>The claim was that big government was the root of most of our current problems and women in turn tend to vote for bigger government

>When all the men got together and voted for women to also have the vote, that was toxic masculinity at work. (this is a joke, but also not really. Women shifting the political map towards larger government and more socialism seems to be the root of most of our current problems.

Not sure how your statements (and “joke”)above and my statement below are all that much different. Ultimately you’re saying that women gaining the right vote led to the “issues” we have today. What issues? You don’t really say.

>What evidence do you have that supports your incredibly vague statement that women's ability to vote is "the root of most of our current problems.'

It’s not exactly a wonder why women might prefer socialist policies. Women couldn’t even open their own bank account until 1974 (1964 in Canada). If someone’s only recourse from a bad situation is to rely on the state, then socialist policies are going to look all that more appealing.

But that’s even if the premise is true that Canada (or the US for that matter),
is being ruined by socialist policy. And I’m sure many would debate you on that.

I can tell you from experience from living large portions of my life in both the US and Canada, having access to universal healthcare is a net benefit.

>You see the above in the USA but you also see it in my home country of Canada, most recently with the current oaf running things federally, who has been kept in power by women voters not changing their vote when it became obvious he was doing likely criminal things while pursuing a suicidal spending platform at home and making us the laughing stock of the world stage with his antics.

>Anyways, this is not to say women shouldn't have the vote, they very clearly should have the vote. My original post was mostly about how we integrate the clearly correct idea that women should be able to vote with the clearly correct idea that their voting patterns are causing a lot of our current problems. I think the actual correct solution is some other system of limiting suffrage to only those who clearly have long term skin in the game, as to what that would look like I am not certain.

You seem to me a bit biased here. You use the term correct a lot here, but just because this position is you’re opinion does not in fact make it “correct.”

>It could take the form of limiting voting to citizens who currently have at least 50 % custody/responsibility for a child of theirs or have X number of years of at least 50% custody/responsibility for a child of their under their belts. Or perhaps requiring citizens to post an income adjust long term bond to vote and have that bond be the first risk of loss if the government runs a deficit of a certain amount for more than 1 year.The challenge with limiting suffrage is having the rule be simple enough that gaming it is very difficult, while being strong enough to actually cut out enough of the people with no incentive to think long term about the country that they can't drive us into bureaucratic ruin.

You are advocating that only parents and rich people should be allowed to vote. Believe it or not, you can, in fact be poor and childless and still care about the future of your country. This scheme would essentially cut out the voices of young people, arguably the people with the most skin in the game in regards to the future.

Your bond scheme would likely result in people (even those who have the means) to not bother with voting. Or the government cutting spending, even when it’s needed.

Do you have to pay every time you vote, in this pay-to-vote scheme of yours? What if the party you voted for loses, do you still have to give up your bond if the other party runs a deficit? What if every party no matter who you vote for runs a deficit? What’s to keep the parties accountable if the citizens are now solely responsible to fund any deficit with their forgone bond? What if every party, no matter who you vote for, runs a deficit? I mean, most governments do run a deficit regardless of the party. The last time the US ran a surplus was in 2001 and since then there have been an equal amount of Republican and Democrat presidents (with the Republicans arguably having more representation in Congress since then). The liberals in Canada had a pretty decent surplus before they lost the election in 2006 and the deficit ballooned massively under the Conservative Harper Government and only until 2018 has Canada seen a surplus, (this year is on track for a surplus as well). So then, would every American lose money every time they vote? Would Canadian conservatives lose more money than everyone else when they vote? Regardless of who they vote for, the citizens are the only losers in this scenario.

So either only rich people vote. Even price adjusted, people who don’t have a lot of money don’t have the luxury of putting “voting” money aside to just sit there waiting to lose it. And if rich people end up losing money enough times, I’m sure they’ll stop bothering to vote as well and instead sink their money into lobbying and back room dealing (even more so).

Or the government cuts spending to save their base from being financially penalized, even if it’s spending the country needs to maintain itself (and even if you might not agree that people need access to healthcare, we still need roads and infrastructure to run as a functioning society).

I highly doubt this would work in a direct democracy but it will absolutely not work in a representative democracy.

So whether you posit that only the rich and people with children (i.e. older) should be allowed to vote or that women can’t be trusted with their vote— either way they are both bad takes, and pretty antithetical to democracy.