The Founders and the property requirement for voting

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

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. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[MechAg94]

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. 

[De Selby]

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. 

[Perd Hapley]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[BridgeRunner]

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?

[Ron]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

[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. 

[kgbsquirrel]

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.

[TommyGunn]

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 ...... 

[Monkeyleg]

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.

[Perd Hapley]

It would seem that has largely become moot as even certain rights are being disregarded despite enumeration.

Touche. 

[BridgeRunner]

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.

[AZRedhawk44]

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).

[BridgeRunner]

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

[MicroBalrog]

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).

[Perd Hapley]

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?

[longeyes]

In the Enlightenment world the Framers grew up in individuality required rationality.  Draw your own conclusions about what implies for those denied suffrage.

[Perd Hapley]

 

[Hawkmoon]

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.

[Hawkmoon]

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?"