Universal Suffrage
A Good Idea
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
While reading over some Joeuser articles I noticed that there was a surprising lack of support for universal suffrage. In the comments section I listed my opinion that universal suffrage is necessary. I went on a soapbox a couple times and wrote a bit on my beliefs.
The social evolution of the United States voting requirements changed through the centuries. Requirements were at first, only white male landowners, then white males, then women and blacks, finally the United States' proud achievement of the 26th Amendment. To me, this idea made sense and like the abolishment of slavery, need not be defended in modern times.
But in the comments section there was actually support for limiting voting rights. I was astounded. To be honest, I could barely write a coherent argument and had to spend a bit of time and thought in formulating my responses. After making a few comments, I decided to list why I thought universal suffrage was good. Some of the below reasons are specific to some arguments and do not apply to all arguments against the present universal suffrage in America. The arguments consisted in taking away the right to vote from a non-majority of voters, and NOT a racial group. When I write "minority" below I mean it as a percentage.
1. A minority without a vote is vulnerable
Without the right to vote a minority has no voice. With no reason to protect or coddle them for votes, politicians are free to scapegoat and mistreat the minority group. They can take away from the non-voting minority without a fight and give to the voting members.
The Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court were mentioned as protection for the non-voting population. But with a minority with no vote, a President can eventually be nominate judges that are friendly to the voting majority. Congress can amend the Bill of Rights to suit the needs of the voting population. With no vote, the minority can do nothing to stop it.
2. The minority's right to vote is taken away for what they might do
One of the reasons for removing the right to vote for some is that if they paid no taxes, they should have no say in how it is spent. In other words, a large number of non-taxpayers can say that taxpayer money be spent on social programs to benefit non-taxpayers. This seems fair. Afterall, why should they get a say when they didn't contribute?
But what if some of the minority agreed and would vote down social programs? These people are punished because they might have done the "wrong" thing.
People vote about stuff they don't have to pay the price for all the time. In a war, should only soldiers be allowed to vote as they are the ones who will be "paying" with their lives? Should only the rich vote on mortage tax rates? The young on Social Security and Medicare?
3. Universal suffrage prevents violence.
This is one of many subjects where I have little expertise and my argument is conjecture and theory. But one of the most amazing things about the United States is the relatively low level of domestic terrorism. (Not to be confused with terrorism from outside groups like Al Queda) Domestic terrorism is often an outbreak of frustration due to inability of getting a point of view across. Countries with a free press, voting rights, and freedom of speech allow fringe groups to speak their mind. Without it, they turn to violence to get their message out. Expect violence to happen as angry non-voters lash out.
4. Cutting a voter base increases the power of extremists.
I made a graph in MS Paint. Isn't it pretty? Again, personal theory and conjecture.
The above demonstrates how cutting a voter base can increase extremistism. With a large voter base (A), extremists on both sides help cancel each other out, like a solution of water with both bleach and sulfuric acid in it. In fact, the number of blue and red extremists seems to be small to begin with at 10% each. But suppose the blue 40% of the eligible population is denied their right to vote (B) leaving only the 60% red population. Now the percentage of extremists in the red population has remained the same, but if there is an even split among the red on some related decision, the red extremists make up one-third of the opposition!
Not only that, but extremists are more likely to vote than half-hearted supporters. They are more powerful and politicians are more likely to listen to them. And there is no blue counter-balance to keep them in check. Oh, they can scream and yell, but no one cares since they can't vote.
5. Arbitrary Limits (stole this one from someone else in the comments of the linked article)
The suggestions for limiting the right to vote included taxes paid and intelligence. For some the reason seemed arbitrary. Why taxes paid? In fact, why only "x" amount and not x-$100? I remember reading of a white landowner's arguing for removing the landownership requirement. He said that if through some freak of nature, a disaster would cause him to lose everything, he would lose the right to vote. But since he was the same man that he was before the disaster, why is it he could not vote?
6. It is wrong to place a group of people at the mercy of another group of people.
Related to #1. This is just a belief. I do not think a group of people should have to depend on the kindness of strangers for their rights. It can only lead to trouble. It is easy to say, "We won't do anything bad" or "Trust us", but the reason the right to vote has been so sought after, fought for so much, is that it allows a person or a people to have a chance, to protect themselves and to effect change.
(edited to fix the pic and some small math/concept errors)
I'll have my bonus points now
