Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Universal suffrage - yea or nay?

It has been said by lots of folks throughout history, though I can�t name one specifically right now, that all democracies die as soon as the populace learns it can vote itself bread and circuses, or something like that.



The Founding Fathers did NOT believe in universal suffrage, they thought that only property owners should vote, and obviously of those, only male property owners. The idea being that they have a vested interest in a stable and hopefully responsible government.



Robert Heinlein, the sci-fi writer, espoused the idea that prospective voters must pass an intelligence test of some kind at the polling place before being allowed in the voting booth. Nothing too difficult or subject to abuse, but something that all citizens would be capable of doing, something to prove that they have taken at least a minimal interest in the proceedings. For instance one must be able to name the candidates on the slate and their party affiliation as a minimum.



I frankly don�t believe in universal suffrage either. Obviously disenfranchisement is fraught with the peril of selective disenfranchisement of certain groups � �Grandfather� clauses in the South to disenfranchise black people is one glaring example. But I think that somewhere there is a far, far better idea than universal suffrage. This is not a direct democracy so �we� can�t vote for bread and circuses directly, but as the Democratic strategy has proven many times, �we� will vote for candidates who promise us the bread and circuses.



So what say you? Universal suffrage or not, and if not, what?

The inherent danger here is WHO decides the criteria. That is fraught with danger, better the system we have methinks.

The �WHO decides� is indeed the greatest danger. But I�m thinking more on the lines of not deliberately excluding any group or groups � the ability would be open to all. But before voting one must show an individual effort above and beyond the ability to have children and pull a lever.



Not to harp on Mr. Heinlein, but after I wrote his name it reminded me of another of his political ideas. In the book �Starship Troopers� (which BTW was full of political ideas, was NOT a bug shoot�em up and was far and away better than that travesty of a movie), the idea is that one can only attain full citizenship, including the right to vote, only after performing some type of government service. One is not required to perform service, one's civil rights are still protected (like a right to a fair and impartial trial), but the right to participate in government would not be among those. The choice is left to the individual. Only those who are willing to sacrifice some part of themselves for the greater good will have the ability to determine the course of government.



I would agree with this. Doesn�t mean you have to join the military, although that should definitely qualify, but some type of public service with a minimum of two years. Something to instill in an individual, on a very personal level, the concept of �the greater good�.

Again we have to have some entity to decide that level.

The universal service idea on the other hand does have it's merits, if it is voluntatry. It at least shows some kind of commitment and willingnees to properly participate rather than suck at the .gov teat without contributating to the "greater good".

I am totally opposed to universal sufferage and turned against it long before reading this post. I am an intelligent university graduate, fanatic reader, informed, yet when I go to vote, my ballot counts the same as a retard whose only qualification is living 18 years.

Who decides? Easy. Like a driver's test. You take it and pass or fail. If you pass, you get a voter card.

You can bypass the test if you hold a job, are retired or own property and pay taxes.

Again, some person or entity must create such a test. That IMHO is too easily turned into the same sort of test that was used in the south in the early to mid 20th century to keep certain ethnic groups from the vote. That is one scary thought to me. I too have 2 degrees, worked for a living and own property. Some in my same circumstance don't have the common sense to come in out of the rain let alone be the exclusive master of the voting machine.

I really like the book and the idea that only those who have served in the miltary can hold office since they have been willing to pay for the right by putting them selves in harms way. tom

I've often read that Women's Sufferage is what brought about prohibition. While a goodly portion of the men were away fighting "The Great War", the stay-at-homes and women held the political power. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

Yes, it does give me some doubt as to uninformed morons having the same vote as me. I have always felt that it is not my duty only to vote, but to actually do my home-work in casting an informed vote.

While I would like to see something like Roger described as to voting rights, it does open up another can of worms as to "who's policing the police".

Property owners, veterans, ect would be a good way to go, but would disenfranchise taxpayers, which would understandably upset some folks! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
7mm

Fair is fair.

I�m a bit shaky on my history here so someone correct me if I�m wrong. But I believe that originally the only tax revenue was to come from property taxes as well as some consumer taxes, but mostly from property taxes. Whether that was because only property owners could vote because only property owners paid taxes, or only property owners paid taxes because only property owners could vote � I don�t know.

But, fair is fair. If you can�t vote, you don�t pay taxes.

Or, fair is fair � tax everybody but if you want a say in how your taxes are levied and spent then become a full citizen with the right to vote.

Bottom line, though, is that I think allowing every Tom, Dick and Harriet the right to vote will indeed cause the death of this �democracy� just as it has caused the death of every democracy. I know � �Republic�, not democracy, but the social and political effects are the same. I think it was Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote a very telling account of the birth, rise and fall of democracies � we are not exactly in a good point on the time line right now. I would argue that we are in the midst of the apathy or complacency stage and that despotism is only a step or two away.

Actually the only .gov tax income was to come from trade tarriff's. Been down hill ever since.

Jim,
Skidrow and I had a discussion on whether Heinlein actually believed requiring Federal Service to gain voting rights was a good idea. Regardless, the concept of Starship Troopers on that level was simply that universal suffrage based solely on surviving long enough to attain a certain age had it's faults. In the book it is noted that the system used also has faults, but it works, and I submit ours does as well.

I feel that the problem is NOT WITH people who look to government for "bread and circuses", a government who will grant them that which they need to survive with no effort, but rather WITH a government (party, person, system) that gives it to them. The role of government, at any level but decreasing as that level moves away (local, state, federal), should be so insignificant as to be inconsequential except in extreme circumstances. On the other hand, what we've gained since the 1960's is a government that is increasingly part of our lives, families, and neighborhoods.

All of this is gained under the auspice of "the greater good", yet is it? Is it "good" that I can impose my belief system, moral code, prejudices and desires on another person living 1000 miles away simply because I think it will make them a better person? There are many things I find to be morally repugnant, yet when I ask myself it really is government's role to be involved I find myself saying "No." I would rather see a person doomed to eternal damnation by their own free choice than refuse them that choice through excess government.


For this reason I stand by Chapter 12 of Starship Troopers where Juan Rico must justify the system and say it isn't perfect, but it's what we have and it works.

Bob

The way I see it , is the same way WC Fields seen it, "We should return to the Colonial Days, when women were judged on their ability to pack water and chop wood. Things were just fine until the modern guys taught them to read and write, then they could read the ballot, pass the drivers test and then they were able to run the hell out of the family car, wear out the rubber, roaring around town, while the dishes piled up high enough in the sink to hurt somebody if the stack fell over. Our society has plumb gone to hell in a handbasket ever since Granpa's generation let this situation develop.

Universal Suffrage: Yea

Equal Suffrage: Nay

A citizen must be given a voice in the affairs of his/her country, but an alternative to ensure that those more informed had influence to match their exists and was once considered. All have a single vote as a right of citizenship, but those who earn them may have multiple votes.

Nevil Shute wrote in his biography and seval of his novels about the concept of earning more than one vote. The history is that after WWII Britain was ruled by the Labour party and they turned hard left, even nationalizing many industries. These extremist policies caused the "Brain Drain" where many of Britain's best and brightest fled to the independant Colonies or those now gaining independence. These people, after being chased from their country by the follies of one person one vote, created a movement promoting to the formative governments of the Colonies they immigrated to a multiple vote system.

All were to have an initial vote; and, in most proposals, an additional vote could be earned for each of the following:

Business or Farm Ownership
Millitary Service
University Graduation
Living and working in abroad

This concept of earned multiple votes seems to me to be the solution.

Fireplug

On the subject of why suffrage has been extended in the United States De Tocqueville says:

�Democracy In America�, Alexis De Tocqueville
�When a nation modifies the elective qualification, it may easily be foreseen that sooner or later that qualification will be entirely abolished. There is no more invariable rule in the history of society: the further electoral rights are extended,
the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of the democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength. The ambition of those who are below the appointed rate is irritated in exact proportion to the great number of those who are above it. The exception at last becomes the rule, concession follows concession, and no stop can be made short of universal suffrage.�

On why I don�t vote I use De Tocqueville�s explanation:

�I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice, and that, whatever its advantages may be, this is not one of them.�

A few examples of ridiculous voting blocks sought after by candidates:
-Nascar Dads
-Sports Fans
-Pet Owners
-Those who vote for the prettiest face

Universal Suffrage? Nay!!!