Diogenes wrote:Are you suggesting that the idea wouldn't work if Blacks and Females were included?
I am saying that when the concept was applied in practice, the reality was very exclusionary along race and gender lines...even if theoretically it wasn't.
Diogenes wrote: Why must we drag this up? It isn't really relevant to the concept, and only appears to be an effort to tarnish an idea because it wasn't practiced inclusively enough in the past.
The relevancy of bringing it up is that results in practice (gender/racial disparities) trump theory; whether intentional or not. The poll tax and literacy tests in the South weren't racist in theory; the practice surely was (as was intended).
Diogenes wrote:Now that we've once again addressed past racial inequities, the other merits of the idea still seem relevant.
The 100's of thousands systematically disenfranchised mostly minority males (as a result of your beloved WOD) might disagree about how fairly the current system is working..
Diogenes wrote: It was a good system. Obviously better than what we have now. In any case, any system without a built in negative feedback component, is doomed to fail. Financial insolvency destroys more governments than does conquest
I would probably prefer Robert Heinlein's system...those who want to vote become "citizens" by voluntary government service, i.e. military service. The idea being is that those willing to sacrifice themselves for their society by willingly taking the possible risk of death by military service make better trustees of what is in societies' best interest than merely owning property or paying taxes does. Seems to work somewhat that way in my State; your act of registering for the vote you are registering for Selective Service. A Mexican immigrant who earned citizenship by volunteering to serve in this country's armed forces probably cares more about what is in societies best interest than a rich man's son who pays copious amounts of taxes; the later wouldn't risk his own arse in Iraq or anywhere else. Their the type who shelter their money anyway they can, and couldn't care less what it does as far as our government meeting its obligations, or its long term viability. Most of the current entitlement recipients of Medicare, SS, etc. are tax paying property owners; doesn't stop them from voting to receive more than they put in. A large percentage of those welfare food stamp recipients don't vote anyway; don't really think they are the problem. The current "nanny state" probably owes more to the women's vote than anything else. Women probably are more naturally inclined toward the emotional appeal of socialism than men are; bleeding heart liberalism and the female psyche seem far more compatible than it is with most men.