Talk:Suffrage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] removing
Removing:
- The legitimacy of democratic government is derived from suffrage. The United States' Declaration of Independence, after listing the basic human rights, goes on to say:
- "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Beside the statement above being unneccessarily US-centered, legitimacy of democratic governments are in fact not per se derived from the suffrage, which is clearly shown by legitime democratic government successfully having quite different rules for suffrage.
-- Ruhrjung 09:53 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Putting it back in, with slight modification and with reasons that I hope change your mind.
1) A 1913 Webster's definiton of democracy:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Democracy \De*moc"ra*cy\, n.; pl. {Democracies}. [F.
d['e]mocratie, fr. Gr. dhmokrati`a; dh^mos the people +
kratei^n to be strong, to rule, kra`tos strength.]
1. Government by the people; a form of government in which
the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by
the people.
2. Government by popular representation; a form of government
in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but
is indirectly exercised through a system of representation
and delegated authority periodically renewed; a
constitutional representative government; a republic.
3. Collectively, the people, regarded as the source of
government. --Milton.
Notice that it is explicitly the people that are the source of democratic government. "Supreme power" is synonymous with sovereign power, which is traditionally described (e.g. by Hobbes, Locke) as the source of all other legitimacy in government. Unless you suggest other means by which the people might do this, it is clearly needed in this definition.
2) America is our oldest democracy and had the primary role in implementing mass-suffrage and defining its relation to democratic government. The Declaration of Independence captures that moment and so is an excellent historical source for this term. Also, the quote is short and to the point.
-- Pablo Mayrgundter 22:22 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)
With all respect, I find this reasoning, as mentioned above, US-centered - as if the US-definition of democracy (or the US-understanding of democracy) has precedence.
It's however not to my liking to participate in perpetual re-editings, why I take it easy on the editing.
-- Ruhrjung 01:44 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Ruhrjung. Suffrage is very important in democracy, but clearly it is not a sufficient basis for legitimacy; many countries that we would not call democratic have had universal suffrage -- and even more have had the forms of suffrage comparable to the US in 1790. Moreover, the oldest "democracy" would be Athens. I have no objection in principle quoting the declaration of independence as an example of a democratic country that uses suffrage to legitimate itself. But I would not use this example as paradigmatic of anything. Those who find this US-centric should feel free to include a quote from Aristotle and from something from France 1789, and something from Edmund Burke, that would do well to balance things out I think. Nevertheless, for me the crucial issue is not whether the source be from the US, France, UK, or Athens, but that whatever the source may be it is made clear that this is just one way that deomocracies have legitimated themselves. Slrubenstein
[edit] contradiction in census suffrage
The article asserts that universal suffrage is suffrage granted independently of race, sex, belief or social status, and that equal suffrage is suffrage with no further grading, besides having the right to vote or not.
Now census suffrage is asserted to be the opposite of equal suffrage, which would mean graded suffrage, but is further explained as suffrage limited to a specific group of people, which are two completely different kinds of suffrage. --MarSch 09:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand correctly, a regulation that you have to be white skinned and show 100$ or more in cash to be able to vote is neither universal, not equal. To require 100$ in cash, no matter if you are negro or white is universal suffrage. To require that you are beyond 18 (or 21) years of age and of sound mind, but absolutely nothing else, is equal suffrage.
[edit] Emancipation
I added the word emancipation to this page to help deliver more clarity. Suffrage is a term used under very specific conditions, while emancipation covers it and broadens the view of what is happening. In my encounters with the English language I have noticed that there are sometimes too many words (the English dictionary is often twice or even three times as thick as dictionaries in other languages), and severe competition arises to get a word 'in.' Quick examples: galaxy and milky way are the romance and the English words of one and the same meaning, but milky way is now only used for our galaxy, while the other milky ways are not allowed to be called that way. The words pigeon and dove are the French and the English word for one and the same, but the word dove is now used only for a subspecies of the pigeon family. The over-abundance(!) of many words in English makes both for some aggravating ánd wonderful linguistic moments. Let's cherish it, but also remain careful when we end up in each other's hair. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FredrickS (talk • contribs).
[edit] yo?
O.o wow....guys just leave the stupid thing in. its quite pointless to argue about it and it just waste server space(?) and time. lol —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.27.112 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Children as the suffrage oppressed
> young people under the voting age make up 20-50% of the population in some countries, and have no political representation.
This is not generally true. In some select countries parents can cast multiple votes, that is they also cast votes in the name of their children, since it is the responsibility of parents to raise their children as they see fit and elections decide to a large degree what future their children will have.
In fact this should be made compulsory all over the world, since the "only adults, 1 per person" voting rule means single and DINKY lifestyle is more electionally valuable to politicians than couples with kids. In order to win single and DINKY votes, you just need to talk or write laws, like allowing homo marriages and decriminalizing drugs and other pro-indulgence measures. To win parent votes, you need to act at great cost, like finance better primary education, build new children hospitals and kindergartens, etc. So when the voting power of singles vs. parents is 1 to 1, politics will try to win singles simply because it is cheaper. This deteriorates the society and contributes to the population decline spiral of many modern democracies.
In fact, USA is the exception among rich countries. In USA more are born than die every year. Elsewhere deaths prevail over births, even though life expectency is long in rich countries. If parents could also cast votes for their kids, not just themselves, their votes would be more valuable to politics and more would be spent on making child-rearing attractive again. 195.70.32.136 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this is the place for advocacy of voting reform - Paul 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Probably not, but better on the talk page than in the article! And if anyone can document his claims that parents of minors are allowed to cast multiple votes on that basis, it would be important to include that as an additional variation. Mdotley 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suffrage around the world
Would it be usefull to add a list (from the CIA world factbook) of what countries have what form of suffrage (if any) they have? --Guyjin 01:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
- That might be difficult to keep up to date. There might be some value in giving statistics on how many countries have multi-party democracies (with citations) but this is hardly where people come to find out which countries are "democratic". - Paul 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Exclusion from suffrage
Social class: "Many countries also discriminate on the basis of ...psychiatric record ...very strongly correlated with class and race." Really? This should at least have a citation! - Paul 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC) ǎ
I am confused as to why race is not a category here. The vote has been denied (officially and unofficially) to members of particular races in numerous countries; the United States and Australia spring to mind. --Helenalex 10:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suffrage in Washington, DC
The article asserts that "Residents of Washington DC have been excluded, in whole or in part, from voting...", which is patently untrue. Residents of Washington DC who are U.S. citizens enjoy voting rights similar to those of U.S. citizens in the 50 states, including the right to vote for municipal officeholders, Congressional delegates, and the president and vice-president.
The rhetorical gist of the paragraph is that DC residents are excluded from _representation_ in Congress, historically for the reason described in the paragraph, currently because, as a simple political matter, Congressional Republicans would block any legislation or constitutional amendment providing for representation of DC in Congress, as such a measure would virtually guarantee the addition of 2 Democrat-held seats in the Senate and 1 in the House.
But the article conflates these two concepts, and should be corrected.
Corkybucek 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- So, fix it! Mdotley 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Manhood suffrage
I have corrected the definition of 'manhood suffrage' based on the Oxford English Dictionary: "manhood suffrage now chiefly hist., that form of popular election in which the right to vote is granted to all male citizens of sufficient age not disqualified by crime, insanity, etc."
The previous definition, that it meant equality between male and female voters, didn't make any kind of sense. --Helenalex 10:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
