A Modest Proposal: Limiting the Franchise

[Louis VI the Fat]

According to some folks, even the VA should be done away with. Seriously.

Shame he doesn't tell the interviewer how he really feels. Now we'll always be left wondering...



Other than that, I'm happy his beloved Hobbesian capitalism works out so well for him he now has three jobs to pay his doctor. If he keeps it up, his children might even do one better and find four jobs just to pay their bills. Fourteen hours a day, seven days a week, from the age of sixteen, until his grandchildren wonder why their grandfather left the Nicaraguan sweatshops in the first place.

[Lemur]

P.S.: If that man was a Marine, I'm the Queen of Norway.

[drone]

P.S.: If that man was a Marine, I'm the Queen of Norway.

=

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I got that, after a moment's pause (from the POV of UK, our so-called Revolutionary War WAS a UK/Colonial Civil War).

I've always thought of the Revolution as a rebellion, not a civil war.

I spose it was a civil war. After all, not all of the colonists wanted to leave the UK. There was also quite a number of UK born citizens that joined the 'patriots'. There is a feeling that the rebellion was really the third and final act of the English civil war from a hundred years or so before. For practically the same reason.

IA is largely correct. I hesitate to provide a history lesson to our American friends regarding their own nation, but approximately 1/3 of the Colonial Population of the 13 Colonies were loyalists, while many soldiers (like Washington) turned coats and joined the rebels. Also, the US Congress was first formed to present grievences to HM Government, not to start a rebellion. The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British, if you saw the recent Drama John Adams, you may have noticed the accents. They are essentially a varriation on the theme of West Country Yokal, leaning heavily towards Somerset.

In common with all Civil Wars the American Revolutionary War was bloody, with brother slaying brother, and though the Colonial Elite established an initially very British restriction of sufferage, the mythos of the war provoked your country to extend that sufferage continually at a rate that put it (generally speaking) ahead of the UK.

To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.

It would be like giving a second vote to their husbands, and therefore be unfair on single men.

That has always been the argument, I'm sure no one here supports it.

I would TOTALLY support that!

Are "Native Americans" US or Canadian Citizens? If not, it would seem more likely that your people would be the ones excluded.

We are not now and never have been a democracy. Our founders crafted a republic that embodied many democratic principles. Many (most) of them LOATHED the idea of universal suffrage viewing it as nothing more than a semi-formalized mob rule. They wanted voters to be persons with a stake in their community, persons who would be impacted by the results of their selections for government offices and who would pay attention.

I actually believe that Rabbit's suggestion in the OP would have met with far more support from the founders than most of us today would expect. It was not at all uncommon for there to be property restrictions on voters in the early states (insuring that "stake in the community" quality) and the Constitution itself did NOT obviate such restrictions on the part of the several states. If I recall correctly, there was even some discussion about basing representation on number of voters rather than on population, but that this was shot down by the Southern states whose states had far fewer voters than people (especially when the enslaved population was included).

I'm not a huge fan of your Founding Fathers, I don't think their support of a proposal is an accolade worth having in this day and age.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2480868]IA is largely correct. I hesitate to provide a history lesson to our American friends regarding their own nation, but approximately 1/3 of the Colonial Population of the 13 Colonies were loyalists, while many soldiers (like Washington) turned coats and joined the rebels. Also, the US Congress was first formed to present grievences to HM Government, not to start a rebellion. The key point is that all the people involved were essentially British, if you saw the recent Drama John Adams, you may have noticed the accents. They are essentially a varriation on the theme of West Country Yokal, leaning heavily towards Somerset./[QUOTE]

I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."

Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.

The First Continental Congress was, as you rightly note, a collection of English subject lodging grievances. The Second Continental declared independcy.

Our accents were already divirging, but we were much more closely aligned with English English at the time. We have one little island in the Chesapeake where, until radio, the predominant local accent was closer to Elizebethan-style English than anything else.

In common with all Civil Wars the American Revolutionary War was bloody, with brother slaying brother, and though the Colonial Elite established an initially very British restriction of sufferage, the mythos of the war provoked your country to extend that sufferage continually at a rate that put it (generally speaking) ahead of the UK....To supsequently reject the principle of universal sufferage that you have established in your Constitution belittles the entire American project, and makes that original war look like nothing but a petty and pointless quibble over taxes levied to pay for British soldiers stationed in the Colonies.

Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

More key is the fact that they didn't see themselves as British; the colonies had developed their own identity.

I dissagree, the fact they complained about taxation without representation and formed a Congree to present grievences to London proves you wrong. Americans became different through rebellion, rather than rebelling because they were different.

Kindly point out exactly where the constitution mentions universal suffrage.

Your Constitution has been ammended to establish that race, gender, property qualifications, wealth, ancestry etc., cannot be used to restrict sufferage.

And that's why Britain is what it is today.

CR

A nation with a democratically elected government, secular liberty, freedom of speech, peace, and the rule of law?

Not to mention a working health service.

I'd read that things were about 30% Tory, 30% Rebel, and 40% "why don't you all leave me alone so I can raise my family."

That's pretty much the defnition of a Civil War then, isn't it?

Washington was a VA officer, not a British Army or British Army native contingent officer. He was no more a "turncoat" than any other rebel in the USA.

His commission might have been in a Colonial militia rather than in a British Regiment of Foot, but he was still clearly a British soldier, who fought the French Canadians and served British generals. He did turn coats when he fought against the British.

Why he chose to do so is a different issue.

Universal suffrage was NEVER a principle enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, I think you make and excellent point that it became part of our collective mythos and that outlook led us to extend the franchise more and more. The Constitution itself, however, is relatively silent about who shall be given the suffrage, leaving that up to the several states.

Your Constitution has since been ammended, what you have suggested in this thread is a reversal of that extension of sufferage.

[KukriKhan]

I guess what's at the heart of CR's "pay to vote" proposal (since I assume he has good intentions, not bad) is not so much restricting the vote; that would be an unintended side-effect. What I think he seeks, is a valuation of the vote by the citizenry, some way to better establish more of a tendancy to cherish and use wisely this right. And this proposal seeks to establish that voting wisdom by mandating more "skin in the game" on the part of the citizenry. Basically: "If it's YOUR money (taxes) being spent that is under discussion, you'd naturally be inclined to be more frugal." vs "It's federal money; let's toss a bit there and there and over there too.".

[Tellos Athenaios]

A good way to go about that is establish a totalitarian regime, oppress some masses and then have a revolution and establish a democracy. That usually does impart a sense of importance of the ballot box on the citizens. ...

Anyway, complicated quid-pro-quo based schemes do not fundamentally work here (there are too many practical complications in assessing the quo, for instance would you need to include charity work as essentially giving back to the community thus supporting/repaying your government/community?); and you will only serve as the high road to political suicide (if not to being lynched by an angry mob or assassinated) for the politician to propose it.

[Husar]

Other than that, I'm happy his beloved Hobbesian capitalism works out so well for him he now has three jobs to pay his doctor. If he keeps it up, his children might even do one better and find four jobs just to pay their bills. Fourteen hours a day, seven days a week, from the age of sixteen, until his grandchildren wonder why their grandfather left the Nicaraguan sweatshops in the first place.

He says he was looking for freedom. Maybe in Nicaragua they only allowed him to work two jobs?

Or maybe they locked him away because he always wanted to stab people with flag poles?