One household, one vote is retarded. What if a husband and wife have completely different political views and favor completely different candidates?

A woman is no more likely to vote the same as her husband then a newly registered 18 year old is to vote the way his parents do his whole life.

Voting is stupid period; it empowers the wrong elements. Especially when its rationalist, self-preserving, apathetic, spiritually dull women.

But this was not a discussion on suffrage, Im talking about spirituality, philosophy, and the search for truth. I do not know women to have the tendency to explore these realms.

If women have no interest in the search for truth and are apathetic, then what the hell am I doing here arguing with all of you most of the time? How come between my husband and I, I'm the only one who reads about a variety of issues constantly, while he's interested in entertainment or hobbies? He's frankly too busy working all day to "search for the truth".

Your analysis doesn't work in a universal manner, because it completely doesn't fit into my experiences. If you meant tendencies or generalizations, I could understand that, but as long as you continue to word your theories as a universal rule, you won't be getting anywhere...just like a radical feminist won't be getting anywhere arguing with a good husband and father, or a wife of a good husband and father, why all men are pigs to the core.


Uncl, when someone in a household votes, I believe they should do so with the best interest of their family at heart. If two people have radically different ideas of what's in the best interest of their family, then what are they doing married? I believe that one person must lead in a family, though not in every realm.

Probably much to Spirit's dismay, I lead this household in politics and intellectual matters. My husband works hard all day, and when he comes home, the last thing he wants to do is research a bunch of political issues. I, however, have been interested in researching political issues since I was a little teenybopper. If I had my citizenship, he would be more than happy to have me vote for him.

I said "tendency" and "typically" a hundred times already, obviously. No behavior generalization works for everyone, that doesnt mean its not generally true. And your husband working hard all day is smothering his nature, so he will obviously not personify any masculine programs.

Sorry was half-asleep when I woke up and posted the reply. Somehow I skimmed over the "tendency" and missed it.

I know the work is a huge factor in his apathy, and that's why I support him if he looks for a new line of work eventually. He said he wanted to be a police investigator someday, and I think that would suit his nature better than soul-stifling 9 to 5 engineering.

The one-household, one-vote idea encourages promiscuity, or at least empowers it, by causing the promiscuous to have twice as many votes.

Political differences shouldn't come between a married couple. If you love someone enough to marry them, you should be able to accept different views on life. Some views might not even be that different. Let's say a husband wants to vote Green and the wife wants to vote Socialist. The parties platforms aren't radically different.

My girlfriend has completely different political views then me, and we've been together for almost a year. Are you saying people shouldn't be together if they have different opinions?

quote:

---

Originally posted by UnclNastyFingerz:
My girlfriend has completely different political views then me, and we've been together for almost a year.

---

Do you lay the same moronic stuff on her as you lay on us?

Nox

By completely different, he means, she has none. Probably because she doesnt exist, but the only way she could tolerate the shit he lays on us is if she is empty-headed.

And yes Uncl, in the real world, where adults live, married couples agree on such fundamentals as the purpose of state and the duty of citizens.

quote:

---

Political differences shouldn't come between a married couple.

---

Minor political differences aren't the same as extremely different worldviews that would cause a major political difference.

quote:

---

If you love someone enough to marry them, you should be able to accept different views on life.

---

How are you going to raise a cohesive family with two parents having extremely different worldviews? Minor differences are one thing, but the two parents have to have a strong common ground, because the real world is not like some hip TV show where you put two radically different people on the set and they have loving lives full of comedic hijinks. The child is just going to be confused and alienated if Mommy teaches him one thing and Daddy completely contradicts her the next day, throughout his entire life - if they don't get divorced.

quote:

---

Some views might not even be that different. Let's say a husband wants to vote Green and the wife wants to vote Socialist. The parties platforms aren't radically different.

---

They can be comforted by the fact that neither of their votes would have swayed the election.

quote:

---

My girlfriend has completely different political views then me, and we've been together for almost a year. Are you saying people shouldn't be together if they have different opinions?

---

So your girlfriend is a Republican? I'm not saying people shouldn't have different opinions. I'm saying a couple who plans to have a family should have the same basic worldview on crucial, fundamental issues, or should at least have the ability to sway the other to his/her opinion in not too long a period of time.

My girlfriend's a libertarian, and while I don't intend on raising a family with her or anyone else, I don't think political differences would get in the way if I did.

My parents also have radically different views. My dad's an anarchist and my mom's a moderate democrat. They've been happily married for over 30 years. I don't think peoples views on how society should function can get in the way of how they'd raise a family. Two people that disagree on how the government can regulate economics can easily agree on what to feed their kid.

If by "raising a cohesive family" means controlling the way your kids think, yes I suppose differeing world views on the parents part would get in the way. If the parents give their kids access to all the information, and guide them to making their own logical desisions, it shouldn't matter what the parents themselves think. My parents always told me and my sister their opinions, but gave never pressured us and told us to chose our own paths and be sure to understand all sides. I consider this a logical approach to parenting that wouldn't be affected by the political views of the parents. Mommy shouldn't tell a kid one thing and have daddy contradict it the next day. Mommy and daddy should both guide the kid toward deciding his opinion for himself.

It's the duty of parents to instruct their kids with fundemental values and precautions, like "don't get in the car with strangers," "Look both ways before you cross the street," that kind of shit. Parents should have the same idea about this no matter what candidate they support.

Even if you're right, and completely different world views hinder developement of a family, "one household, one vote" is still a horrible idea. What if two people simply support different candidates? One likes Bill Bradley, the other likes Nader. One likes Bush, the other likes Buchanan. Why shouldn't a mother that likes Bush and a father that likes Buchanan not be able to raise a family?

[This message has been edited by UnclNastyFingerz (edited 11-29-2002).]

quote:

---

My girlfriend's a libertarian, and while I don't intend on raising a family with her or anyone else, I don't think political differences would get in the way if I did.

---

If you don't intend to form a family with her, then you two aren't a "household" are you? You're just two individuals sexing each other up.

quote:

---

My parents also have radically different views. My dad's an anarchist and my mom's a moderate democrat. They've been happily married for over 30 years.

---

Is your mother either apolitical or not nearly as strongly opinionated as your father?

quote:

---

I don't think peoples views on how society should function can get in the way of how they'd raise a family.

---

If you don't agree with how society should function, how are you going to agree with how your family should be raised? Families are the basic unit of society.

quote:

---

Two people that disagree on how the government can regulate economics can easily agree on what to feed their kid.

---

A government is a lot more than economics. But, as long as we're talking about economics, what kind of family is it where one person votes to raise their taxes and one votes to lower their taxes or keep them the same? They'd cancel each other out. Pointless.

quote:

---

If by "raising a cohesive family" means controlling the way your kids think, yes I suppose differeing world views on the parents part would get in the way. If the parents give their kids access to all the information, and guide them to making their own logical desisions, it shouldn't matter what the parents themselves think.

---

Parenting is more than "controlling what kids think" and tossing magazines and MTV at them and letting them blow in the wind. Parenting is teaching history, culture, heritage, religion, morality and ethics, and other basic foundations that children need to learn when they are young. I'd love to see you and your Libertarian girlfriend raise a kid.

You: Capitalism causes all the problems in society. The State needs to regulate it.

Her: The State causes all the problems in society. Free Markets and privatization will fix everything.

Kid: ....

quote:

---

My parents always told me and my sister their opinions, but gave never pressured us and told us to chose our own paths and be sure to understand all sides. I consider this a logical approach to parenting that wouldn't be affected by the political views of the parents. Mommy shouldn't tell a kid one thing and have daddy contradict it the next day. Mommy and daddy should both guide the kid toward deciding his opinion for himself.

---

When a child is young, even just telling opinions isn't merely "guiding then letting them think for themselves". Young children are incredibly impresionable and you're like God to them. The best you can do is give them a solid foundation/framework when they're young, and let them "explore" after they're older and have that foundation to keep them balanced. If they have no foundation, or shaky foundation, they'll be impressionable to a lot of bad influences.

quote:

---

It's the duty of parents to instruct their kids with fundemental values and precautions, like "don't get in the car with strangers," "Look both ways before you cross the street," that kind of shit. Parents should have the same idea about this no matter what candidate they support.

---

It's not just cantidates, it's basic worldviews and morality.

quote:

---

Even if you're right, and completely different world views hinder developement of a family, "one household, one vote" is still a horrible idea. What if two people simply support different candidates? One likes Bill Bradley, the other likes Nader. One likes Bush, the other likes Buchanan. Why shouldn't a mother that likes Bush and a father that likes Buchanan not be able to raise a family?

---

When did I ever say they couldn't raise a family? A Bush supporter and a Buchanan supporter likely have very similar worldviews, but the Bush supporter is taking the "lesser of the two evils" route (same with the Bradley/Nader combo). I'm not even that strong on the "One household, one vote" concept. I brought it up because someone mentioned that a woman is likely just going to follow her husband's choice, so it's like the husband getting two votes. I thought about it a little, and in the situation where the husband and wife vote differently, it's silly because their votes would cancel each other out.

Another idea for voting restriction is only income taxpayers get a vote, or only property owners get a vote. I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy about those ideas either ;P

Please lets not engage this idiot in another parenting discussion. Thats too grounded in reality for him to understand.

And for the record, half the mom's in America are "moderate Democrats" and the other half are "moderate Republicans," but about 3% know a fuckin thing.

A household doesn't neccesarily mean kids. Two people can live together their whole lives and be committed to each other without having kids.

Bush supporters and Buchanan supporters will have similar views, and my whole point is that there's no reaosn one parent shouldn't be allowed to vote for Bush and the other for Buchanan.

Also, if a kid can't handle parents disagreeing on shit, then he's in for a tough ride growing up. Even if your parents present a united front, the kid's gonna here different ideas from his peers, from the media, and from every direction in the outside world. If anything, parents agreeing will only send the kid into society one sided and not open to different ideas, which couldn't be good. Most good parents can teach their kids about history and culture in an unbiased way in which the kid here's every side of the story. Even if you believe the family will turn out badly, then it's the parents responsibility. "One Household, One Vote" could only do more damage to democracy andfree thought then it could do good for children.

The only real problem I see with the voting system is the electoral college. Parties and their campaigns are completely corrupt and flawed, but the only way to counter this would be to make peoples votes more individualized, not less. And I'm not too fond of only letting property owners vote because that'll pretty much turn our country into an aristocracy, if isn't that already.

B

quote:

---

And for the record, half the mom's in America are "moderate Democrats" and the other half are "moderate Republicans," but about 3% know a fuckin thing.

---

Yeah, but the same applies to the dads too. Representative democracy isn't perfect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
But this was not a discussion on suffrage, Im talking about spirituality, philosophy, and the search for truth. I do not know women to have the tendency to explore these realms.

---

Yes, and I do not know men to have a tendency to explore these realms (and I am one). I have seen absolutely nothing in the real world that suggests that men are more spiritual or truthful than women. Everyone's pretty apathetic as far as I can tell.

One of the biggest arguements against women voting was that their "puny" minds wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility given to them and they would go crazy.
I'm pretty old fashioned, I acknowledge the differences between man and woman.
This won't be a popular thing to say, but look at what has happened to family values ever since women have recieved the right to vote. Divorce rates are 50% now. I'm not saying it should be repealed. Just something to consider...

>>>Yes, and I do not know men to have a tendency to explore these realms (and I am one). I have seen absolutely nothing in the real world that suggests that men are more spiritual or truthful than women<<<<

Shamans round the world were men-folk. So are philosophers. Monks of all types, all around the world. Political idealists and leaders.

quote:

---

Originally posted by YouAreNotYourKhakis:
One of the biggest arguements against women voting was that their "puny" minds wouldn't be able to handle the responsibility given to them and they would go crazy.
I'm pretty old fashioned, I acknowledge the differences between man and woman.
This won't be a popular thing to say, but look at what has happened to family values ever since women have recieved the right to vote. Divorce rates are 50% now. I'm not saying it should be repealed. Just something to consider...

---

Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

Female voters do not necessarily have anything to do with the divorce rate. When you argue for a cause and effect, you have to draw a direct line between the cause and effect, to establish a connection. You can't just throw out two facts, then lump them together with no established connection. Apparently, I am more suited for voting than you, since I have a better grasp of logic and am less likely to fall for that trick by a manipulative politician.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
>>>Yes, and I do not know men to have a tendency to explore these realms (and I am one). I have seen absolutely nothing in the real world that suggests that men are more spiritual or truthful than women<<<<

Shamans round the world were men-folk. So are philosophers. Monks of all types, all around the world. Political idealists and leaders.

---

There were also Priestesses, "Witches" (or "Wise Women"), Nuns, "Mother Teresa", etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
He said he wanted to be a police investigator someday, and I think that would suit his nature better than soul-stifling 9 to 5 engineering.

---

First, he should be made to turn some wrenches, on whatever it is he's been engineering, so he can see how fucked up it really was.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
The one-household, one-vote idea encourages promiscuity, or at least empowers it, by causing the promiscuous to have twice as many votes.

---

What the hell does this mean? Sexually promiscuous?

It discourages marriage, thus promoting sexual promiscuity.

bullshit.

How so?