Ann Coulter And The Female Vote

"It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted." ~Ann Coulter

“It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 – except Goldwater in ’64 – the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.” ~Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter certainly is one of the more sour witches out there today. The left loves to hate her and with good reason.

But her point is interesting and it can be heard more often in some circles, also by other women.

Does universal suffrage work? Probably not.

It’s not just about women (although the female vote is probably not beneficial), but also the young.

The basic idea behind universal suffrage is that voting is a right. But it is not: it’s a responsibility for a fairly important societal function and it is quite obvious that not all are equally capable of voting reasonably.

At the moment in the United States 55% of the vote is female. While women receive more from the State then they pay in taxes. So men pay more than 100% of all taxation, but they are represented by only 45% of the vote. Clearly this is wrong.

To put it very bluntly: men are picking up the tab for what women were fooled into voting for. The US offically left the British Empire because of taxation without representation.

The female vote has seen the rise of the all pervading nanny State during the 20th century. Women are more collectivist and more susceptible to Government propaganda (and commercial marketing too).

Women are certainly not more ‘peaceful’ as witnessed by the rampage the US Empire has been on during the era of universal suffrage.

Occasionally we also hear about giving the vote to younger people. Here’s the agenda as described in the Protocols:
“To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications, in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated propertied classes.”

The problem with young people voting is obvious: they’re clueless. Also, they’re still very dependent society and not yet very productive.

How could the system be reformed? Perhaps it’s a good idea to have only heads of households older than 30 vote.

People living alone would be able to vote, women too. People living in families would decide among themselves who is the ‘head of the household’. This would probably normally be the man, and sometimes the woman. The head of the household would vote for the entire family, where each child is half a vote and each adult a full vote. A family of four with two children would thus have three votes, casted by the ‘head of the household’, who would vote according to his own conscience with the interests of his family in mind.

This would solve the problem of the female majority and inexperienced people voting.


7 thoughts on “Ann Coulter And The Female Vote

  1. First thing is to make sure votes matter at all. If the Republicans won every time it would be the same story. It is just that a feminized people accept a lot more nanny-state and socialist tendencies. Getting youth and even children to vote is a wonderful next step for them until voting ist cast aside in favor of “scientific-expert” rule by technocrats.

    But – yes – a highly regionalized democratic system can be an impediment to the NWO. Switzerlands boasts one of the highest living standard also because of that system. In some regions women got their voting rights only in the 1990s. Also they actually managed to revoke democratically some of the job market openings that would have left the people worse off. But the system gets dismantled every month evermore.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. She is quite right to say women should not be allowed to vote, but a better word would be elect, because only corporate slaves vote. Free men, elect.

    Re women not voting is based upon the same principle that Paul used regarding women remaining in silence whilst gathered with the Assemblies of God.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. “If the word ‘democracy’ is defined as the government of the people by themselves, it expresses an absolute impossibility and cannot even have a mere de facto existence—in our time or in any other. One must guard against being misled by words: it is contradictory to say that the same persons can be at the same time rulers and ruled, because, to use Aristotelian terminology, the same being cannot be ‘in act’ and ‘in potency’ at the same time and in the same relationship. The relationship of ruler and ruled necessitates the presence of two terms: there can be no ruled if there are not also rulers, even though these be illegitimate and have no other title to power than their own pretensions; but the great ability of those who are in control in the modern world lies in making the people believe that they are governing themselves; and the people are the more inclined to believe this as they are flattered by it, and as, in any case, they are incapable of sufficient reflection to see its impossibility.

    It was to create this illusion that ‘universal suffrage’ was invented: the law is supposed to be made by the opinion of the majority, but what is overlooked is that this opinion is something that can very easily be guided and modified; it is always possible, by means of suitable suggestions, to arouse, as may be desired, currents moving in this or that direction. We cannot recall who it was who first spoke of ‘manufacturing opinion,’ but this expression is very apt, although it must be added that it is not always those who are in apparent control who really have the necessary means at their disposal.

    This last remark should make it clear why it is that the incompetence of most prominent politicians seems to have only a very relative importance; but since we are not undertaking here to unmask the working of what might be called the ‘machine of government’, we will do no more than point out that this incompetence itself serves the purpose of keeping up the illusion of which we have been speaking: indeed, it is a necessary condition if the politicians in question are to appear to issue from the majority, for it makes them in its likeness, inasmuch as the majority, on whatever question it may be called on to give its opinion, is always composed of the incompetent, whose number is vastly greater than that of the men who can give an opinion based on full knowledge.”


    • If I can simplify or add to that and state that voters are common stock holders in the UK Corporation or the US Inc. and when they vote, no matter what the party, they are giving a vote of confidence to the board of directors of the corporation to carry on doing whatever it is they are doing i.e. the fleecing of the people and the bidding of the Banksters.

      How do we know this? Easy, Obama is The Chief Executive and issues Executive Orders, not Presidential Orders.

      Liked by 1 person


    My grandmother was born in Gorham, Maine in 1908, one of four sisters with no brothers. By the time she was 14 years old her father had died and she was a school teacher for a one-room class of students who were mixed across the sphere from youngest to oldest, elementary to high school – her twelve year old little sister was too in the next town over. My grandmother went on to teach for many many decades, in the process earning herself a Masters in Education. She got married and had a single daughter, my mother. By the time my mother had grown up and gotten married and had me, her oldest, I was the first male blood relative of my grandmother’s direct line since the 1920’s. My parents divorced in the 1970’s when it was all the rage and very trendy. Luckily for my brother and sister and I, my mother had been educated at Bates College and had a long career in the medical field and then later as an educator so we could live indoors and eat food. My schoolmarm grandmother did a lot of the raising of us kids while my mother was at work. When my sister grew up she became a successful attorney who has argued and won cases before state supreme courts – she is a member of the State Bars of at least six US states.

    My point? I was raised by and among strong, successful, highly educated women. To suggest women are automatically ‘less than’ men, or so existentially ‘different than’ men that they – as a demographic group (the largest one) should not be allowed nor trusted to vote is so laughable that it brings the most mirthful chuckle to my throat even as I am trying to type this comment.

    Your endless misogyny and sexism is pathetic, Mr. Migchels. We get it. Your marriage failed and it was all the world’s women’s fault – with the ‘cultural Marxist Jews’ prodding them on.

    Wake up. Your wife didn’t want to live with you under the insane ‘patriarchal values’ that you still cling to after making a catastrophe of your marriage and a Hell of your children’s lives. Must you now make yourself a cad and a fool forever with this nonsense? Get a drug habit or a hobby or something like any civilized love-lorn loser would….

    Take some responsibility and get a hold of yourself, man!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Your feminist standard reply reminds me of this little article:

      Man up and live according to the feminine imperative!

      Somehow in your life-story I see the position of men completely absent. Your grandmother managed maybe without a man, but all your generations too since then? They were just sperm-donors?

      No one is denying that there are not any couragous and highly intelligent women, though IQ is distributed differently within the sexes – men count less around the average, but more among the extremes (65% of Mensa and over 90% of top 5% of “freakishly intelligent” people – yes also way more among the Forrest Gumps of society). There are other gender differences, which are even stronger (technological interest, intellectual infatuation, risk-taking, motivation to work in large groups).

      No one is suggesting women are less than men – we are just a complementary species that is more happy if it encourages gender-specific behavior. And no one would like for freakishly intelligent women to spend her days changing diapers – she should go into science if that is her desire. It’s just that most women don’t want it (when having the luxury of choice) despite the constant pushing from feminism.

      The voting question in my opinion is moot, since voting does not matter anyway in our world – almost never mattered unless you have a very small and regionalized system and even that is now being torn apart via the common core UN regional web of control. The agenda would have moved forward even without women getting the right to vote – yes it might have been slower, but the results would have been the same.

      And now we see You argumenting already via personal attacks – misogynyst, small d…, is not man enough, Player! etc. Women always resort to shaming and hateful irrational language – and here it comes on cue by strong empowered wo-man. Truly lik arguing with eternal teenagers – hehe.

      Liked by 1 person

Your thoughts are well appreciated!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s