[bojangles]

(04-21-2013 03:38 AM)Lazarus Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 06:00 AM)cardguy Wrote:  

The history of Suffrage is an interesting one. In the UK - up until 1918 - men only had the vote if they owned property.

I think that is a sensible proposal. Those with strong ties to the economic system should have more of a say than those with no ties. Otherwise the system will be abused by those who don't have to worry about the costs to the taxpayers.

The early history of the US had similar requirements as well. Voting should be a priviledge and not a right.

I've heard that women could vote if they owned property too.

And for all those claiming it was the wealthy minority while that may have been true in Britain (given how their voting system arose out of the Magna Carta and feudal system), a significant number of Americans where small self employed farmers (it wasn't until a lot later that everyone started working for big corporation).

A modern version to consider would be restricting voters to those who pay more tax than they claim back, for example.

It wasn't even the wealthy minority in the UK, a lot of people owned their own homes and voted. People could rise to the 'aristocratic' classes. From 1880 onwards (before vote was given to all) going to school was compulsory from the age of 5-10.