The Founders and the property requirement for voting

[Perd Hapley]

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

[Perd Hapley]

Huh. No replies. I guess this is only a hot topic when it's a thread jack. 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

still reading  but thank you for the great stuff! i learned something today

[stevelyn]

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.

[MechAg94]

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.

[roo_ster]

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.

[RevDisk]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[Hugh Damright]

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.

[taurusowner]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

That's nice.  You're still wrong.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[RevDisk]

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.   

[MechAg94]

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.

[makattak]

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.

[MechAg94]

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

One other thought to consider, could property tax requirements be a holdover from aristocratic tendencies in Europe? 

Ya think?

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[HeroHog]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[AZRedhawk44]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[Ron]

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.

   

[HeroHog]

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?