WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

830

If I were the CEO of voting I would not allow men to vote in a new state until they had resided there for a period of several years (exact number up for debate but not to exceed 4). I think it's unacceptable for a person to be able to move to a new area and immediately have a voice in what the people who have lived there their whole lives are deciding to do. It takes time to really adjust to a new location and to understand how the people there choose to live and why.

What do you niggerfaggots think?

If I were the CEO of voting I would not allow men to vote in a new state until they had resided there for a period of several years (exact number up for debate but not to exceed 4). I think it's unacceptable for a person to be able to move to a new area and immediately have a voice in what the people who have lived there their whole lives are deciding to do. It takes time to really adjust to a new location and to understand how the people there choose to live and why. What do you niggerfaggots think?

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] 2 pts

I believe that the only way to "fix" America without bloodshed would be to implement a rule that you can only ever vote in the town in which you were born. Move from California to Texas? Well, you have to go back to California to vote in November. And obviously none of the local stuff will have much effect on your life if you move. Oh well, so sad, fuck you, shouldn't move so much or so far you migratory fuck.

[–] 1 pt

I can see some merit. Would minor children of people who move between states be allowed to vote in the new state when they reached majority?

If they were born there, they vote there. Parents would probably vie to have their kids born in influential districts in swing States, but you can only game a system like that so far.

But allowing millions of Californians to move to places like Arizona and Colorado has fucked those places hard without lube.