Once in a while, the idea of taking the vote away from women comes up. It’s a good idea, though I’m not really a fan of democracy in the first place. But someone generally responds, as in this comment at Alpha Game, with the fact that married women vote much more conservatively than single women; so the real problem is single people, or some other configuration.

The thing is, both are true. Women, in general, are more emotion-driven and short-sighted than men, so more likely to vote for security and short-term gains over freedom and reason. Married women, in general, are more sensible than single women, because they have an allegiance to their husbands that outranks their allegiance to their own whims, so they have less dependence on the state and Other People’s Money.

But you can take it further than that. Any restriction on the vote would improve matters, as long as it’s not targeted toward white, native-born, Christian, home- or land-owning, married men. The more a person varies from those criteria, the more he is likely to vote for big-government leftism, and the more problematic his group’s vote is likely to be.

  • Ban women from voting? Better.
  • Blacks/Hispanics/Asians/other-minority? Better.
  • Naturalized immigrants? Better.
  • Unmarried and/or childless people? Better.
  • Ban homosexuals and other deviants? Better.
  • Renters, or people with zero equity? Better.
  • People who don’t speak English? Better.
  • Government employees? Better.
  • People without a driver’s license? Better.
  • People without a hunting license? Much better.
  • People who can’t name the current vice president? Better.
  • Charge a dollar to vote? Better.

Any or all of those would have better results than universal suffrage.  (For what it’s worth, a few of those would ban me, and I’d be fine with that.)

I think, though, that any vote is liable over time to spread to more people until it becomes universal. There’s too much advantage to be gained for the state in buying off more and more people and groups. We’re still moving in that direction in the US, with some Democrats now suggesting that it’s unfair to ban non-citizens from voting. The only solution is probably to get rid of voting altogether; or make it less direct, like having a hereditary monarchy but allowing the people to vote to depose the current monarch; things like that.


5 thoughts on “Suffragenots

  1. Expanding the franchise has always been an early stop on the road to tyranny, going back to the Roman Republic. Unfortunately, in our culture “democracy” and “voting” are taken on faith as obviously good, and any criticism is considered to be seditious and fascist.

  2. Although I never served in the military, I often wonder how things would be if only veterans of the military or some civilian public service could vote ala Starship Troopers. Or at least, how would things be if only veterans could stand for public office.

  3. Cail, on the contrary, the smaller the vote franchise is, the more feasible it becomes to simply buy off the voters with goodies. Case in point, the Late Roman Republic. Elections would be won by those who offered the most goodies, and it was economically feasible to do so, as only a small fraction of the population under the rule of Rome were citizens with the right to vote in elections. The labour of a large non-citizen subject population directly and indirectly funded the goodies of the citizenry. You can rob the many to provide goodies for the few, or even half of the people to provide goodies for the other half, but you cannot simultaneously let everyone get goodies and nobody get robbed.

  4. Red Knight, that seems logical, but in practice today, we see that as the franchise has expanded, the people have voted for more goodies. It started almost before the ink had dried on the Constitution, but there was still resistance to it then. Now that everyone votes — especially women and those dependent on a government check — there’s no resistance at all. Even raising the question of constitutionality in the face of someone who wants a new program to help some needy group or another (like wealthy college girls who need birth control) is considered a hate crime.

    We kind of have the worst of both worlds in the US now. The mass of voters are bought off with bread and circuses, while the wealthy people who control what those masses are told are bought off more directly.

  5. I would disenfranchise anyone who’s family moved here after the War of Independence as it was fought for themselves and their prosperity

    I would also say veterans could vote but not retire’s. Most esp not officers as way to many love big govt

Comments are closed.