HOW TO FIX DEMOCRACY
Change the voting system to only allow one vote per household with a married straight couple that either has children or has one member which is 30+ years old. No individuals voting to allow degeneracy, only families that are settled down and want to vote for changes that will help families and ultimately whites in the process. This would fix what we have taken to call degeneracy, and mass immigration through the danger it poses to these voting households.
Good luck getting that passed legalistically in an age that has already set precedent on voting being a basic right for all past a certain age. You could assume this comes within the rise of an ethnostate, but even such a state arising would have to move outside the framework of the nationally shared constitution.
I think having this would be a requirement for a successful ethnostate. Fully democratic, but doesn't allow democracy to get swayed by dumb individuals. It would also encourage many to get families, which can only be a net positive
Democracy is a lie.
I think you can fix it still. The other option is a benevolent dictatorship, which is very difficult to achieve
You can't fix an inherently broken system, retard.
the point is that the system we have now of mob rule can't be changed by legal means. are you gonna say that people are going to vote for their 'right' to be abolished?
Remove the elements that break it, and gear it to produce good changes
>HOW TO FIX DEMOCRACY
For reals though.
In the US, both the Senate and the Electoral College are vestiges of the British class system we should be ashamed to cling to.
And yeah, gerrymandering is an insult to democracy, but ANY form of districted representation is flawed.
As long as I'm forced to share a representative with my neighbor, but we don't share political views, at least one of us will be misrepresented in the legislature.
My solution?
Anybody can vote for anybody for the legislature (House of Representatives, Hose of Commons, state legislature, etc), anybody who gets at least one votes is in, only the top x-hundred get an actual office and seat on the floor, every representative gets voting power based on the number of votes they receive.
The likelihood that any two or more people who can achieve complex ideas efficiently will share a common ancestry, supports the idea that as people spontaneously organize into social groups will do so by a shared identity that has evolved by natural selection
It can't be repaired. Even if it did work, it's unstable anyway. 4-8 years is not enough time for a ruler to get things done, especially considering things like Congress which could slow things down. Dictatorships may not always be pretty but they are brutally honest.
Make this kind of voting constitutional. Socially it will encourage people to get families, and politically only allowing these people to vote it will create good changes. This is my theory anyway, feel free to poke holes in it, but I feel like the only other option is a benevolent dictatorship to truly achieve a nation that represents it's people.
How long should the leader be in office for? Life with more power would be better than what we have now.
>Giving a shit about democracy
Lmao
>Dictatorships may not always be pretty but they are brutally honest.
Most dictatorships are actually anything but "honest".
Control of the media is a hallmark of the autocrat.
The "age of reason" (more or less the end of royal rule) came as a result of high literacy and free communications.
>Life with more power would be better than what we have now.
Historically, no.
Whether you cherish personal freedom, high standards of living, or plain old low infant mortality rates, dictators, kings and autocrats have a poor historic track record.
You're thinking along the lines of 1984 type dictatorship. I believe in free speech/other rights still, however we still acknowledge the power of the dictator. Constitutional dictatorship.
The issue with kings are that they are given leadership through birthright.
Doesn't really matter, when you gear democracy to produce changes that benefit straight family households you can practically maintain all other political infrastructure with minor optimization and it will start to work to make a nation represent it's people. A leader could also have similar terms to what they currently are, wouldn't really change things in my opinion
This sounds reasonable, what are the downsides?
>Constitutional dictatorship.
By definition, the dictator, without checks and balances, is free from constraint by the Constitution.
You're wishing for a cement brick that can float.
Constitutional dictatorship is an oxymoron.
>The issue with kings are that they are given leadership through birthright.
No, the issue is unrestrained power.
And my point doesn't just apply to kings, it applies to dictators in general.
Can't think of any in the long term. It will certainly be better than having individuals voting for policies like a welfare living or allowing the kind of degeneracy that is anti-family at core. It would mostly preserve the refinement of giving the people the power to choose, while weeding out those who don't want to vote for changes that benefit families and the people, and ultimately the nation.
Dictator might not be the best word but I mean a powerful ruler that still has to abide by the constitution.
So what? These are leadership genes, chances are he will turn out similar to his father.
Would you rather have an equal vote with retards and women? Or leave it to someone higher IQ than most of the pop
This might be a good idea aswell. Having a constitution that outlines good rights, and a benevolent, smart dictator that maintains the nation's strength.
Repeal the 19th
>I mean a powerful ruler that still has to abide by the constitution.
You mean like a President?
This is a much cruder solution. It would certainly be better than pitting men and women against eachother, but doesn't exclude degenerate men from voting against the families. It was what I originally thought would help. I say repeal it, and replace it with what I propose
>Repeal the 19th
Enforce the 25th
Presidents only have executive power. The leader should be able to make laws too. Maybe have a council that examines the laws and make sure they don't violate the constitution.
As far as I understood it, he meant a dictator that can't change or disobey the constitution but has all the power up to that point.
This
>Presidents only have executive power. The leader should be able to make laws too.
Well, maybe not a "law" exactly, but certainly they should be able to issue decrees, regulations, etc.
Maybe we could call them "executive orders".
The POTUS is already able to direct the actions of the entire executive branch, which amounts to everything except the legislature and the courts.
I remember Jow Forumstards freaking out when Obama exercised this power.
What you really mean is "I wish Trump was the owner/operator of America, and not just some assclown that sits at a little desk in a big office".
Besides, looking back at the Bush (W) and Reagan administrations, I thought conservatives _liked_ having a figurehead for President.
>a dictator that can't change or disobey the constitution
Presidents (especially Trump) have flouted the constitution at every turn. How is what you're describing different than what we do now?
I think what you really mean is the idea of your party in particular having unrestrained control of government makes your dick hard.
A dictator is someone who dictates. A president has only so much power, after all they are just that: a president, the head representative of a nation. A dictator is someone who wields a nation's power to the absolute. This theoretical constitutional dictator is someone who isn't allowed to turn the country into a 1984 draconian hellhole, but has the power to deflect issues that are too abstract for a system geared to avoid authoritarianism.