Is he right? should we try to bring back intelligence tests for voting?

is he right? should we try to bring back intelligence tests for voting?

Attached: voting.jpg (1200x638, 74.67K)

rather than an intelligence test they should just make it require a lot of effort to register to vote so that most people are unwilling to do it. lazy people do not deserve a vote. going through the full process is already an intelligence test of sorts, while also being a test of whether they're lazy.

He realizes that if they brought it back, then it would have the same effect as the Jim Crow laws?

Voting requirements should at least be as stringent as renting a car. If you're under 25 or over 70, you shouldn't be allowed.

Movieblob is not known for being gifted mentally

Depends on who gets to set the test standards.

>Pathetically small amount of Americans engage in voting
>"We should place more limits on voting"

..and a valid credit card and drivers license.

Voting should be reserved for land owning people with 2+ children. They are the only ones invested long term in the state because they are the only ones who have reason to be

No. The Democrats will give niggers a handicap score just for being a nigger. Just like they do with affirmative action.

Attached: 1601393613788.webm (1280x720, 2.69M)

Man I wonder if he realizes the irony

democracy is shit. even if you have a system where only educated people can vote, either the educational system will become compromised or the system will be pushed slowly, but surely, to let everyone vote. its a slippery slope constant in the system.

my advice is to throw away votes altogether and just let one guy run the place like a fucking CEO. that way the guy wont get corrupt aince he has investment in the cou try and every other fucker can go about their business not thinking about politics 24/7, which should be far healthier for them and make them 10X more happy.

Attached: 1571023611208.png (1024x576, 855.8K)

No we should return to only property owning white men being allowed to vote.

>bad guy does good thing
>NOOO WHY DID HE DO THAT I CANNOT DISASSOCIATE THE GOOD THING FROM THE BAD GUY WAAAAHHHH

I think that idea is going to backfire on him.

The best part is that the "bad guy" is fictional.

The evil white jim crow era racist is imaginary.

Maybe not intelligence tests, but at least aptitude tests. What's wrong with people correctly answering question on each candidates official policies prior to voting?

You guys are forgetting half of Trump voters are under 100 IQ as well. Both parties would reject intelligence tests, as it takes plenty of dumb people to get them elected.

Does Chipman doubt the majority of negroes would be disqualified?

Retarded and stupid people should have representation too.

Otherwise republicans would never again win an election.

It's a fact that every step up in education correlates to more left leaning and Democrat aligned views.

Even you exclude a lot of black people, you'd still lose in the long run because higher educated people are more likely to be Democrat.

make it a requirement to be a registered gun owner to be able to vote

BLOCKS. YOUR. VOTE.

Attached: BLOCKS_YOUR_VOTE.webm (198x360, 984.42K)

it's almost like it takes 12-15 years to brainwash someone into voting democrat

I'd say a voting license, much like a driver's license, should be required.
And like a DL, it should require a test.

A civics test like this:

1. The vice-president does not have a vote in the Senate unless ______.

2. A president pro tempre is ______.

3. The president takes office on ______.

4. How old must the president be?

5. When can the president call Congress into special session?

6. What is a written law?

7. The two houses of Congress are ______ and ______.

8. The number of Senators from each state is ______.

9. A filibuster is ______.

10. A quorum in Congress is ______.

... But longer and harder.
If you don't know basic stuff about how government works, then you shouldn't be in the business of picking its representatives.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that 99% of all academic faculty are rabbid tranny faggot liberal kikes, like you. KYS faggot.

Or being around a mix of different people for long periods of time works against you being a racist dipshit.

Like urban centers are less Conservative because you interact with more people and develop less prejudices against groups of people.

no i think its more important to demolish the two party WWE style of system. dismantle political parties in general. allow an average person to donate unlimited amount of money to a candidate. as of now, republican party tries every legal way to block libertarians off the ballot, because they know libertarians are becoming a threat to them. it's sick and its wrong. libertarianism is the future of politics.

Cry more snowflake. Even if it's brainwashing we still would win in the long run if you exclude stupid people.

This doesn't change my argument at all.

But I assume you'd be one of the people excluded from voting anyways, based on your braindead reply.

Sure min IQ has to be 100

Attached: fob-clifton_election_map-teaser.jpg (615x336, 64.56K)

The entire idea of our representative system of government is that voters don't need to know that stuff, because they're electing people to know that stuff for them.

The property requirement is much better in this sense, because rather than requiring knowledge, which has no moral value, the property requirement requires that voters have a stake in society: something to lose if they vote in bad leaders. If you own land and vote in a bad leader, you could lose your land. If you own a printing press and vote in a bad leader, you could lose your printing press.

Hordes of niggers in cities have nothing to lose, but they have votes so they elect bad mayors who do nothing to stop the pillaging. See how that works?