Too Much Of A Good Thing? Have We Taken Democracy Too Far?
I’ve spent quite a lot of time thinking and writing about democracy, its problems, and possible solutions. It is not perfect, but as Winston Churchill once said, it “is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.” In the first English parliamentary elections in 1295, the "forty-shilling freeholder" qualification meant that you had to own land worth at least forty shillings a year in order to vote. You also had to be a man. Since then, the history of democracy has largely been one of expanding the franchise to more and more people. The road to “universal” suffrage was long and required several key pieces of legislation:
1832 Reform Act: expanded voting rights to a small portion of the male population, primarily property owners.
1867 Reform Act (Second Reform Act): roughly doubled the electorate by including male householders in boroughs who paid their rates directly, but it still excluded many rural workers and those without property.
1884 Reform Act (Third Reform Act): extended the franchise further such that male householders and lodgers in both urban and rural areas could vote, provided they met certain residency requirements.
1918 Representation of the People Act: Extended the vote to all men over 21, regardless of property ownership. Also granted the vote to some women (those over 30 who met a property qualification).
1928 Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act, which gave the vote to all women over 21, on the same terms as men.
The US, of course, followed a slightly different road to “universal” suffrage:
Universal White Male Suffrage: By the 1840s, most states had moved towards universal white male suffrage, with Rhode Island being one of the last to abolish property requirements in 1843, albeit with restrictions on immigrants until 1888.
Fifteenth Amendment (1870): While not directly addressing property, this amendment prohibited denying the right to vote based on "race, color, or previous condition of servitude," which indirectly contributed to broadening the franchise beyond property ownership by ensuring voting rights for African American men.
Nineteenth Amendment (1920): Granted women the right to vote, marking a significant step towards universal suffrage by prohibiting any U.S. citizen from being denied the right to vote based on sex.
Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964): Abolished the poll tax, which had been used in Southern states to disenfranchise African Americans and poor whites. However, its enforcement was limited until further legislation was passed.
Voting Rights Act of 1965: Outlawed discriminatory voting practices, such as literacy tests, and provided federal oversight in areas with a history of voter discrimination. This act was particularly effective in enfranchising African Americans in the South.
Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971): Lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, responding to the argument that if young men could be drafted to fight in wars, they should also have the right to vote.
Strictly speaking, the term “universal suffrage” is inaccurate as there are still certain groups that are not permitted to vote including non-citizens, felons, and those under the age of 18. As a result, there are calls periodically, primarily from those on the left, to continue the expansion of the franchise by including such groups as 16-year-olds and those with felony convictions. While most would agree that some age restrictions should apply to voting, it is a widely held belief that democracy is always a good thing. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that this is not always the case.
I am well aware of the dangers of restricting the franchise based on race or color. That literacy tests and poll taxes have been used to discriminate against minorities and the poor. Still, recent efforts by politicians in Canada and the United States has me worried about a different danger, one that Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish lawyer, judge, and historian highlighted in this quote:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
-- Alexander Fraser Tytler
Lord Woodhouselee, as he was also known, was on to something. Efforts by the Liberals in Canada and the Biden/Harris administration regularly bring this statement to mind. In Canada, the Liberals have recently rolled out a National Dental Care Program that will provide “free” dental care to low-income Canadians, a National School Food Program, and $10-a-Day Child Care. In the US the Democrats follow similar strategies by promising to “forgive” student loans and medical debt. In both countries, politicians pitch these ideas as “free,” ignoring that the funds must come from somewhere and hoping that voters, through real or willful ignorance will vote “for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury.”
What is to be done about this? How can we prevent “collapse over loose fiscal policy?” At one time civics lessons and social norms might have sufficed to prevent these selfish efforts but that is no longer the case. It is difficult to say where in Tytler’s sequence we in the West currently reside. Selfishness? Apathy? Dependence? Perhaps it’s a little bit of all three. It is safe to say however that we are not in either the spiritual faith or great courage stages. I also think it is likely that expanding the franchise is not the answer. Are we at a point in history where the once unthinkable must be discussed? Is restricting the franchise the solution? Some are already arguing that rather than lowering the voting age to 16, it should be raised to 25. Would this be enough?
Prior to the rise of the welfare state rich and poor alike could make the case that they were free citizens, were responsible for their own households, and thus had a stake in society. They were adults required to make adult decisions. The rise, and more importantly, expansion of the welfare state, and the associated increase in the power of governments may have changed this. An argument can be made that an individual who relies on handouts from the government is more of a dependent than an independent citizen. Would restricting the vote to those who put more into the public coffers than they take out reverse what seems to be a steady move towards greater reliance on the government and less concern about fiscal responsibility? I’m not sure, but if what Lord Woodhouselee says is correct, and if politicians continue to use taxes to bribe voters, we may not have long to decide.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
“The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them knows anything about the subject." – Marcus Aurelius
When there was an expansion of voting rights there was also an expansion of government. It's not a coincidence that the New Deal came after women's suffrage. The article doesn't necessarily say this, but it's true. But it's that we don't have a proper, moral foundation for the size and nature of government that's the problem. People can vote, but if the government is properly constrained, the masses can't vote to steal from other's pockets.