Democracy is the thing whereby if four out of four people are on the edge of a ravine, three decide to jump; even the fourth is forced to jump with them. This sentence highlights a real problem intrinsic to universal suffrage.
The problem of universal suffrage is that it makes so-called populism effective, successful, and therefore inevitable for those who make politics, those who make political propaganda. By populism, I mean a rhetorical strategy that does not focus on the problems and the real facts of the issues. Populism does not bother to delve into the many issues that every referendum or electoral round should put at the centre of the question. Populism, on the other hand, promotes the charisma of individual leaders, their sympathy and focuses public political discussion around marginal things. Populism moves further and further away from the crucial issues that are usually not very popular and unattractive for the mass. It does that because everyone goes to vote, even uninformed masses who will never delve into matters and have no incentive to do so. That is why populism wins. It’s logical and couldn’t be otherwise given universal suffrage.
So should only the educated vote? Should only those with the highest IQ x vote? Should only those who are graduates vote?
Absolutely no. Universal suffrage is an achievement; universal suffrage is an invitation to anyone to participate in political life. It is a fundamental thing that, at best, should make a person into responsible citizenship and make it live its freedom as participation in political life. Universal suffrage is an outstanding achievement, but the problem we have talked about, the three who want to throw themselves into the ravine, the fourth that must be thrown with them remains, so we have a problem, but it is not solved in my view by taking a step back to universal suffrage because we will naturally create an élite group.
So how do we keep universal suffrage and at the same time have a conscious and informed electorate? How do we keep an electorate that exploits its time and freedom (it takes very little today, with the internet, to get information and keep up with the times) to express a conscious vote? In short, how do we reward interest, reward the desire to participate and entice everyone to abandon the indifference that leads to an ignorant electorate?
I have an idea, it is a very simple idea, I certainly did not invent it myself, but in short, I propose it like this: we will have
... keep reading on reddit ➡Women should not have to suffer any more, it's horrible!
A: Incitement to secession
B: Subversion
C: Terrorism
D: Collusion with foreign forces
Context: Reuters-EXCLUSIVE New Hong Kong university classes set out dangers of breaking security law
which allowed further progression in to more socialism and it's various super tools and enablers like the FED.
I am not sure how or why it happened exactly. Sure, land ownership is not sufficient qualifier for moral courage like voluntary military service is (you have to put everything on the line).
Maybe that is why it degraded? Land owners needed more soldiers for their political pet projects. So they came with conscription and to sooth the masses gave them suffrage in return. Including almost all men. Those got nagged by their wives and mainly sneaky politicians who smelled opportunity......and thus universal suffrage was born.
There is always more irresponsible or responsibility averse people or people seeking higher status, which politicians of socialist kind kindly offer. Before long everyone is playing the game for the most votes and promises fly around in disregard for future. Few profit on this ponzi scheme, many see their accounts robbed (inflation and other forms of taxation) and the rest is taken for the easy ride.
Democracy -> Socialism -> Tyranny -> Collapse
https://preview.redd.it/63xo28096dn71.png?width=941&format=png&auto=webp&s=b25a4320985b9b13f959fca2b86b3ed3821975f9
In the last season of game of thrones, Samwell Tarly suggests voting rights for all and everyone laughingly dismisses it. How absurd would the idea be in such a setting? Did anybody ever attempt to create a full democracy in medieval Europe? Is it realistic that it would occur to a “highborn” to get the peasants involved in ruling?
How modern is the idea of universal suffrage? We hear about democracy since the time of Ancient Greece. But were there any activists for women’s voting rights back then?
I would like to know how these concepts on voting rights evolved through time on popular opinion in Europe
Here's a list of US states and the status of women's suffrage in 1919 before it was ratified at a federal level:
https://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw08_12159.html
For context, universal male suffrage was granted in 1870, one year after the first US territory gave universal suffrage to women.
It is generally held in democratic societies that universal voting is a right afforded to everyone. Traditionally, however, there have been limits on voting (land ownership, position in society, gender, race, etc) that have limited voting to a select few. It has been the progression of these societies to break down these barriers and promote universal suffrage.
What effect, if any, does the level of universal suffrage have on the overall cohesiveness of a society? Are there any negative aspects to universal suffrage, or are the results always beneficial?
Obviously, these things all existed in some form at various points throughout history, and none of them is today universal or complete. But looking back at the 1800s from the 2000s, it's impossible not to see the dramatic shift in so many places - slavery is illegal, women can vote, same-sex couples can marry, among many other related changes. Generally speaking, it seems like the unifying idea behind these issues is the pursuit of equality as a foundational principle of a just society - and yet this idea seems not to have existed for most of human history. Why did these things start more or less at the same time, make so much progress so relatively quickly, and why now?
