Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 21st, 2013 #1
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,290
Crowe
Default Who should be permitted to vote in a White homeland, should there be elections?

I'm not a huge fan of Democracy, but am not against voting entirely. I think voting should be restricted to:

#1: White Fathers; they cast a vote for the entire family. Larger the family, the more weight their vote counts. As long as this group represents the vast majority of the vote counts, then such a system might be sustainable.

#2: White male land owners of age 25 or older. Can't have daddy giving a small chunk of land to son just so he can vote, so they would have to prove they paid for land with funds obtained through working. Owning land is one way of measuring someone's worth as a worker. There could be other ways of doing this other than a land owning requirement.

#3: White Men in the military/militia. You serve in defense of your nation then that should give you the right to vote.

I don't think women should get to vote. And if they want a say they should appeal to their husband. Men are more pragmatic, and aren't driven by emotions that could cloud their judgement.

And its not just women, we can't have White male flunkies and free loaders voting either, because they would have an invested interest in pursuing a government that favors and rewards their laziness. And that would be the path to destruction.

Last edited by Crowe; August 21st, 2013 at 05:54 AM.
 
Old August 21st, 2013 #2
Pierre-Marc
 
Pierre-Marc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 333
Pierre-Marc
Default

I would also go with #1 but would formulate it differently:

One vote is given to every married couple with at least one child.

There's three things here:
- I don't really care whether it's the man or the woman who decides, they must consult each other before voting in order to know what to vote but more importantly why. If they can't decide on important subject then there might be a deeper problem within the family.
- At least one child because voting is about deciding the direction the community takes and therefore if they want to be part of this community they must help it survive through the years.
- Each vote has the same weight, having children is a good thing but too much will lead to overpopulation which isn't that good (I'm talking about the Nigerian type of birth rate...)

I would remove #2, owning a land is good but doesn't really contribute to the community. Also, if you bought this land with your own money then you should be able to support a family.

I think I would also remove #3. Or give a vote only to those who have been at war. I think what's important to understand is that everybody should go through #1.
 
Old August 21st, 2013 #3
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,290
Crowe
Default

Overpopulation? The White race is less than 10% of the worlds population. We need more numbers. Besides there is plenty of room for growth in the USA, especially after we kick some of these muds out, or at the very least segregate them in areas away from us. We need to start having 4+ kids on average for a hundred years or more before we think about overpopulation. There will be a void in the population that needs to be filled once we remove non-Whites from our nations. The simple solution is have kids and replace that void with people of our own race. Any Nationalist government IMO should put a huge emphasis on that.

Last edited by Crowe; August 21st, 2013 at 07:06 PM.
 
Old August 21st, 2013 #4
Alyy
Junior Member
 
Alyy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 74
Alyy
Default

Women should never had the right to vote. Women are too emotional. I had a debate with women about gay rights ect...marriage and children, this lead me to my decision; women have no sense of thier own, they believe in what the government tells them to believe.
 
Old August 21st, 2013 #5
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

I like the idea of a person having children before being eligible to vote. Supposedly this was ancient Scandinavian custom.
 
Old October 6th, 2013 #6
Soldatul Vostru
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alyy View Post
Women should never had the right to vote. Women are too emotional. I had a debate with women about gay rights ect...marriage and children, this lead me to my decision; women have no sense of thier own, they believe in what the government tells them to believe.
I agree, although there are women like you and Bev who are better qualified to vote than a lot of men. But in general women are too emotional, and too easily lead by what's considered "fashionable" or "in" at the time. Adopting pet niglets is "cool" now, so they do it; as is getting "muh dik'd" by a gorilla / mud.
 
Old October 6th, 2013 #7
Soldatul Vostru
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: The Wrong Parallel Universe
Posts: 3,499
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
I'm not a huge fan of Democracy, but am not against voting entirely. I think voting should be restricted to:

#1: White Fathers; they cast a vote for the entire family. Larger the family, the more weight their vote counts. As long as this group represents the vast majority of the vote counts, then such a system might be sustainable.

#2: White male land owners of age 25 or older. Can't have daddy giving a small chunk of land to son just so he can vote, so they would have to prove they paid for land with funds obtained through working. Owning land is one way of measuring someone's worth as a worker. There could be other ways of doing this other than a land owning requirement.

#3: White Men in the military/militia. You serve in defense of your nation then that should give you the right to vote.

I don't think women should get to vote. And if they want a say they should appeal to their husband. Men are more pragmatic, and aren't driven by emotions that could cloud their judgement.

And its not just women, we can't have White male flunkies and free loaders voting either, because they would have an invested interest in pursuing a government that favors and rewards their laziness. And that would be the path to destruction.
So what you're saying is Fakins should not be allowed to vote? I agree.
 
Old October 6th, 2013 #8
MikeTodd
Pussy BŁnd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
MikeTodd
Cool "consent of the governed"

Quote:
Who should be permitted to vote in a White homeland, should there be elections?
Anyone who freely gives their voluntary consent to abide by the codes, statutes, rules, and regulations of the system in which the voting takes place.
Absent the explicit authorization of the sovereign individual who upholds the Common Law?...fuck off and die, pig!
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old October 6th, 2013 #9
Crowe
Senior Member
 
Crowe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,290
Crowe
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldatul Vostru View Post
So what you're saying is Fakins should not be allowed to vote? I agree.
Yeah, that is a great example of ilk that would have no voting rights.

Also someone like Fakins wouldn't be able to freeload and get carried on the backs of the working men in my country. You either A: get a job, or B: If you're starving you can volunteer yourself and earn 3 hots and cot at your nearest work camp.

And this isn't just about punishment, but to also help these people. Things like good work ethic and habits and be learned in a work camp, as well as possibly some types of trades, and or farming. They'll leave the work camp and be in peak physical condition, as well as be accustomed to a working man's schedule. Maybe they learned how to lay bricks while in a work camp, and can get a job as a brick layer or something when they get out, or etc.

Last edited by Crowe; October 6th, 2013 at 12:42 PM.
 
Old October 14th, 2013 #10
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be 'discovered' by an election." ~ Adolf Hitler
 
Old October 14th, 2013 #11
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soldatul Vostru View Post
I agree, although there are women like you and Bev who are better qualified to vote than a lot of men. But in general women are too emotional, and too easily lead by what's considered "fashionable" or "in" at the time. Adopting pet niglets is "cool" now, so they do it; as is getting "muh dik'd" by a gorilla / mud.
I agree the vote should be limited to one per family with the man pulling the lever, not to say that in some cases the woman wouldn't be telling the man which way to vote. Plus a voting citizen would need to hold property, and pay taxes. Any person on welfare would not have the right to vote. A White republic would reserve much honor for women, the mothers of the race, but politics cannot be allowed to divide families, and the best assurances of this is to allow only one vote per family. Single, childless men do not have the vote. If a man were sterile he would need to adopt. It could even be a law that a family gets the number of votes as there are children in the family, administered in the voting booth by the head of the family. Although this might be impossible to track properly so might not be practical. Abortion would of course be illegal -- as the future of the race must be protected by law. Or put another way, it would be illegal to murder the future, i.e. our children.

Last edited by Bardamu; October 14th, 2013 at 09:44 PM.
 
Old October 14th, 2013 #12
ohgolly
Senior Member
 
ohgolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Florida CSA
Posts: 1,904
ohgolly
Default

Votes are meaningless. They convince men that votes matter.

Minus a vote the leader must rely on his gauge of public perception. That is, a single individual who cannot escape responsibility.
 
Old October 15th, 2013 #13
Gordon Green
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bardamu
Plus a voting citizen would need to hold property, and pay taxes.
I've a huge deliberations on and against the property requirement. Why? Actually, the answer doesn't even required one long paragraph, just the factoid stated in this one sentence: liberals own well worth all of the properties and assets into the BILLIONS in Los Angeles and New York City so their votes would quantify unfairly many times in respect to property ownings; and they disproportionately own 60% + of all the wealth in the US.
 
Old October 15th, 2013 #14
Bardamu
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Green View Post
I've a huge deliberations on and against the property requirement. Why? Actually, the answer doesn't even required one long paragraph, just the factoid stated in this one sentence: liberals own well worth all of the properties and assets into the BILLIONS in Los Angeles and New York City so their votes would quantify unfairly many times in respect to property ownings; and they disproportionately own 60% + of all the wealth in the US.
Two things, in a future Republic all that liberal wealth would be redistributed, and a billionaire wouldn't have any additional votes compared to a person of humbler means. You pay property taxes you get a vote along with it. In a fairly run system most people that wanted a home and worked would have a home, at least by the time they were twenty-five. Soldiers would be counted as property owners.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:06 AM.
Page generated in 0.11585 seconds.