Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Perd Hapley on October 26, 2010, 10:58:27 PM
-
Many people believe that the Founding Fathers wanted to limit suffrage to those with property, or who paid taxes. Some say they wrote it into our Constitution. I think we would all benefit from looking at what the Founders said and did, and at the laws they passed, to see just how true this is.
Here is what the constitution has to say about the matter, taken from the first lines of their respective sections.
U.S. Constitution Article I
Section 2
The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
Section 3
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof...
Here are some sources to start us out.
http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/property-requirement.html
The book, Vindicating the Founders, is actually very interesting on this and other topics. It includes a chart of the property requirements (if any) for voters and office holders in each state, and a percentage of men eligible to vote, according to whatever property requirement was or was not required in each state. Unfortunately, I haven't found the full chart online.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DjlpSl-x1gMC&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=vindicating+the+founders+table+5.1&source=bl&ots=2guaPO5bgs&sig=_ocdAwPSWrXgU6GQBkigK6NEOgk&hl=en&ei=Q5DHTNn-I4ymnQeW6dF9&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
-
Huh. No replies. I guess this is only a hot topic when it's a thread jack. =|
-
still reading but thank you for the great stuff! i learned something today
-
I woud like to go back to requiring property ownship as a qualification for voting. As it is now any jackass that can vote usually votes to take what we worked for for themselves.
-
Well, first I would like to require ID to vote. 2nd, I want to get rid of 3rd party voter registration. I think these days, the 3rd party registration is just an easy way to commit fraud.
I don't know if property ownership would be a good measure of responsible citizenship today. If we were to do it, there would need to be a few different ways to comply. I really think just not taking welfare or unemployment would be just as good these days. The only problem with that is that is would be difficult for local election boards to keep track of it.
-
I don't know if property ownership would be a good measure of responsible citizenship today. If we were to do it, there would need to be a few different ways to comply. I really think just not taking welfare or unemployment would be just as good these days. The only problem with that is that is would be difficult for local election boards to keep track of it.
IIRC, most welfare & such is doled out at the state level. They know the name, SSN, & physical addy of everyone who gets a check. Making that database available to the elections boards would be relatively simple.
-
Huh. No replies. I guess this is only a hot topic when it's a thread jack. =|
Personally, I said my piece. If I flat out denied the right to vote because I did not own property or meet minimal asset qualifications, I would feel no allegiance towards the government. There would be no rational reason to do so, as I would have no say in it yet it would still be taking my money. If I was exempted from taxation by giving up my political franchise, I'd consider that a fair trade. That makes an amount of sense from every perspective. The people who fund the government should have a say in its usage of said usage of said funds.
Even without any argument involving the Founders, who themselves used the slogan "Taxation without Representation", what moral, ethical or other possible arguments would support disenfranchisement with continued taxation?
I woud like to go back to requiring property ownship as a qualification for voting. As it is now any jackass that can vote usually votes to take what we worked for for themselves.
Again, you are welcome to remove my vote. It'd be hilarious, I'll grant that.
-
No, taking welfare or unemployment does not mean one is not worthy of citizenship, nor does it mean one is merely voting to take others' stuff.
The vast majority of my graduating class is unemployed. I don't know if you all noticed, but some of us are stuck in a depression, on an arguably national and definitively local and industry-specific level. Most work and have worked a whole lot for free. Most perform a whole lot of charity. Most have paid taxes in the past and will pay taxes in the future. Many, perhaps most, are receiving some form of welfare.
I understand that most of us here don't agree with the way the system is set up. Determining that anyone who engages with the system in a manner appropriate to its current structure is somehow a lesser person than you is foolish.
Heck, why not go all Soviet--let anyone vote, as long as they only vote for proper American, y'know, one who agrees with you.
As for my thoughts on property ownership as a measure of a person's value to the American polity, see the other thread. To sum up: nuh-uh.
-
I disagree with the assertion that our founding principles required universal suffrage.
When did income tax come into the picture? If there was only property tax, then I can follow the idea that the legislature should be appointed by the people who own property, that those paying the taxes get to choose the legislature which determines the taxes. And also, the property owners own the State being legislated over. But I think there is something to the idea that those paying income tax should have a voice in choosing the legislature which determines the income tax rate. Then again, that road seems to lead to everyone being able to vote, even illegal aliens, because they pay sales tax.
-
If you're taking welfare or unemployment, you should have no say in anything that might affect those systems. Basically, you should never be able to vote in a way that might mean you get more unemployment or welfare.
Welfare and unemployment is you using someone else's money without earning it. We can mince words all day about whether it's necessary, or how much you think you deserve it because you worked X years and did this and that. But the fact remains, it is you using someone eles's money which you did not earn. Therefore the only people who should have a say in how much you get are those people whose money you are using. Once you get a job and are a contributor and producer again, you can have your seat at the table back. But the money belongs solely to those who contributed it. If you're on welfare or unemployment, you're mooching. And those who you are mooching from should be in control.
-
That's nice. You're still wrong.
-
Hamilton makes a good point. If you're beholden to someone else, it's hard to trust you to vote independently of what he wants.
If you're beholden to a government program, it becomes even more difficult to trust you to vote independent of your needs for other peoples' money.
So maybe property ownership isn't the best criteria for franchise. Maybe instead we should set non-dependence on government as the criteria to shoot for.
Want to vote? Stand up on your own two feet.
-
I read something the other day that relates to this. The author mentioned a paradox about the modern democracies and their devolution into welfare states.
The populace is presumed to be incompetent and unable to provide for itself, and therefore needs government to take care of everyone. Yet that very same populace is presumed to be highly competent in selecting the men and methods of governance, including the large portions of government devoted to welfare the care of the population.
-
If you're on welfare or unemployment, you're mooching. And those who you are mooching from should be in control.
Yea... Ragnar? You might wish to be slightly more tactful as some folks here have been on unemployment or welfare.
Realistically, it doesn't make sense to condemn people to use services they have/are paying for. I agree with you that welfare state is generally not a good thing, and should be phased out to a large degree. But I'm not going to condemn unemployment nearly to the same degree, because it's only applicable for a limited time to people that were employed. Do I like it? Meh, I'd prefer to handle it myself, but I'm not going to rag someone to using something they paid for.
-
Unemployment is allowed 99 weeks right now isn't it?
The original idea I saw somewhere looked at how much taxes were paid minus how much direct benefits given. If that was negative, no vote.
However, I think any system that limits voting rights is bound to have problems and inequalities. I go back to my first statement that we need to enact changes to eliminate or minimize fraud first. If you can't do that, none of these other ideas would work anyway.
-
Unemployment is allowed 99 weeks right now isn't it?
The original idea I saw somewhere looked at how much taxes were paid minus how much direct benefits given. If that was negative, no vote.
However, I think any system that limits voting rights is bound to have problems and inequalities. I go back to my first statement that we need to enact changes to eliminate or minimize fraud first. If you can't do that, none of these other ideas would work anyway.
MORE important than limiting the francise (though I think it necessary) is to limit the power of the federal government.
If the federal government weren't stealing from one citizen to benefit others, we wouldn't need to have discussions over who should have a say.
THIS is the problem.
-
No doubt about that. However, property tax requirements were in place when the Fed Gov was not near so big.
One other thought to consider, could property tax requirements be a holdover from aristocratic tendencies in Europe? Can't have all that working class rabble voting in our leaders. I was thinking that property ownership difficult in Britain and Europe if you weren't an aristocrat.
-
One other thought to consider, could property tax requirements be a holdover from aristocratic tendencies in Europe?
Ya think?
-
If you're taking welfare or unemployment, you should have no say in anything that might affect those systems. Basically, you should never be able to vote in a way that might mean you get more unemployment or welfare.
If the number of voters on welfare or unemployment is large enough to make a difference, maybe the problem is that too many people are on welfare or unemployment. Another problem is the efforts made to encourage people to vote. People who don't care enough to vote on their own probably should not be encouraged to do so.
-
For me, if you have or HAD a job for significant amount of time and paid your taxes and Social Security etc., then you should be able to vote and receive some Government services. Owning land should have NO bearing on it at all. There are WAY too many hard working American citizens who rent and/or live with relatives to cut them out and not let them have a voice in the election process.
-
I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in the OP, but the purpose of this thread was for those who believe the Founders supported and practiced a property requirement for voting to present their evidence. I know I've supplied some quotations from Founders that argued for a property requirement. But where is the evidence that property requirements were the usual practice in early America?
-
I'm sorry I didn't make this clear in the OP, but the purpose of this thread was for those who believe the Founders supported and practiced a property requirement for voting to present their evidence. I know I've supplied some quotations from Founders that argued for a property requirement. But where is the evidence that property requirements were the usual practice in early America?
Alexander Keyssar, The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States
At its birth, the United States was not a democratic nation—far from it. The very word "democracy" had pejorative overtones, summoning up images of disorder, government by the unfit, even mob rule. In practice, moreover, relatively few of the nation's inhabitants were able to participate in elections: among the excluded were most African Americans, Native Americans, women, men who had not attained their majority, and white males who did not own land.
John Adams:
Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level.
Now: John Adams was a rank putz of the First Order. The first of the Statist Presidents. I hate him something fierce.
But, I agree with him above (somewhat).
"Winning the Vote: A History of Voting Rights"
by Steven Mintz
http://www.gilderlehrman.org/historynow/09_2004/historian.php
During the period immediately following the Revolution, some states replaced property qualifications with taxpaying requirements. This reflected the principle that there should be "no taxation without representation." Other states allowed anyone who served in the army or militia to vote. Vermont was the first state to eliminate all property and taxpaying qualifications for voting.
By 1790, all states had eliminated religious requirements for voting. As a result, approximately sixty to seventy percent of adult white men could vote. During this time, six states (Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Vermont) permitted free African-Americans to vote.
A timeline of Voting Rights and events that altered them, courtesy of the ACLU. I think they probably did their homework on this one:
http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/voting-rights-act-timeline
Yes, in early United States History, property ownership was a requisite for voting rights in many places. And it was decided by the several States individually, not by the FedGov.
-
Yes, in early United States History, property ownership was a requisite for voting rights in many places. And it was decided by the several States individually, not by the FedGov.
That fits with what I've read on the subject.
-
Proper ID at the voting booth I'm in favor of 100%.
Property requirement? NO. That would would put most of the country in the " taxation with no representation" bracket.
-
I can understand it at that time in history because you either owned land or you were an indentured servant or a vagabond who hadn't settled down. I don't believe you had people back then who had entire generations who rented or lived in subsidized dwellings.
What of relatives? Was only the family head allowed to vote? Were the other members of his family excluded unless they were given property by a relative?
-
I can understand it at that time in history because you either owned land or you were an indentured servant or a vagabond who hadn't settled down. I don't believe you had people back then who had entire generations who rented or lived in subsidized dwellings.
Property ownership was much more widespread in the U.S. than in Europe, but I think there were still a great many tenant farmers. Then tradesman that may have lived in rental properties. Probably a whole other class of people we're forgetting about.
-
Personal attack removed.
-
FTFY
And the problem is?
-
FTFY
Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence.
Accepting welfare/unemployment does not mean that one wishes to vote more of other peoples money into their pockets. A good number of times it means they want their children to not starve, not everyone has friends or family that can take care of them in hard times or the ability to save ahead for them. Some times you have to suck up your pride and take a handout to keep your kids and yourself fed.
-
I can understand it at that time in history because you either owned land or you were an indentured servant or a vagabond who hadn't settled down. I don't believe you had people back then who had entire generations who rented or lived in subsidized dwellings.
And yet property requirements were not needed or used in several states.
-
.
-
Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence.
Accepting welfare/unemployment does not mean that one wishes to vote more of other peoples money into their pockets. A good number of times it means they want their children to not starve, not everyone has friends or family that can take care of them in hard times or the ability to save ahead for them. Some times you have to suck up your pride and take a handout to keep your kids and yourself fed.
A handout is something given voluntarily. Unemployment and welfare are theft by conversion. If it was up to me, none of my money would go towards either of those programs. But it does through taxes, and not by my choice.
*The sympathy card isn't going to work on me. I was laid off a few years ago from a fairly high paying nuclear security job. I had the option of going on unemployment. I deliberately declined and took a job at a gas station, and delivering pizzas to get by instead. You can tell me "well not everyone can do that" and I'll call BS. There are ways to get by on your own if you really buckle down and don't tell yourself anything is below you. Where there's a will there's a way. I'll make it on my own. I expect you to keep your hand out of my wallet and do the same.
-
So, will you homeschool all your children and refuse to accept any kind of school vouchers?
-
So, will you homeschool all your children and refuse to accept any kind of school vouchers?
This really oughtn't to be about one guy's sense of personal invincibility--which clearly would not survive any serious scrutiny. To pretend so is merely buying into his faulty premise.
The issue began as whether people ought to have some particular type of demonstrable stake in a polity to participate in the voting process. The proposal has been put forth that instead of a positive requirement to own land, there be a negative requirement that anyone who uses certain government benefits will vote for the expansion of those benefits and therefore should be be disqualified from voting as insufficiently objective.
This is patently ludicrous. Suffrage is not about objectivity. Suffrage is about each voter doing his part to advance those positions which are important to him. The statement that X, Y, or Z ought not to be able to vote because he will vote in a way contrary to MY wishes leans pretty far towards the totalitarian ends of the political spectrum.
No, John Adams didn't see it that way. John Adams was wrong. John Adams, like the poster here, cherished the belief that because of various accidents of his birth and circumstances, he was more deserving of human rights than other people--no, not even people, but entities like women and non-land-owning rabble like RevDisk and Vaskidmark.
The poster here--who has now personally attacked me twice in as many weeks, to the point of being asked to edit or to having his posts edited by a mod--believes not only in a particular political system that does not exist and that has never existed and that will never exist because it flat-out denies some basic facts of human existence. He further believes not in integrating those beliefs into a political or personal philosophy in any kind of rational way, but instead of personally insulting as insufficiently human anyone who does not share his particular beliefs.
He considers his own personal beliefs--which apparently include a bizarre combination of Calvinism and Objectivism--to be so flawless that he can merely dismiss as irrelevant to truth aka his worldview any factor in any problem he chooses not to recognize, with no regard for the social contract supporting those factors, the economic structure underlying them, or the morality informing them. He really does believe that anyone who really, really wants to can and will and ought to be just like him--single, childless, and a member of the military. Oh, and to be properly human, must really, really want to be just like him. And if one cannot attain being sufficiently in the image of his god, one is "basically worthless."
So fine, there is clearly a lack of imagination going on here. I recall a family member recounting her experience with a Secular Humanist Jewish congregation, and how odd it seemed to her that they prominently displayed images and words in iconic forms indicating a worship of humanity. It seems that some people have distilled that down further to the worship of self.
The problem is, HE'S STILL WRONG. And it doesn't matter how many times he attacks me as a member of an underclass and a worthless human being. He'll still be wrong. It's all based on twisted syllogisms based on incorrect premises that don't stand up to logical scrutiny, or any scrutiny outside of the Objectivist philosophy. And a philosophy that works only so long as it remains completely internal and is not subject to outside forces is so inherently flawed as to have little or so philosophical value.
But, that's not what this is about.
What this is really about is that I made a snap judgment a while ago about the poster in question and reacted in accord with that judgement when conversing with him. I later regretted have acted with so little thought and sent a private message apologizing for having made such a judgment and for having behaved in accordance with it. I have noticed that since that time, subtle and overt attacks from this poster have become pretty consistent, which I consider sad but not really unexpected.
Nonetheless, I am me and not he and have no plans to change that, not because of his repeated attacks but because I have philosophical, logical, cultural, and moral objections to the beliefs he insists are essential to humanity.
-
I really think just not taking welfare or unemployment would be just as good these days.
I could live with that as I really don't want to see Rev denied his chance to vote since he seems like a productive member of society. =D
However, I think unemployment should not be included as it is really an insurance program that employees pay premiums into. That'd be like wrecking your car and becoming ineligible to vote because you filed an insurance claim.
-
So, will you homeschool all your children and refuse to accept any kind of school vouchers?
How about just send them to private school? Vouchers may as well be non-existent given how few exist. I have paid property taxes for years and have arranged my family's living and consumption habits so as to be able to afford private schooling for my kiddos.
But, what about the property owner who has paid property taxes for years and then has kiddos? If they send their kids to gov't schools is that case closer to "unemployment insurance" or rank theft by conversion as described above?
-
Don't be looking at me.
I'm not the one advocating denying people the vote.
-
It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation. The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.
Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money. It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.
-
Incidentally, I am aware of the existence of a number of people who consider military pay and benefits too generous:
Clearly, the military is a problem. Talk about the fall of the Republic! Military having the power to give themselves money or other benefits which they and they alone have the power to enforce has brought down civilizations before! No one in the military should be permitted to vote, since they have too much of an incentive to vote excessive benefits far beyond compensation for hours worked. Soldiers have historically been a social underclass anyway; in the US we've merely allowed them to vote themselves excessive benefits that give them a veneer of civilization.
Personally, I don't think my tax dollars should pay for VHA services or military disability benefits. Freaking theft by conversion!
/ludicrosity
-
It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation. The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.
Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money. It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.
This is the most coherent, polite, correct and libertarian post in this entire thread.
-
It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation. The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.
Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money. It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.
+1.
De Selby wins the thread.
Chris
-
It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation. The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.
Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money. It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.
This is the most coherent, polite, correct and libertarian post in this entire thread.
I disagree. As written it would suggest everyone occupying the US should have a vote. Non-citizens, illegals, children, etc. Now add the requirement to meet citizenship and age and such and it's more understandable.
There are already standards for who can and can't vote. Age, citizenship (even if this one is being progressively weakened), felon status, etc. I am in favor of expanding this a bit.
The age, IMO, should be higher than 18. Someone still living in mommy and daddy's house, depending on birth date and locality perhaps even still in high school, IMO isn't mature enough to be deciding who runs our country. Perhaps a good measure would be to raise it to 21 so people can get some taste of the real world? Perhaps requiring a voter to meet the age of candidacy requirements (or be within a certain number of years of it..say five for the sake of example) for the office they are voting for?
As to the welfare recipients, I am torn on that one. I will say, without a doubt, I'd sooner see no restrictions based on welfare implemented than deny legitimate recipients their vote. I do agree with the base of the thinking though, the growing welfare class in America will only keep growing as long as politicians can buy their vote by promising and pushing through yet more benefits or making those benefits easier to obtain. Tackling this is a complex issue with the web of social programs that we have and who receives them. First of course, the root of the problem is that we have a welfare class in the first place. Steps need to be taken to boot everyone off who is getting a free ride and playing the system so that only the relatively small number of legitimately disabled people continue to receive it. I'd much prefer privatized unemployment and retirement but those that paid for the service in the event they need it should be able to use it without impact.
So I think that those receiving SS and unemployment, should not be excluded from the vote. To receive these they had to pay in, so there is no reason to have them impact a persons ability to vote. For other forms of welfare I think a good measure would be number of years worked and paying taxes before going on welfare. Worked the required years before going on disability, continue to vote. Never worked a day in your life? No vote.
-
The age, IMO, should be higher than 18. Someone still living in mommy and daddy's house, depending on birth date and locality perhaps even still in high school, IMO isn't mature enough to be deciding who runs our country. Perhaps a good measure would be to raise it to 21 so people can get some taste of the real world? Perhaps requiring a voter to meet the age of candidacy requirements (or be within a certain number of years of it..say five for the sake of example) for the office they are voting for?
Only if they raise the age for military service to go with it. We don't have a draft today, but it was within my lifetime that we did and we still require all young men to register for that non-existant draft. I would not support an 18 or 19yo being sent off to war when he had no voice in the matter at all.
Chris
-
Only if they raise the age for military service to go with it. We don't have a draft today, but it was within my lifetime that we did and we still require all young men to register for that non-existant draft. I would not support an 18 or 19yo being sent off to war when he had no voice in the matter at all.
Chris
Perhaps add that those who serve get to vote early?
-
Is it assumed that universal suffrage results in the best representatives and best promotes the general welfare of a state, or is the idea that universal suffrage is the important thing regardless of what's best for a state?
-
Is it assumed that universal suffrage results in the best representatives and best promotes the general welfare of a state, or is the idea that universal suffrage is the important thing regardless of what's best for a state?
It is assumed that the opinions (votes) of all adult citizens (minus felons, etc.) must be consulted, in order to determine what is best for the state. And by "state," I assume you mean the people thereof, not the government. And because a government must, as a primary duty, protect the rights of the people, all of the citizens must be consulted about which rights are to be recognized and how.
Does that answer your question?
-
Only if they raise the age for military service to go with it. We don't have a draft today, but it was within my lifetime that we did and we still require all young men to register for that non-existant draft. I would not support an 18 or 19yo being sent off to war when he had no voice in the matter at all.
Chris
That could be as simple as "18 or a member of the military."
I'd add Americorps as well. Not a popular program with folks of a libertarian bent, perhaps, but a viable option for national service for people who don't qualify for the military. I'd see a viable constitutional challenge from all the eighteenyear olds prohibited from voting because of a knee destroyed in high school football or similar.
-
It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation. The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.
Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money. It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.
This one fails the smell test.
Children, felons, non-citizens can be arrested out of their home, and yet nobody really considers them worthy of franchise. And rightfully so. Should we have given Nazi Germans the right to vote in our elections back in the 1940's? We were certainly willing to subject them to the power of our state.
Nope, being subject to arrest or other action by the state is not a sufficient criteria for deciding who can and can't vote.
The ultimate purpose of voting is to keep government's power in check and to keep the government's actions accountable to the will of the people. When the majority of the population is dependent on government for their daily survival, then the roles of government and the people are reversed. The people become accountable to the will of the government and not the government accountable to the will of the people. Liberty will not survive long in those circumstances.
If nothing else, I'd hope we can all agree that the purpose of elective government is NOT to give everyone warm fuzzies about how much they get to participate in society. Some people might feel bad if they don't have a say in government, especially those who've allowed themselves to fall into dependence on government. So what? I fail to see why their self-esteem issues should be a consideration.
-
It is assumed that the opinions (votes) of all adult citizens (minus felons, etc.) must be consulted, in order to determine what is best for the state.
Does that answer your question?
But couldn't it be that what is best for a state is some type of limited suffrage? I remember reading in the congressional record the complaint that we were suffering from democratic excesses, and that was back when suffrage was mostly limited to white men with I don't know what kind of property requirements, educational requirements, and so on. Maybe universal suffrage is a radical democratic excess that is not best for a state at all. At any rate, I don't see that the Founders thought that universal suffrage was best, and if they thought that limited suffrage was best, I think no less of them.
It seems to me that every time we have extended suffrage (15th/19th/23rd/24th/26th amendments) it has been to the benefit of the northern party. Maybe universal suffrage is agenda driven?
I'm not necessarily opposed to universal suffrage, but I question the assumption that it is the best way to determine what is best for a state ... I don't think we can just assume that universal suffrage is the bomb and go on to assume that the founders must have been all for it.
-
But couldn't it be that what is best for a state is some type of limited suffrage? I remember reading in the congressional record the complaint that we were suffering from democratic excesses, and that was back when suffrage was mostly limited to white men with I don't know what kind of property requirements, educational requirements, and so on. Maybe universal suffrage is a radical democratic excess that is not best for a state at all. At any rate, I don't see that the Founders thought that universal suffrage was best, and if they thought that limited suffrage was best, I think no less of them.
It seems to me that every time we have extended suffrage (15th/19th/23rd/24th/26th amendments) it has been to the benefit of the northern party. Maybe universal suffrage is agenda driven?
I'm not necessarily opposed to universal suffrage, but I question the assumption that it is the best way to determine what is best for a state ... I don't think we can just assume that universal suffrage is the bomb and go on to assume that the founders must have been all for it.
I'm sure that if the Founders had thought universal democracy was a worthy goal, they would have supported it and incorporated it into our form of government right from the beginning. It's interesting that they didn't.
-
I'm sure that if the Founders had thought universal democracy was a worthy goal, they would have supported it and incorporated it into our form of government right from the beginning. It's interesting that they didn't.
It's also interesting that they were, to a man, men.
-
Children, felons, non-citizens can be arrested out of their home, and yet nobody really considers them worthy of franchise. And rightfully so.
There are plenty of people who think that felons should not be deprived of the right to vote. Or to possess arms.
As for children, I didn't know you could arrest toddlers.
The fact is, the purpose of government is not only the protection of property - in fact, the Declaration of Independence in America states that its purpose is the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.. These are the things every citizen places at stake when voting.
-
But couldn't it be that what is best for a state is some type of limited suffrage?
Again, I wish you would clarify what you mean by "state," as a lot of people understand "state" to mean the government of a polity. I presume you're talking about what's best for the people, overall.
Yes, it could be. That's what some people are arguing for. If they feel that way, they are free to pursue that goal.
At any rate, I don't see that the Founders thought that universal suffrage was best, and if they thought that limited suffrage was best, I think no less of them.
They didn't all agree on which was best. They made statements pro and con.
Children, felons, non-citizens can be arrested out of their home, and yet nobody really considers them worthy of franchise.
Apparently, some do. =|
-
There are plenty of people who think that felons should not be deprived of the right to vote. Or to possess arms.
And there are plenty of people who think the earth is flat. So what? Nobody really takes these notions seriously.
As for children, I didn't know you could arrest toddlers.
To the extent that that children are capable of committing serious crimes, they can be arrested for their crimes. The courts may not charge them as adults, or at all, but that doesn't do anything to prevent their arrest.
The fact is, the purpose of government is not only the protection of property - in fact, the Declaration of Independence in America states that its purpose is the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.. These are the things every citizen places at stake when voting.
I trust you know that the original conception of that phrase also listed property as one of the virtues that government should seek to protect, and that property was removed only because they didn't want it to appear crass and materialistic.
But never mind that.
Tell me, if everyone should be allowed to vote, why not just implement a direct democracy where every policy is voted on by the people? Why bother with pesky representatives and restrictive constitutions? Why shouldn't the people get to decide on everything, and get to decide any way they please? Isn't that the logical conclusion of where you're going?
Truly, why bother with any of this constitutional republic stuff at all?
-
Tell me, if everyone should be allowed to vote, why not just implement a direct democracy where every policy is voted on by the people? Why bother with pesky representatives and restrictive constitutions? Why shouldn't the people get to decide on everything, and get to decide any way they please? Isn't that the logical conclusion of where you're going?
You know and I know that there are two different answers to that question. One of them is Hamilton's answer, who believed that, human beings being frail and corrupt, we should have representatives as the elite of the public, chosen as the smallest amount possible of representatives from as wide a territory s possible. If you believe in that, then the question is why have federalism or local rule at all. Or why vote at all. Another is Jefferson's answer, who believed that - indeed - as many people should be able to vote as possible, with as much power diverted as possible to local authority, so as to approximate a direct democratic rule as much as we can.
If we believe that the only legitimate governemnt is one that protects the rights of individuals - as the Framers outlined in the declaration - obviously then goverment should not be able to do so, even if it is backed by a majority of people.
It's true that at the Framing Hamilton won out politically over Jefferson in many ways. I don't personally believe he was a better or smarter man.
And there are plenty of people who think the earth is flat. So what? Nobody really takes these notions seriously.
Why should I bother to discuss anything with you if you believe me to be the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther?
-
There are plenty of people who think that felons should not be deprived of the right to vote. Or to possess arms.
I don't think it was a personal comment, but rather a comment on the argument itself. One can find "plenty of people" to agree on just about anything.
-
Headless, you are missing the fundamental issue, which is that property ownership is not a reasonable basis for extending someone the franchise.
That's the point - non-citizens and kids do have a big stake in government. There are still reasons why you would deny them the vote. Those happen to be good reasons. Their ownership or lack of ownership of property is a silly reason for it.
The choice we're examining isn't between letting every breathing soul vote or none; the question here is whether in deciding who should be allowed to vote, property ownership should be considered.
The fact is, property ownership has exactly zero correlation to one's vote on individual rights. It also doesn't give a "stake" or greater interest in government compared to those whose liberty is on the line. That's why a property qualification for voting is absurd.
Pointing out obvious cases where the franchise should not be extended does not make property qualifications sensible.
-
Hamilton makes a good point. If you're beholden to someone else, it's hard to trust you to vote independently of what he wants.
Hamilton expresses the theoretical justification used by eighteenth-century republicans. That is, that a man without property was probably a servant or hired hand, depending on a propertied man for his livelihood and would vote the way his boss told him to. In theory, if the servant could vote, the master had two votes.*
From the link in the OP.
The Farmer Refuted
Alexander Hamilton
1775
[The classic argument for limiting voting rights to adult males who own property: so that voters are excluded who are dependent on the wills of others for their livelihood. — TGW]
[Hamilton is quoting Blackstone’s Commentaries, bk. 1, ch. 2:]
"If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other."
From Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-79), 1:106.
During the secret debates of the Constitutional Convention, however, the Framers were not shy in admitting that they didn't want debtors voting for paper money. Many of the men at the convention were creditors, and saw paper money as a dishonest instrument meant to cheat them.
*This was not unlike the logic behind femme covert, which meant (among other things) that a woman's husband, father or other male relative had the same interests she had, so he was really voting for both of them.
-
Hamilton makes a good point. If you're beholden to someone else, it's hard to trust you to vote independently of what he wants.
Yet Hamilton expected, simultaneously, that politicians would vote for the benefit of the public as a sort of elite, not beholden to being micromanaged by the 'will of the people' between election cycles.
He and his friends also believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary.
-
Most 21st century "property owners" are debtors. Most 21st century property owners--including those who aren't debtors--are employees. If one insists on applying Hamilton's logic to an era vastly different to some pretty important ways, then one would end up with a voting class composed overwhelmingly of old people.
How'd you like a 40% payroll deduction for elder services?
I notice that the persons who decided that a husband's vote represented his wife's interests as well as his own were, to a man, men. Mostly husbands. Tell me again how voting oneself disproportionate power is endemic only to weak-willed pansies like poor people and women?
-
Nearly everyone pays taxes of some sort. Taxes that probably eat up a significant percentage of their earnings. Even if you are out of work you get to pay a large assortment of taxes.
"No vote" equals "taxation without representation", period.
-
[Hamilton] and his friends also believed the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary.
Actually, one of his arguments on this subject was quite right. He, among others, argued that any rights not enumerated would be disregarded. How right he was. =(
-
Actually, one of his arguments on this subject was quite right. He, among others, argued that any rights not enumerated would be disregarded. How right he was. =(
It would seem that has largely become moot as even certain rights are being disregarded despite enumeration.
-
Actually, one of his arguments on this subject was quite right. He, among others, argued that any rights not enumerated would be disregarded. How right he was. =(
Well, the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated ... and look how well that has faired during the twentieth century ...... ;) [tinfoil]
-
I notice that the persons who decided that a husband's vote represented his wife's interests as well as his own were, to a man, men.
Bridgewalker, except for you, everyone on this thread is a man, and men are, to a man, men. ;)
-
It would seem that has largely become moot as even certain rights are being disregarded despite enumeration.
Touche.
-
Bridgewalker, except for you, everyone on this thread is a man, and men are, to a man, men. ;)
I wasn't referring to people on this thread, I was referring to the founding fathers and others who prohibited women from voting.
-
I wasn't referring to people on this thread, I was referring to the founding fathers and others who prohibited women from voting.
Hold on there, Bridgey. "Prohibited women from voting" is hugely different than "extended the franchise of voting, from no-one, to an attainable goal for all men willing to prove their worth (by acquiring property)."
Yes, it says men.
But women weren't part of the game before the Revolution.
"Prohibited" is a word that implies a deliberate act of restraint.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prohibit
The notion of women suddenly voting in 1780 New England is as contemporaneously sensible as children having a vote. I don't mean that in a belittling way... it's just the way things were back then. Women of the time did not involve themselves in acts of politics or war (with VERY few exceptions). Much as 10 year old children did not involve themselves in acts of politics or war (with VERY few exceptions).
-
Not much quibble with you argument against my word choice, but I expect if a woman showed up at the local polling place she was indeed prohibited from voting.
As for "just the way things were"--yes, that is true. And it's true because the people who had political control were men. Since suffrage has been extended to women we've gotten a whole fewer laws that are outright oppressive to women. And before blacks could vote--because that was just the way it was, because blacks didn't have a meaningful voice for saying otherwise, at least not through voting--there were a whole lot more laws that were outright oppressive to blacks.
Yeah, I may sound like every crappy modern elementary school feelgood history textbook, but historically, those who have had the vote have not generally been particularly punctilious in looking out for the well-being of those who couldn't
-
But women weren't part of the game before the Revolution.
That is generally true - with the exception of at least one state, and a few European countries (like Sweden in the Age of Liberty, which has been discussed by the Founders while talking about the Constitution's other aspects).
-
That is generally true - with the exception of at least one state, and a few European countries (like Sweden in the Age of Liberty, which has been discussed by the Founders while talking about the Constitution's other aspects).
New Jersey? Also, where's the Sweden reference?
-
In the Enlightenment world the Framers grew up in individuality required rationality. Draw your own conclusions about what implies for those denied suffrage.
-
[popcorn]
-
Well, first I would like to require ID to vote. 2nd, I want to get rid of 3rd party voter registration. I think these days, the 3rd party registration is just an easy way to commit fraud.
Personally, I would rather just do away with parties. Completely. Just think, if we didn't have parties we wouldn't have to worry about RINOs (or DINOs, if you swing that way), we wouldn't have to worry about primaries, we wouldn't have to worry about caucuses ... we could just, like, vote for the person we think would best represent us.
Wouldn't that be novel?
Dunno about y'all, but I'm a senior citizen and I'm getting awfully tired of always having to vote against someone. It's far past the "lesser of two evils," we are now at the stage of voting just to vote against [___]. And it should not be that way.Parties are the root of the problem. Where does it say anything about two parties in the Constitution of the United States? Or in your state's constitution, for that matter?
Try this one. I spoke with my brother last night (or maybe it was two nights ago) and he mentioned an article he had just read in the daily newsrag. It seems that in some small-ish town near him an unaffiliated voter had decided to run for the position of registrar of voters. Okay, not big deal. Except ...
My brother lives in Connecticut. Apparently, state law says that one registrar in each town shall be a Republican, and one shall be a Democrat. There is only one candidate for registrar from each party (in each town), so basically they are guaranteed to "win" no matter how many or how few votes they get. So, what happens if there's a third candidate? In order for this third candidate to become a registrar, he (or she) has to get more votes than one of the other two. That sounds eminently reasonable. Except ...
If the third candidate gets more votes than one of the other two, he or she gets to be a registrar BUT ... the other two still both get elected. It just means that the town will then have three registrars instead of two for the next two years.
The system is broken. Possibly irreparably.
-
There are plenty of people who think that felons should not be deprived of the right to vote. Or to possess arms.
Consider carefully context and definition. I don't think that anyone seriously believes that felons, in the sense of criminals convicted and currently under the purview of the criminal justice system, should be allowed to possess firearms. What those of us who believe in restoration of rights are saying is that once a criminal has "paid his debt to society," he is no longer a felon. He is an ex-felon, or a former felon. Denying that person his/her right to possess arms, and/or his/her right to vote, is a continuation of their punishment beyond the period of time to which they were sentenced. It simply is unfair.
It didn't used to be that way. In the days of the wild west, a man could walk out of prison and strap on a six-gun as soon as he was out the door of the penitentiary, and nobody thought that was odd or unusual or "wrong." The notion that a person could be convicted of a low-grade felony supposedly carrying a sentence term of ... oh maybe two to five years and then continue to be punished by being deprived of a fundamental Constitutional right for the rest of his/her life seems to me to be manifestly unjust and fundamentally flawed.
I really do believe in the axiom that "If we can't trust him with a gun, why is he out on the street?"
-
New Jersey? Also, where's the Sweden reference?
I was thinking Massachusets.
-
Personally, I would rather just do away with parties. Completely. Just think, if we didn't have parties we wouldn't have to worry about RINOs (or DINOs, if you swing that way), we wouldn't have to worry about primaries, we wouldn't have to worry about caucuses ... we could just, like, vote for the person we think would best represent us.
Socrates: Nothing prevents you from voting for anyone you want. Why don't you just do that?