in a society!

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

When a group cannot understand what is in their best interest, the Shepard should lead.

You value the vote of people that can be easily influenced by propaganda?

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

So... Whats the solution?

How do we vet the shepard? I would argue that more people should vote so the vocal minority doesnt get the say against the silent majority. Most people are good people with good values, they just dont vote or participate.

So please you have identified a problem now offer a solution.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Do most people think for themselves? Or do as they are told?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

The solution is abandoning democracy for a reasonable system.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

a reasonable system.

Which would be....?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Anarcho monarchism.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Can you expand on what that idea means to you?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

I've done so on many occasions. Simply search the term and my username.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Im not finding anything besides top mind posts. So just copy paste since you have had to explain this multiple times.

I do however agree with the consensus that the idea of no rulers and an absolute monarchy (I assume you will be king?) makes little to no sense.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Lol. You sure read a lot into it based off of the title.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Since you cant or wont expand on it Im not sure what Im supposed to go on besides the name.

Anarcho - is the belief that the laws and power of governments should be replaced by people working together freely.

Monarchy - undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person

You have to admit that without further exposition those two ideas seem contradictory.

A voluntary monarchy? How will it remain voluntary? What enforces the rules the monarch creates? What if the monarch has a shitty kid and that kid runs the kingdom into the ground? Thats a story that has happened time and time again.

How do you insulate yourself against a tyrant or an idiot?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

We have a regular political theorist here.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Those are valid questions...

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Going to formulate an argument? Or just be smarmy?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

https://www.reddit.com/r/C_S_T/comments/84web2/true_community_policing

Here's a good example.

Another is my post, "anarchy means no rulers, not no rules".

1  AutoModerator 2018-09-25

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

And the monarchism part... That wasnt brought up

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

We are a nation of kings. How do you not get that? It's a political ideology based on the sovereignty of the individual.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

So you are purposely misusing the word monarchism?

Why would you use the word monarchy if there is no monarchy lol.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

...

You're just showing your ignorance of anarcho monarchism..

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

You literally wont explain yourself lol so no shit Im ignorant of whatever your interpretation of those words would be lol.

Its a monarchy! But we are all our own kings! Its an anarchy! With RULES!

You contradict yourself multiple times and its clear you dont fully understand your own ideas.

Maybe you should think about this for a while before posting.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Anarchy doesn't mean there are no rules. Are you serious? Do you even know what you're talking about?

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Well in your world monarchy is like everyone is kings and stuff dude.

I dont know what you mean because you have this imaginary system.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Well in your world monarchy is like everyone is kings and stuff dude.

I dont know what you mean because you have this imaginary system.

It's a well known political ideology. Just because you haven't read up on it doesn't make it "imaginary".

Do you know much about colonial Pennsylvania?

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

It's a well known political ideology

No its not lol. You are just making stuff up and appealing to consensus.

Do you know much about colonial Pennsylvania?

Pretty sure there werent any monarchies

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

It's a well known political ideology

No its not lol. You are just making stuff up and appealing to consensus.

Says you. You haven't even attempted to read up on it...

Do you know much about colonial Pennsylvania?

Pretty sure there werent any monarchies

Yes, every individual was sovereign.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Says you. You haven't even attempted to read up on it...

I have, I really did but it doesnt match up with what youre saying. You are coopting words to explain yourself and it doesnt make sense.

Yes, every individual was sovereign.

Then we are in agreement that the word monarchy as is defined does not apply here, right?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Do hyphenated words mean the same thing without the additional context?

C'mon. All you can do is argue semantics now?

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Semantics?

You act like this should be common knowledge but on the same hand you are making up definitions for words.

This is ridiculous.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

So to you, socialism, and democratic-socialism have the same meaning? That's what you're saying. Monarchy only has one meaning and cannot mean something else in the context of anarcho-monarchism..

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Monarchy only has one meaning and cannot mean something else in the context of anarcho-monarchism..

Well democracy and socialism have meanings of course, duh. But when someone references socialism it typically makes reference to one or more tenets of socialism or democracy.

You for instance wouldnt say anarcho socialism is a capitalism with a an elected head of state, right? That would be dumb and confusing.

Much like saying an anarcho monochary has the tenets of anarchy with none of the tenets of a monarchy, right? Because that would just be dumnb.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Okay, do you go out of your way to misrepresent other people's arguments or are you just that thick?

I explained it several times. It is a system of universal sovereignty. Everyone is their own one king. If you read the post I linked you would see how legal matters are adjudicated.

But since you refuse to listen and insist on arguing semantics that have been explained I have to go. I won't talk to someone who doesn't have interest in discussing in good faith.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Okay, do you go out of your way to misrepresent other people's arguments or are you just that thick?

Words have meaning, to some of us but I guess not all.

I explained it several times.

Actually you were pretty shitty and snarky to begin with.

It is a system of universal sovereignty. Everyone is their own one king. If you read the post I linked you would see how legal matters are adjudicated.

Again... This isnt a monarchy lol. I get your point but its just not a monarchy. You are trying to be poetic and its just not working.

I won't talk to someone who doesn't have interest in discussing in good faith.

I will which why I keep responding to you.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Again, you just insist on showing you have no idea what a anrcho monarchism is. And you refuse to learn. All you do is squeal about the name. Yeah it's not perfect but it encapsulates the essence of the ideology.

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

you have no idea what a anrcho monarchism is.

I Fully understand it.

You just keep choosing your own definitions for words.

Please grab a dictionary and look up what a monarchy is.

Yeah it's not perfect

No shit.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Monarchy has nothing to do with anarcho monarchism.. Lol. Are you really that thick?

1  Jabba___The___Slut 2018-09-25

Monarchy has nothing to do with monarchism... okay. So you are just reinforcing my original point that you are making up definitions.

Im pretty tired of this debate. Its clear you appealed to consensus from the start then got even shittier when I asked questions and then got even weirder when asked about the monarchism aspect your Belief System, or BS,

Later Bro.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Later. You know if you don't like me you could always block me.

1  BeshizzleAGenizzle 2018-09-25

Your first statement is a false premis, people who voted Trump are not all idiots! Instead of vilifying and taking sides we need to be listening to eachother.

The Hegelian dialectic is little more, than a diversion to prevent social cohesion.

1  Quexana 2018-09-25

I don't like Trump, but you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD'T give up democratic norms and rights in order to avoid a bad leader. All Governments allow for bad leaders. One of the great things about America is that, at most, our bad leaders are limited to eight years. Compare that to monarchies and dictators where bad leaders can ruin their countries for decades.

I absolutely think some electoral and political reforms should be made, but the goal of those reforms should be to make our government more democratic, more accountable to all people, not less so.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

https://np.reddit.com/r/TopMindsOfReddit/comments/9ispk3/top_mind_rmfn_supports_iq_restrictions_that_would/e6m1s1q

/u/dr_shillgood why don't you come talk to my face. If I'm such an idiot like you like to say, you should debate me.

Seems like you know a lot about political science, you can defend universal suffrage, and I'll take the opposition. I'm ready when you are.

1  labledcrazy 2018-09-25

bottom spooks of reddit.... Where they ridicule discussions on solutions to this crazy fucked up world..... Lowly fuckin maggots the whole lot of em....

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Solutions to the problem they caused get in the way of the agenda.

1  fbgmoola 2018-09-25

Democrats wouldn't win shit if you had to own land.....

1  Deckard256 2018-09-25

Getting a real James Woods vibe on this one. Maybe the cis baizuo really should stay home. Keep it real equal.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

James Woods is an og.

1  AnonDidNothingWrong 2018-09-25

If people of low information were not allowed to vote Trump wouldn't have been elected.

Explain this bullshit

1  saxilvania 2018-09-25

Waited till the last sentence, but knew the whole time you weren't arguing in good faith. Just a "concerned citizen". Lol. Couldn't hold your play long enough to finish the post. There are tons of people that just hate Trump and use social justice warriors. Lol how dumb do you guys think we are, seriously??

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

So because I made an argument you don't like its not in "good faith"?

1  lizzbug 2018-09-25

The founders of your nation also loved slavery and incest so...

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

So you're not an American?

Opinion disregarded.

1  lizzbug 2018-09-25

Your post title says universal, not national.

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Universal suffrage was a "movement" in early nineteenth century American politics. You'd know that if you weren't some foreigner.

1  lizzbug 2018-09-25

that's true!

shrug

if you live somewhere and pay taxes, you should have a say.

question: people that don't pay taxes in America - can they still vote?

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

They shouldn't.

1  nisaaru 2018-09-25

"Fascinating" theory. Now you have to show us how the alleged higher IQ Hillary voters applied their "IQ" better than the alleged lower IQ Trump voters.

I can't wait for that interesting "math" lesson in the brand new field of IQ topology, including their singularities and deep holes:-)

1  StardustSpinner 2018-09-25

Oh sure, that accounts for the well educated billionaires club responsible for the current one party government.

Republican controlled House, SEnate, Presidency, (bueracracy (Cabinet) and of course the Supreme Court.

It is not, poor ignorant voters who are fighting to gain the Supreme Court Seat for Kavanaugh.

And the only reason Trump won was because of what you proposing. Voter suppression, eliminating elderly, poor, working class voters from voting.

1  tinfoilcrusader 2018-09-25

I can't wait until I can't vote because I'm an uninformed bigot

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

Anarcho monarchism.

1  HGpennypacker 2018-09-25

What is the bar for "smart enough to vote?"

1  RMFN 2018-09-25

We are a nation of kings. How do you not get that? It's a political ideology based on the sovereignty of the individual.

1  TheDaisyCutter 2018-09-25

It's all an opinion ... and frankly, if you're allowed to have one, so should the next guy. You feeling you're better than most proves nothing, and certainly solves nothing. Next to Einstein, you're likely an idiot as well. If you judge a fishes ability by the way it climbs a tree, then your test isn't proving anything. I'm sure there's a 70IQ out there that could mop the floor with half the folks here given the right situation.

You are part of the problem. You don't want harmony and structure, you just want whatever makes your world turn.

Luckily it's not so bad here yet that people like you and me are still allowed to post. Imagine if you had to take an aptitude test to see if you were allowed to Reddit ... and imagine if it was written in hieroglyphics... would you be above the required 70, or would you look dumb?