Print Page | Close Window

Early Democracy how much % of men had suffrage?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Forum Name: Europe
Forum Description: Everything European consisting of ancient, medieval and modern history
Printed Date: 19 Sep 2020 at 17:12
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 -

Topic: Early Democracy how much % of men had suffrage?
Posted By: thaHaremKing
Subject: Early Democracy how much % of men had suffrage?
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2020 at 01:32
From what I've seen in the below sources, it appears that a large number of men didn't vote during the early times. May I know if this is true to most places as well? Why was this the case and when did most men get their right to vote? - Souce 1
In early-19th-century Britain, very few people had the right to vote. A survey conducted in 1780 revealed that the electorate in England and Wales consisted of just 214,000 people - less than 3% of the total population of approximately 8 million. In Scotland the electorate was even smaller: in 1831 a mere 4,500 men, out of a population of more than 2.6 million people, were entitled to vote in parliamentary elections. - Source 2
America: At the time of the first Presidential election in 1789, only 6 percent of the population–white, male property owners–was eligible to vote. - Source 3
Between 1867 and 1874 in Canada only <12% of the population eligible to vote

Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 30 Jan 2020 at 13:00
i would venture to guess that half of the Americans don't vote, maybe little less than half for Presidential elections, more like 70% don't vote in an election off year.  People just don't look upon politicians as having people's best interests at heart.

Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2020 at 03:05
Hello and welcome thaHaremKing:)
I think "Universal Sufferage" or "Universal Male Sufferage is the search term that will help you. after the 19th century you'll find that war was a motivation to give all men the vote. 

http:// -

In Turkey and Belgium, it’s legally required to vote.

And in 31 other countries. It seems the world hasn’t decided yet whether you’re right not to vote deserves legal protection. But a fair few have taken the liberty of saying it doesn’t. In countries like Turkey and Belgium, you’re mandated to vote on election days.

The result is often higher turnout. By percentage of registered voters, Belgium’s turnout - was 87.2% . Turkey’s trailed just behind it at 85.2%. Measuring just developed countries, the two have the highest turnout in the world.

In countries with compulsory voting, the illegality of not showing up to cast your ballot depends upon its enforcement. In Turkey, for instance, the law - isn’t really enforced . But in Belgium, not voting could make it harder to get a job in the public sector, and you might lose your right to vote altogether if you don’t do vote in four consecutive elections.

Turkey’s score: B-

But that doesn’t excuse the rest of the world, much of which isn’t there yet. Anocracies — governments which act more authoritarian than democratic — have deep political clout in modern global (just look at developed countries like Russia and Turkey). And universal suffrage is, unfortunately, not yet a reality.

Belgium’s score: A-

Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)

Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 31 Jan 2020 at 03:10
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

i would venture to guess that half of the Americans don't vote, maybe little less than half for Presidential elections, more like 70% don't vote in an election off year.  People just don't look upon politicians as having people's best interests at heart.

It's true and I'd be mad as hell if anyone told me I could NOT vote. I didn't vote in the last 3 presidential elections.
Not very proud of myself, got too jaded by political nonsense.

Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)

Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 07 Feb 2020 at 04:34
The lesser evil is still evil, and sometimes it is hard to figure out what the lesser evil is.

I think that voting should strictly be on election day.  Absentee voting would strictly be those long term absent from the country, or military or foreign service personel.  Or maybe, also shut ins.  Voting should be precious, not something that is available to anyone, any time, any where.

The purpose of voting is not representation, the purpose of voting is participation, getting people to buy into the result.  Trying to dis-count the result, (in the case of Trump), threatens to make participation meaningless.  In the past there has always been some disgruntled "losers," but now the disgruntled looser is the entire democrat party, and the media.  
 (Michael Malice said that the DNC is a wing of the media, not the other way around, and it is becoming clear that it is not a matter of left vs. right, but insider vs. outsider, and that some democrats are realizing that they are outsiders too.  I think Malice who was born in the Soviet Union, is an anarchist, and is an expert on North Korea, has some valuable insight.)  He is featured on youtube on the Dave Rubin Report, and also on the Joe Rogan Experience.

Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 08 Feb 2020 at 01:19
Can voting be both representational and participatory? One does vote with the hope that our candidate represents our own views. 
I'm going to vote for Trump since I want him to continue his policies, they reflect my views overall. 

I will check out Michael Malice. And I'd say you are on the right track with insider moves and it's an accurate reflection of a party in it's death throes. DNC is resisting socialism but they are trying to sneak it in the back door.

"The New Way Forward" sufficiently horrifying and virtually no media coverage. I'm leaving the entire article up for awhile, no one is playing by the rules anymore, people should know this is happening there won't be a vote.
http:// -

Like the Constitution, this legislation is designed to create a whole new country. The bill would entirely remake our immigration system, with the explicit purpose of ensuring that criminals are able to move here, and settle here permanently, with impunity. - You may think we’re exaggerating for effect. We’re not – not even a little.

The New Way Forward act is the most radical single piece of legislation we’ve seen proposed in this country. It makes the Green New Deal look like the status quo.

A document produced by Democrats to promote the bill says: “Convictions … should not lead to deportation.”

Keep in mind, we’re not talking about convictions for double parking. The bill targets felony convictions – serious crimes that send you to prison for years. A press release from Rep., Jesus Garcia, D-Ill., is explicit about this.

Garcia brags that the bill will break the “prison to deportation pipeline.” How does the bill do that? Under current U.S. law, legal U.S. immigrants can be deported if they commit an “aggravated felony” or a “crime of moral turpitude” – that is, a vile, depraved act, like molesting a child. Under the New Way Forward Act, “crimes of moral turpitude” are eliminated entirely as a justification for deportation. And the category of “aggravated felony” gets circumscribed too.

What does that mean?

Consider this: Under current law, immigrants who commit serious crimes – such as robbery, fraud, or child sexual abuse – must be deported, regardless of the sentence they receive. Other crimes – less severe ones like racketeering – require deportation as long as the perpetrator receives at least a one-year sentence.

But if this bill passes the House and Senate and is signed into law by the president, there will no longer be any crimes that automatically require deportation. None.

And one crime – falsifying a passport – will be made immune from deportation, no matter what. Because apparently 9/11 never happened, and we no longer care about fake government documents.

More from Opinion

  • -
  • - If you just renewed your driver’s license to comply with the Real ID Act, you must feel like an idiot. Under the proposed legislation, the minimum prison sentence for crimes that still require deportation would rise from one year to five.

    We checked the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to federal data, crimes like car theft, fraud, and weapons offenses all carry average prison sentences of fewer than five years. And that’s just looking at averages. There are people who commit rape, child abuse and even manslaughter and receive sentences of fewer than five years. Lots of them.

    If the New Way Forward Act becomes law, immigrants who commit those crimes and receive those sentences would remain in the country. They’ll all be eligible for citizenship one day, too.

    But even that is understating the law’s effect. Even a five-year prison sentence won’t necessarily be enough to secure deportation. The bill would grant sweeping new powers to immigration judges, allowing them to nullify a deportation order.

    The only requirement is that “the immigration judge finds such an exercise of discretion appropriate in pursuit of humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest.” In other words, anti-American immigration judges – and many of them are exactly that – would have a blank check to open the borders. No vote required.                                                                                                     

    Sound shocking to you? We’re just getting started. Current U.S. law makes drug addiction grounds for deportation, because why wouldn’t it? This bill would eliminate that statute.

    Current law also states that those who have committed drug crimes abroad, or any “crimes involving moral turpitude,” are ineligible to immigrate here. The New Way Forward Act abolishes that statute.

    A Mexican drug cartel leader could be released from prison, then freely come to America immediately. And if he wants, he could come here illegally, and it wouldn’t be a crime – because, and you were waiting for this, the bill also decriminalizes illegal entry into America, even by those previously deported.

    According to a document promoting the bill, criminalizing illegal entry into America is “white supremacist.”

    By this point, you’re beginning to wonder if we’re making this up. We’re not. In fact, we’re barely halfway through the bill.

    The legislation doesn’t just make it harder to deport legal immigrants who commit crimes. It doesn’t just make it easier for criminals to legally move here. The bill would also effectively abolish all existing enforcement against illegal immigration.

    To detain illegal immigrants, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would have to prove in court that the illegal immigrants are dangerous or a flight risk. But of course, ICE wouldn’t be allowed to use a detainee’s prior criminal behavior as proof he or she is dangerous. That's banned.

    ICE would have to overcome even more hurdles if the detainee claims to be gay or transgender, under 21, or can’t speak English and an interpreter isn’t immediately available.

    In other words, it would be much harder to arrest an illegal alien than it is to arrest you. They’re the protected class here. You’re just some loser who’s paying for it all.

    But believe it or not, we saved the nuttiest part for last. What could be more destructive than changing U.S. law, specifically to allow rapists, child molesters, and drug dealers to stay in America? How about this: Using taxpayer money to bring deported criminals back into America.

    That’s right. This bill would not only abolish your right to control who lives in your own country, but it invents a new right in return: the “right to come home.”

    The bill orders the government to create a “pathway for those previously deported to apply to return to their homes and families in the United States,” as long as they would have been eligible to stay under the new law.

    The Department of Homeland Security must spend taxpayer dollars transporting convicted criminal illegal aliens into the United States. Who will be eligible for these free flights? Tens of thousands of people kicked out of this country for all kinds of crimes. Sexual abuse. Robbery. Assault. Drug trafficking, weapons trafficking, human trafficking.

    From 2002 to 2018, 480,000 people were deported for illegal entry or reentry into America. And under this bill, you’d have to buy them all a plane ticket to come back. The tickets alone would cost about a billion dollars, and that’s before Democrats make you start paying for these criminals’ free health care, too. Which they plan to. - CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

    The New Way Forward Act fundamentally inverts every assumption you have about America. Under this legislation, the criminals are the victims. Law enforcement is illegitimate. It’s racist, just like the country you live in, and the only solution is to get rid of both. America would be better off as a borderless rest area for the world’s worst predators and parasites.

    This is a big deal. It’s hard to believe any American would put these ideas on paper, much less pass them into law. Yet, remarkably, the press has ignored it. Scores of Democrats have backed it, but the bill hasn’t been mentioned in The New York Times, or on CNN, or even in self-described conservative outlets like National Review.

    If a lone Republican state legislator from Minot, N.D., had proposed a bill this extreme, that would remake America this completely, the president himself would be expected to answer for it.

  • -------------
    Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)

Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 -
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. -