If you think about it for just a minute or two and get over the fact that most here would lose the right to vote, along with a bunch of other "good" people, the resulting leadership and state of the country would be much better off if only they voted. Wayy better off.

the "debate" hasn't even happened yet but its obvious to me and anyone who has a stake in this country that it would be so much better.

every election would be between a hardliner and someone else right of center. there would never be a 'risk' that kalama harris or some freak like that wins. there wouldn't be any illegals here ever. social programs would all still exist because military uses them too.

only vets voting is CR

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945828)

But even if true it still would be worth it given the other benefits to this country. And its not even close.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945832)

The point isn't that specific example you fucking politishit retard, it's that vets would run wild creating a system that benefits their own above all else. Ljl if you think they would be some benevolent based benefactors and not just a dictatorship of 105 IQ tatted proles voting to give themselves money

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945838)

Your posting in here is a great example of why you should lose the right to vote. the franchise was never meant to extend to people like yourself.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945844)

every election would be between a hardliner and someone else right of center. there would never be a 'risk' that kalama harris or some freak like that wins. there wouldn't be any illegals here ever. social programs would all still exist because military uses them too.

No fucking shit this entire thread is speculation. I'm saying yours is grounded in some childlike fantasy of how based it could be and mine is grounded in thinking about what would actually happen when a not particularly smart and very self congratulating group of people gain exclusive power over the country.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945848)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945850)

One or two years volunteerish/NGO/peace corps type service where you're "Held at the convenience of the United States government" for a small amount of pay with military style room and board . Would've loved to do that after high school as an alternative

Works for other countries. It's either that or reform civics education

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945907)

Maybe keep universal franchise but add a weighted vote system. One vote weighs for two or three votes for civic service holders

The spread of this would also not be as right leaning as keeping it strictly for veterans. I'd wager that it'd be somewhere reasonably close to right down the middle

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945917)

Besides that, there are going to be more and more Long and Trump type populist candidates simply because it wins votes even if its not politically sustainable if there isn't some kind of reform. Libs will hang themselves again and again by not realizing exactly how new and radical some of these recent ideas about this republic that calls itself a democracy actually are. The progressive neoliberal position that defined the Obama years till today is not a natural calling for the lower classes, that much should be obvious by now, it's a predilection of a decadent urban bourgeoisie, and that entire paradigm was kept afloat by a permanent mind-warping propaganda blitz that used taxpayer funds for one way partisan ends

It's not going to keep working like it used to without some change. The internet shows people for themselves without much filter what's been tried here and elsewhere and what the results are and people are going to keep asking questions like OPs and if the substance of the matter isn't addressed then you're going to get very dumb people with very bad ideas pushing things that are truly radical and against even the basic principles of the two party system (like the idea that political action should be 1. equitable and 2. in the non-partisan interests of the national base that the parties nominally serve)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49945927)

Would improve the military and citizenry though

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49947002)

Would improve citizenry because some would benefit from the military as a habituation to order. Would additionally improve the polity by precluding those unfit for service from civic participation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948667)

I am definitely in favor of a much more limited voting structure. If anything, making people feel like they need to "be informed" and care about this shit all the time is basically a form of mental torture. And it clearly just leads to a number of bad outcomes (unless you are a rentier profiting from an engorged state.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49947099)

half of the people don't even understand the question, which is: "which is preferable, the status quo, or changing from the status quo to only people who have had military service voting?" there are all kinds of responses that are people just making up favorable strawmen in their heads and then pretending (not realizing?) like that is the position that is being advocated for vs. military-only suffrage, instead of the status quo

i would be very shocked to see anyone here actually give a sincerely-believed, full-throated defense of the status quo of the US as preferable to the hypothetical state of the US if we were to switch to military-only suffrage. like the OP points out, it's not even close - military-only suffrage would be vastly preferable and would be a vastly more desirable society compared to the status quo

really strange topic discussion so far although it's at least relatively interesting vs other common topics here

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49947096)

*goes on to give a moronic, low-IQ take with no rousing points to change anyone's mind*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948373)

Why not just give all power to down syndrome patients in mental wards? They would almost veritably rule with more grace than a captured crowd of bonafide traumatised retards who volunteered to work for Israel

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948224)

I urge you to actually spend more than 20 seconds thinking about this question. This response, as well as ohnoes responses, indicate that you guys have not actually put at least a few minutes of thought into this

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948339)

1. Military members are, in the aggregate, less desirable and inferior people compared to the entire population in the aggregate (this is obviously not true and frankly just weird and sus that any non-blue-haired lib would think otherwise)

2. Military-only suffrage would result in a society in which everything catered to military members at the expense of everyone else. But this isn't how our society currently works, and it's not how democracy works in general. The voting population almost never gets what they want. Elite and market interests are who controls the levers of power and government policy. It wouldn't be any different with military-only suffrage

These guys just haven't actually put any thought into this question. Karlstack didn't either. You gotta train yourself to Actually Think about hypos. It doesn't come naturally

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948432)

No fucking shit it isn't how our current society works because you have competing factions. That's the entire point -- if you give control to one specific group they will pursue policies in their best interest. If only black people could vote you think they wouldn't vote for all sorts of "give niggas money" programs? Of course they fucking would. If only boomers could vote we'd have a social security system that makes the UK blush. Etc.

You're just incapable of actually debating anything and resort to "Well, You're Factually Wrong" whenever someone disagrees with you

"1. Military members are, in the aggregate, less desirable and inferior people compared to the entire population in the aggregate (this is obviously not true and frankly just weird and sus that any non-blue-haired lib would think otherwise)"

Your median military mo is above your median American sure, but that's not saying much. You cut off the majority of the actual ruling class of somewhat smart people (that hold radically disproportionate influence relative to proles) who are responsible for keeping the country from falling apart

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948468)

It's also very strange to assume that military members would all want the same thing(s). This is like assuming that all current voters want the same thing(s). This is never going to be true for any group of people, no matter how homogeneous they are

I'm not trying to be uncharitable here. You're just not actually thinking about this very hard. There is a one very strong argument against military-only suffrage in particular that I already laid out in the karlstack thread that you guys aren't bringing up because you haven't thought about this hypo very hard yet

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948475)

You clearly have something specific in mind, what is it. What is it that the the great majority of people agree on but is not being implemented? Note that this is specifically *what they agree on*, not what you personally interpret as "being in everyone's best interest". Sure sometimes the court gets in the way of this, but generally speaking outside of SCOTUS when public opinion is strong enough things will happen.

"Voters don't ever get what they want; people with power and influence get what they want"

Voters actually get what they want pretty damn often. People elected Trump because of the border, border crossings are significantly down. People in California or New York want a billionaire tax, they elect guys who will tax billionaires. Living in Texas or Florida is materially different than California or New York.

"It's also very strange to assume that military members would all want the same thing(s). This is like assuming that all current voters want the same thing(s). This is never going to be true for any group of people, no matter how homogeneous they are"

Do you or do you not agree that black people would vote for endless black programs or an only-senior electorate would vote for assraping our budget in favor of social security? You're taking very direct examples and arguing around it by just making up some half-baked analogy. It's not like that at all; the difference is that "all voters" by definition cannot be a faction, it's comprised of literally every American citizen who isn't a felon. You are arguing that if you give a specific group of people power they will not in fact vote in the interests of their specific group above others, period.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948541)

these idiots seriously cannot stay away from the strawmen

the whole point is that vets will have better interests in mind than either of these groups, you fucking retard.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948560)

Except that is not what he is saying. His line of argument is quite explicitly "they will not vote in their own interests, groups don't do that", not that "they will vote in their own interests and their interests are inherently superior". That is what I am specifically counter-arguing and they are very different things to say. The fact that you're conflating the two means maybe you are a bit too emotional here, little buddy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948611)

I'm not going to be as uncharitable as the guy above me, but I do agree with him that you're making up irrelevant strawmen. Exclusive suffrage for undesirable groups like black people, elderly people, etc are not the hypothetical being argued here. Obviously, exclusive suffrage for those groups would be less desirable than the status quo. That's not what we're talking about

Think harder about the ways that our society would change in the case of military-only suffrage, beyond just vote totals in elections. How would the culture change? How would our collective values change? How would the composition of the elite - those with power and influence who actually make societal policy - change? What would be the consequences of these changes? How would they compare with what our society is like now? What would be the trade-offs?

These are the questions you need to think about and answer in order to form the strongest argument(s) against military-only suffrage. They require you to actually think a bit about how things would play out. It's not a question that can be answered with a knee-jerk surface level reaction

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948619)

Actually it is, because you very explicitly used this argument:

"It's also very strange to assume that military members would all want the same thing(s). This is like assuming that all current voters want the same thing(s). This is never going to be true for any group of people, no matter how homogeneous they are"

Therefore basically any counterargument with a given group is fair game. It's not a "strawman" if it directly counters what you are quite clearly arguing. Calling every counter-example a "strawman" and dismissing it is some reddit-level shit.

"Think harder about the ways that our society would change in the case of military-only suffrage, beyond just vote totals in elections. How would the culture change? How would our collective values change? How would the composition of the elite - those with power and influence who actually make societal policy - change? What would be the consequences of these changes? How would they comparehat would be the trade-offs?"

What's the point of debating this? Obviously we are going to disagree here. You will respond either one of two ways:

"That's not true. They won't do that." (you disagree with my assertion of how they will effect change)

or

"Actually that sounds great." (you disagree with my vision for what is a better outcome for society)

You keep running around saying "strawman" and pelting me with questions instead of addressing counterarguments. You automatically assume someone "hasn't thought of X" because they haven't explicitly mentioned X. In your mind if someone isn't conforming to exactly how you want them to think and approach a topic they are Wrong and you just move on.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948657)

The problem isn't restricting the vote. The problem is restricting it to a group that would be worse than what we have. I can't imagine anything more tedious than doing a full-blown textual debate on this point, but the arguments ITT for the military are ridiculously low quality by those who are willing to do the textual debate

It's basically "the military vote is better because we say so" and "trust us, we're smart and have thought about this." How that can be said with a straight face without laying out, in systematic and pointed fashion, the ways that things would be improved, should be embarrassing to those making the claim

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5875227&forum_id=2/#49948625)