Why not "heads of households," throwing in maybe a tax-positive requirement?
It effectively would be exactly the same: it'd be 95% men voting with that, and you could be damn sure that 5% would be a bunch of MAGA butch dykes and the occasional super productive female business owner.
(Before anyone from any side downvotes this, understand that with either of these policy changes I wouldn't be allowed to vote so it's not like I'm terribly biased. I just think this is a fantastic middle ground that actually covers all the issues while still allowing for freedom of choice and even the occasional weird case. Also, isn't quite as stupid as just assuming that because you have one demographic group now that you'll have them forever. That's a mistake the Republicans made before, and the Democrats make now.)
That dude is a troll
That troll is correct. Look at those graphs of “if only women voted” and “if only men voted.” Repealing they 19th would end communism for good.
Why not "heads of households," throwing in maybe a tax-positive requirement?
It effectively would be exactly the same: it'd be 95% men voting with that, and you could be damn sure that 5% would be a bunch of MAGA butch dykes and the occasional super productive female business owner.
(Before anyone from any side downvotes this, understand that with either of these policy changes I wouldn't be allowed to vote so it's not like I'm terribly biased. I just think this is a fantastic middle ground that actually covers all the issues while still allowing for freedom of choice and even the occasional weird case. Also, isn't quite as stupid as just assuming that because you have one demographic group now that you'll have them forever. That's a mistake the Republicans made before, and the Democrats make now.)