Foolish? Look at the outcomes before and after universal suffrage. Socialism made a hard run at the US in the early 20th century. Interesting timing...1920. Then not too long later, FDR is running rampant.
I think a change that would hurt fee-fees the least is to limit voting to people who own property/pay taxes, but that'll never happen either.
Universal suffrage is a ratchet that, once turned, can never be turned back. That's why these decisions are dangerous to make. To say the ideas being expressed are foolish is to call the Founders idiots.
Universal suffrage can be a bad idea without having to tie it to sex or race or age. Universal suffrage is bad because it allows government to take from the productive few and buy the votes of the unproductive masses. The people who shouldn't be allowed to vote are the ones who have a vested interest in government overreach and bloated government. How can you possibly be objective about the government when you rely on the government to live?
Focus on that part, and not what voters have between their legs.
I know they do, and you can look at voting trends and studies on how men vs women do this or that, but those are all generalizations. You don't disenfranchise people on generalizations. If the right to vote should be taken from anyone, and I think we all agree here that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote, then it needs to be done on universal, concrete criteria.
Do you pay into the tax system, thus shouldering a portion of the burden of maintaining the society your vote will be shaping? If yes, you can vote. It's simple, it's fair, it's universal, and it's effective.
Does your gender tend to approach issues from a perspective of emotion moreso than reason, even if you personally do not? Sorry, no vote for you. This is the exact kind of ridiculous, arbitrary picking and choosing who can vote and who can't that got us in this mess in the first place; because people made generalizations about groups and applied them to the whole group indiscriminately to block suffrage.
They're not generalizations, they're statistics. It's not an indiscriminate approach, it's just undiscerning. Of course there are contra-examples on each side. There are no perfect solutions - only stupid ideas and negotiation.
If these two referenda were on a ballot, I'd vote for yours ; )
Foolish? Look at the outcomes before and after universal suffrage. Socialism made a hard run at the US in the early 20th century. Interesting timing...1920. Then not too long later, FDR is running rampant.
I think a change that would hurt fee-fees the least is to limit voting to people who own property/pay taxes, but that'll never happen either.
Universal suffrage is a ratchet that, once turned, can never be turned back. That's why these decisions are dangerous to make. To say the ideas being expressed are foolish is to call the Founders idiots.
Universal suffrage can be a bad idea without having to tie it to sex or race or age. Universal suffrage is bad because it allows government to take from the productive few and buy the votes of the unproductive masses. The people who shouldn't be allowed to vote are the ones who have a vested interest in government overreach and bloated government. How can you possibly be objective about the government when you rely on the government to live?
Focus on that part, and not what voters have between their legs.
Men and women think differently. I agree with your post, but I'm sick of this dumb argument that intentionally obfuscates reality.
I know they do, and you can look at voting trends and studies on how men vs women do this or that, but those are all generalizations. You don't disenfranchise people on generalizations. If the right to vote should be taken from anyone, and I think we all agree here that some people shouldn't be allowed to vote, then it needs to be done on universal, concrete criteria.
Do you pay into the tax system, thus shouldering a portion of the burden of maintaining the society your vote will be shaping? If yes, you can vote. It's simple, it's fair, it's universal, and it's effective.
Does your gender tend to approach issues from a perspective of emotion moreso than reason, even if you personally do not? Sorry, no vote for you. This is the exact kind of ridiculous, arbitrary picking and choosing who can vote and who can't that got us in this mess in the first place; because people made generalizations about groups and applied them to the whole group indiscriminately to block suffrage.
They're not generalizations, they're statistics. It's not an indiscriminate approach, it's just undiscerning. Of course there are contra-examples on each side. There are no perfect solutions - only stupid ideas and negotiation.
If these two referenda were on a ballot, I'd vote for yours ; )
I don't even need to reply to this, except to say: Look up gendered voting patterns from recent US elections.
Was it men who crushed those systems with better ones?