>>2130979Voting system based on person's value. In simplified terms, for example:
>you hit 18, you automatically get into tier 1 and you get 1 vote. Just like now.However for to get into other tiers, there are requirements. These would need to be carefuly set, but for example so you get the image:
>for tier 2 (and thus 2 votes):You need to be for example 25, have at least 2 years in military/leo/some sort of national volunteer corps, or in case of women have two healthy kids within marriage (no single mothers), etc.
>for tier 3 (and thus 3 votes):You need all above, plus be 40, own a land and a gun, have stable family with X children, be university educated, etc. Tier 3 should be simply for the best people of their nation.
Obviously, all above would have to be very thoroughly researched and debated before implementing, to mitigate possible misuse from both citizenry (like jewing tier 3's in rich families) and the state (to not fall for some retarded social credit score like chinksectoids have - your political opinions should not play a role in voting tiers at all). It would be applicable in homogeneous countries too, democracy in general won't inherently work in multicultural "societies". Also voting rights could be taken away if you commited some extremely severe crime too, like murder, drug dealing, etc. It's ridiculous that nowadays your driver's license or firearms license will be taken away if you do so, but not voting right.
This way you don't have to do some large scale long-term eugenics, nor you need to do some brutal societal changes by force - returning voting weight into the best of the society will simply do it on it's own, considering how various demographics vote already (for example, men who served in military tend to vote specific way, older men too, mothers as well, etc.)
