It always amazes me to see how much western democracy can degenerate with its ideas and practices completely contrary to how it should function. This time, it is the UK who is making a change that is measurably detrimental to its existence in service of Universal Democracy under the sentimental guise of trying to give young people a voice. Instead, what this will cause is a more extreme voting pattern on both sides and make the power of a single voter even more diluted. They are attempting to lower the voting age to 16 from the already too low of an age, 18. You see, unfortunately, this is a view that many people have across most ideologies. The Liberals obsessively want to hand out rights as a push for “equality” in a fight against oppressors. The Libertarians have a ridiculous view of market aggregation and atomized individualism on all levels. The Neoconservatives want to incentivize sending children to war, while offering this as conciliation to those they would send, believing that autonomy starts during adolescence. Every ideolog has the same base idea, the obsession with endless “rights acquisition”. All parties also just want to seem like they are more accepting of the youth, so that they can garner more support. Meanwhile this fundamentally misunderstands what real political support or sovereignty in a voting system should look like. This debases the political center and controls for a horseshoe theory style of voting pattern. Politicians and the powers who control them want a more extreme and radicalized voting base, due to being easier to control. Moderates are not so easy to control and most of the time will vote more based on what a policy is rather than some reactionary idea. It is too often that the reactionary right is cited as the main cause of this, but in fact, the reactionary left has been extremely dominating in the last cycles. The only types who can see through this are the Paleoconservative types and what I will term as mid-conservative types (middle of the road conservative). Who of course have no real representation in modern politics at this time in western democracies. This, of course, is all pertaining to Universal Democracy; in the coming paragraphs I’ll expose the parallel facet within western democracy, Direct Democracy. While also labeling the fixes of the current democratic thinking in the western world.

Let’s start with the most basic issue in Universal Democracy first: regulation on the voting system as a whole in all western democracies. The minimum age requirement to cast a vote. Where does the ethical argument originate from and does this logic still hold? Are there real rational actors in this restriction? When voting rights became a big issue pertaining to age, it was during the Vietnam war era, stating that if you can die for your country, you can vote in it. Though, I am quite certain the dynamics around this original idea are quite different today. The modern USA military is volunteer based and does not participate in large scale ground war anymore. The chance of you being deployed or actually dying on deployment is exponentially smaller than what it used to be when this argument for voting rights occurred. The obvious fix is to simply give those who join the military the right to vote instead of an entire age group; Or conversely do not send adolescents to war at all. The ideal minimum age requirement is 21 years of age, due to no longer being an adolescent and experiencing life outside of structured education. This is also when crystallization of brain power occurs and actors become less emotionally reactive. People who declare that this is some sort of fascism are also the people who scream things like “We must protect the children!” This actually does that completely. An undisturbed childhood + adolescence is key to maturing in a healthy way, which means minimalizing stress from external forces as much as possible. I will also preempt a common detraction from individualist types; This will make people softer in their adult life. This is a misnomer because it does not mean directly learning less about the realism or harshness of life, but instead provides a safer development cycle for a child. Autonomy and abstract decision making is something obtained from a place of structured learning, without mass amounts of uncertainty. Experience comes from gradually being exposed to chaos or being uncomfortable, not from submersing yourself in the unknown. Another angle that I hear often is that it detracts progress in democracy with an aging society. This is not true, due to the decision making levels of adolescence not being stable at all. Just because more people can vote or that a younger demographic has access, does not mean progress in a political system. Once again, we see the influence of this interpretation of the world called Whig history, which says everything that is new is better and what is old is worse. It functionally ignores everything in economics or psychology with the creative destruction fallacy.

Now we come to the modern sexual war in the United States as a conflict that has been weaponized since the 1920s. The Suffragette movement, often framed as a heroic fight against male oppression, was in fact the project of a loud and politically aggressive minority. Contrary to modern portrayals, most married women with children showed little interest in voting rights. In reality, largely, it was unmarried, sexually and socially frustrated women who were mostly just ugly psychopaths. The women who lead this did not simultaneously immigrate to this country when the original groups did. They were of a matriarchal society when the main immigrant groups, including the native populations, were of a patriarchal society. Hollywood has worked overtime to maintain the illusion of female political victimhood, frequently using dystopias like The Handmaid’s Tale to suggest that without feminism, women would be turned into slaves. But if you look closer to this story, the prior society is created by a hyper-sexualized, feminist and liberal society which produces a reaction to sexual freedom through the same lens it already had. This is not patriarchy or a conservative mandate. A true patriarchal society would never treat women as breeding stock, it would protect their modesty, emphasize their familial role, and impose moral boundaries around sex. This is essentially fear porn for feminists, the society that creates Gilead is not conservative, the solution is inherently liberal. It is a projection of a sexualized view of women and then eroticizes their imagined oppression. Modesty, responsibility and family are the basic tenants of conservatism and patriarchy by definition protects women from sexual exploitation. The statement of “bodily autonomy” comes from the assumption that sexual liberation in the 1960s meant that women would not be exploited for their feminine allure. But what followed? A culture where women objectify themselves for profit, where advertisements, OnlyFans, and the “sex work is work” mantra reduce womanhood to marketable flesh. This isn’t liberation, it’s liberalism devouring itself. What about abortion? That’s where the ideology turns grotesque. Women demand the right to kill, wrapped in soft language about “reproductive health.” The child’s developing body is erased in favor of a selfish narrative about choice. No one talks about the depression, the trauma, or the fractured psyche that often follows. Because in the modern West, sex is no longer tied to conception, it’s treated as recreation and pure power plays. This shows the greater reality; Women are the porn-addicted ones. The men who are addicted to porn are feminized, dulled, passive, and hollowed out. The entire genre is a feminized version of society. The entire system has inverted reality, while the feminized society calls it progress.

Now that the social commentary on the more basic problems is done, let’s focus more on the structural part of the current voting system. For a modern fix without making numerous separate legislations, several repeals must be enacted in favor of a singular constitutional amendment. This new amendment would override and consolidate current voting rights and redefine citizenship and what it constitutes. In practice, it would affect the 14th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments. The first issue to address is the delinquent males in society who vote in a destabilizing manner, not in accordance with how a republic should be constructed and counter to the health of the nation. So, what regulation for typical citizens should exist if everything else is controlled for? Firstly, it is how a citizen is bound to the nation. How do you connect a voter to a nation without it being too incentivized to voting ideologically? In terms of males, a father votes more in accordance towards stability of his region and through that the country as a whole. If he is not a father, but owns a quality dwelling or land, then of course the same is true. Because these things bind him to the immediate, regional and national level of stability rather than the outside world. The same is true if he is of prior military service, either on the national or state level. And for the opposite sex? Well, the same principle applies, but with a necessary difference. Female psychology, in the aggregate, tends toward immediate, relational dynamics rather than broader systemic ones. Without a complete revocation of the ability to vote, because that is both not ethical and not productive, there is a way to bind her to the same stability mindset. If a woman is married and has children in tandem, she attains the same view of stability as the restrictions for male voters. Her familial ties are what becomes the axis of her civic outlook. In fact, most women surrogated a family for a corporate identity instead. They are the linchpins of the operating levels of the corporation on the inside, who in return offer no real loyalty like a family would. But the modern answer also does not solve for a civic anchor. Now what about the women who do not want to be married or have children currently? Simple, a modernized yearly poll tax, which grants the right to vote outside of the qualifying factors. This would not be a universal tax, it merely ensures a civic anchor if they wish to opt for it. There are many stipulations to clarify, such as what happens if a woman divorces, her children grow up, or her husband dies. To make the rule just yet firm: if her husband dies during child-rearing, she retains the right to vote, as this is an involuntary dissolution and her role as a stabilizer remains. However, if she divorces during the child-rearing years, she loses the right to vote unless she remarries and continues fulfilling that role. If her children have grown past the point of requiring her stability and are self-sufficient, she retains eligibility to vote, even if divorce occurs after this. The goal here is not to micromanage her life, but to recognize that the right to vote must be earned through a demonstrated commitment to social stability and not simply granted by default. This completes the general structure of civic eligibility for the average citizen.

Finally, we get to the next part of this equation: why has the West, particularly America, come to believe that direct democracy is the solution to everything? This is a delusion. The United States is not, and never was, a direct democracy. The real structure of the nation, (without the “living document” interpretations of the constitution or declaration) is that the USA is a Constitutional Republic. It was structured like that by the framers for a purpose. For those unfamiliar, a direct democracy operates on the premise that every individual should vote on every policy, that lawmaking should be subject to mass consensus on an item-by-item basis. The end goal of this thinking is dangerous: the elimination of representation entirely. It assumes that the average citizen, regardless of education, investment, or understanding, should weigh in equally on complex decisions that often don’t affect him, but will deeply affect others. This approach not only slows governance to a crawl, it would severely dilute the power of one vote, and regionality would no longer matter. In a constitutional republic we aim to fix that by having representatives assigned to a region within the federated states, who vote on legislation from the perspective of their locality. This is also the foundation of the Electoral College, it prevents population-dense states like California or New York from dictating the terms of life to states with different priorities and traditions. Without these mechanisms, there is no federation. There is only mob rule. There is something deeper here in this as well, the constitution will no longer mean anything. The Constitution is a fixed, foundational document. It limits power, including that of the people. Once the people can override it at will, it ceases to be a constitution at all. We are already seeing this unravel. The popular desire to interpret the Constitution as a “living document”, to repeal core amendments like the Second, or to elevate judicial decisions above the text itself, are all symptoms of democratic overreach. We are drifting, not toward more freedom, but toward institutional collapse.

Now I must address the overall voting structure of the United States. Remarkably, there are far less advanced countries with more competent and secure electoral systems than ours. The American system, as it stands, is embarrassingly vulnerable, so much so that a single lawsuit, media narrative, or clerical mishap can throw an entire election into chaos. The first and simplest reform is this: Election Day must be a national holiday. There is no excuse for a citizen to miss voting because of work. Every eligible voter should be guaranteed either the full day or a mandatory half-day off to cast their ballot. Second, voter identification and registration must be standardized and strictly enforced. ID should be required without exception. Voter rolls must be audited frequently to purge duplicate names, deceased individuals, and those who are registered in the wrong precinct. These are basic, apolitical housekeeping functions. Third, and more controversial: mail-in ballots, absentee voting, and overseas military voting must be abolished entirely. If you cannot vote during the early voting window, which should be no more than one month prior for a period of a week, to the election, or on Election Day itself, then you forfeit your vote. Voting is not a casual opinion poll; It is a serious civil function. If your life circumstances prevent you from fulfilling this duty in person, then you simply do not participate. That includes the elderly, the incapacitated, and yes, those deployed overseas. If you are not directly immersed in the civic and economic life of the nation at the time of voting, then you are not in a position to decide its future. Fourth, all voting must return to paper and manual systems. The idea of connecting voting machines to the internet or any external network is one of the most reckless decisions ever made in American governance. We must return to analog, to paper ballots, hand-counted and physically stored. Finally, party registration must be abolished. All primaries should be open. The concept of closed party primaries is simply another layer of cartel behavior within our supposedly free system. Voters should not be siloed or herded into party loyalist structures. The general election should not feel like the final step in a pre-determined bracket, it should be open, contested, and real.

And to finish this off, the central issue of the 20th and 21st centuries is not simply political ideology or the rise and fall of nations, but the unchecked global spread of liberal democracy as a presumed universal good. At the heart of this is not “liberalism” in the left vs right, partisan sense, but the broader philosophical and institutional worldview known in international relations theory as liberal democracy. This system, rooted in individual rights, open markets, rule of law, and representative government, was championed most famously by Francis Fukuyama in The End of History. Fukuyama envisioned liberal democracy not as a stage, but as the final destination of political evolution: a resting place after the long arc of human ideological conflict. It was a complete theory, appealing in its optimism. But it was also a mirage. The idea that history itself could culminate in a single system, and that this system would inevitably spread across the globe, was always built on hubris. Every political order that imagines itself as the last has found itself buried in the next one’s ruins. Alfred Rosenberg once wrote The Myth of the Twentieth Century as a kind of mystical declaration of Nazism’s permanence, an equally grand and equally false prophecy. There is a pattern here, utopian political orders always declare themselves the endpoint of history. They are always wrong. They are always temporary. As John Mearsheimer argued in The Great Delusion, liberalism’s problem is not merely arrogance, it is blindness. It fails to see the deep structures of human societies that are not built on individualism, secularism, or procedural politics. It assumes all people desire the same freedoms in the same form, and that once exposed to liberal institutions, they will naturally adopt them. But human beings are tribal, spiritual, and historical creatures. Cultures are not blank slates waiting to be Westernized. This delusion, that we can export liberal democracy through regime change, sanctions, and economic pressure, has led to decades of strategic failure, moral hypocrisy, and instability. Liberal democracy is not a cure all system. Its strength lies in historical continuity, shared cultural memory, and national cohesion. Strip these away, and the structure becomes hollow. The West has confused its temporary postwar success for a universal formula, believing that markets plus elections equal civilization. But this model ignores the foundational role of trust, homogeneity, and unspoken cultural norms. The belief that economic prosperity automatically brings liberal democratic peace has not only failed in practice, it has produced backlash across the globe. Multiculturalism, far from enriching liberalism, strains it to its breaking point. Liberal democracy preaches tolerance, but it cannot indefinitely tolerate the presence of incompatible worldviews within its own house. It becomes a contradiction, upholding freedom while undermining the cohesion that makes freedom possible. The same values that allow for openness also allow for internal fragmentation. The very act of opening the gates to all identities, all values, all traditions, becomes the mechanism of self-destruction. Liberalism believes in universality, but it functions only under highly specific, contingent circumstances. It needs a shared history. It needs limits. It needs borders. And without those things, it dissolves. The dream of a global liberal order will not end in war or revolution; It will end in fatigue. In drift. In the slow erosion of meaning and order. That is the end of history, not triumph, but decay. The 21st century cannot afford another round of ideological colonization disguised as progress. It must instead be a century of return, to sovereignty over ideology, to tradition over abstraction, to realism over utopianism. Order must triumph over chaos, even if it offends modern sensibilities. Only then, only when we stop chasing illusions and start rebuilding the foundations, can civilization endure.