...why would I ever want to disenfranchise some of the most solidly conservative political figures in our state? Idaho would be tremendously worse off without Dorothy Moon, Priscilla Giddings, Janice McGeachin, Heather Scott, Julianne Young, Tammy Nichols, and the many other incredible women who are fighting the good fight in the Gem State.
...and so many others without well-recognized names who are fighting for liberty behind the scenes...
What passes for journalism and social media commentary is truly sad these days. Reporting is unserious, non-factual, lazy, biased, devoid of critical thinking, and mostly designed to get a rise out of people. This occurs on all sides, sadly.
For those who care about and want to identify and avoid bias, check out the sections on New Jersey Institute of Technology on media bias at https://researchguides.njit.edu/evaluate/basics (some links do not work, but it’s still a good resource).
"What passes for journalism and social media commentary is truly sad these days. Reporting is unserious, non-factual, lazy, biased, devoid of critical thinking, and mostly designed to get a rise out of people. This occurs on all sides, sadly.".....YUP!!!!
For the benefit of the audience I'll indulge this question. The founders laid out a system that was revolutionary for its time. It's not that they "restricted" suffrage, rather they expanded on the system of English common law that had developed over the centuries. Votes were cast by property-owning citizens; that is, people with skin in the game. Men voted on behalf of their families.
As America evolved from a nation of pioneers to a nation of individual consumers, laws eventually changed as well. Today, we believe that every adult citizen has a right to participate in the democratic process.
My question was not in bad faith. What are the pros and cons of expanding suffrage? Your article doesn’t address them.
I believe there are legitimate arguments to restricting suffrage. America is not the first country, empire or city-state to allow mass voting. The founding fathers didn’t make their choices because they were “sexist” or “racist” or whatever people claimed. It’s because they were wise and had studied the collapse of other failed nations who had expanded suffrage, like Sparta or Rome.
Do you believe there is no possible case to be made for restricting suffrage?
I apologize if I mischaracterized you. It was hard to tell from the headlines on your Substack which angle you were coming from.
I agree that throughout history the expansion of suffrage has led to an expansion of tyranny, as mobs are easily moved by emotional appeals from would-be tyrants. Yet there is no going back on that sort of thing. In a perfect world we would have a system that ensured that everyone who voted had an understanding of government, the Constitution, and deep knowledge of the candidates and issues in question, but that's not the world we are in.
I agree it’s the world we live in and we have to operate in reality. I guess, I just disagree that nothing can be done.
With a state like Idaho, with commanding Republican control, I think you could begin restricting suffrage. You could do this in defiance of the federal govt, as democratic states often do with laws they don’t want to follow. Democrats are currently trying to expand suffrage to felons in many states so suffrage is not fixed for them.
Options i think you could put on the table immediately, restrict it based on age and make adulthood legally 30 or you could restrict the suffrage of welfare recipients. My personal favorite solution would be what you proposed in the article and limit suffrage to married couples, ideally married couples with children.
When thinking about voting rights, I think the approach should be who has “skin in the game”and will desire the best possible outcomes for their country. I believe married couples with kids I have the most skin in the game as they will desire opportunity and liberty for their kids, but I’m open to other arguments.
I say, simply, "Gott mit Uns," and "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche." (Children, kitchen, church.) "No civilization other than that which is Christian, is worth seeking or possessing." Otto von Bismarck.
...why would I ever want to disenfranchise some of the most solidly conservative political figures in our state? Idaho would be tremendously worse off without Dorothy Moon, Priscilla Giddings, Janice McGeachin, Heather Scott, Julianne Young, Tammy Nichols, and the many other incredible women who are fighting the good fight in the Gem State.
...and so many others without well-recognized names who are fighting for liberty behind the scenes...
What passes for journalism and social media commentary is truly sad these days. Reporting is unserious, non-factual, lazy, biased, devoid of critical thinking, and mostly designed to get a rise out of people. This occurs on all sides, sadly.
For those who care about and want to identify and avoid bias, check out the sections on New Jersey Institute of Technology on media bias at https://researchguides.njit.edu/evaluate/basics (some links do not work, but it’s still a good resource).
"What passes for journalism and social media commentary is truly sad these days. Reporting is unserious, non-factual, lazy, biased, devoid of critical thinking, and mostly designed to get a rise out of people. This occurs on all sides, sadly.".....YUP!!!!
Thanks for all you do!
Chuckle....
We’re the founding fathers mistaken when they created their original restrictions of suffrage?
(Edit: I mischaracterized the original question.)
For the benefit of the audience I'll indulge this question. The founders laid out a system that was revolutionary for its time. It's not that they "restricted" suffrage, rather they expanded on the system of English common law that had developed over the centuries. Votes were cast by property-owning citizens; that is, people with skin in the game. Men voted on behalf of their families.
As America evolved from a nation of pioneers to a nation of individual consumers, laws eventually changed as well. Today, we believe that every adult citizen has a right to participate in the democratic process.
My question was not in bad faith. What are the pros and cons of expanding suffrage? Your article doesn’t address them.
I believe there are legitimate arguments to restricting suffrage. America is not the first country, empire or city-state to allow mass voting. The founding fathers didn’t make their choices because they were “sexist” or “racist” or whatever people claimed. It’s because they were wise and had studied the collapse of other failed nations who had expanded suffrage, like Sparta or Rome.
Do you believe there is no possible case to be made for restricting suffrage?
I apologize if I mischaracterized you. It was hard to tell from the headlines on your Substack which angle you were coming from.
I agree that throughout history the expansion of suffrage has led to an expansion of tyranny, as mobs are easily moved by emotional appeals from would-be tyrants. Yet there is no going back on that sort of thing. In a perfect world we would have a system that ensured that everyone who voted had an understanding of government, the Constitution, and deep knowledge of the candidates and issues in question, but that's not the world we are in.
I agree it’s the world we live in and we have to operate in reality. I guess, I just disagree that nothing can be done.
With a state like Idaho, with commanding Republican control, I think you could begin restricting suffrage. You could do this in defiance of the federal govt, as democratic states often do with laws they don’t want to follow. Democrats are currently trying to expand suffrage to felons in many states so suffrage is not fixed for them.
Options i think you could put on the table immediately, restrict it based on age and make adulthood legally 30 or you could restrict the suffrage of welfare recipients. My personal favorite solution would be what you proposed in the article and limit suffrage to married couples, ideally married couples with children.
When thinking about voting rights, I think the approach should be who has “skin in the game”and will desire the best possible outcomes for their country. I believe married couples with kids I have the most skin in the game as they will desire opportunity and liberty for their kids, but I’m open to other arguments.
I say, simply, "Gott mit Uns," and "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche." (Children, kitchen, church.) "No civilization other than that which is Christian, is worth seeking or possessing." Otto von Bismarck.
I rest my case.