Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
I think you are assuming the truth of the point rather than demonstrating it. One could reasonably ask, " Has this really been progress?"
Is having a greater % of the populace engaged in "the franchise" an improvement? How would you demonstrate that thesis?
How does any of this relate to Tocqueville's comment about the American system will last only until the populace begins to vote themselves monies from the public treasury?
Not taking a side; just asking questions.
|
Yes, I believe that the movement away from "landed gentry" having all the power of the electorate was progress, just as giving the vote to women and ensuring that the citizens' right to vote is not impeded due. How else do we have a representative government, by the people and for the people, as contemplated by Lincoln's address?
The villifying of the poor in this discussion is interesting. The entertainment of the notion that there is some good in denying them voting rights is disappointing. Consider that the elderly and other infirm would not meet the income test, are they to be included in this secondary class of citizenship? The newly unemployed . . .
From restrictions to "white male landowners" to literacy tests and poll taxes . . . the history of voter rights has been a long struggle against prejudice and disenfranchisement, so I call that progess and to impose an income requirement is backwards.