Talk:Suffrage

message: > young people under the voting age make up 20-50% of the population in some countries, and have no political representation.
This is not generally true. In some select countries parents can cast multiple votes, that is they also cast votes in the name of their children, since it is the responsibility of parents to raise their children as they see fit and elections decide to a large degree what future their children will have.
In fact this should be made compulsory all over the world, since the "only adults, 1 per person" voting rule means single and DINKY lifestyle is more electionally valuable to politicians than couples with kids. In order to win single and DINKY votes, you just need to talk or write laws, like allowing homo marriages and decriminalizing drugs and other pro-indulgence measures. To win parent votes, you need to act at great cost, like finance better primary education, build new children hospitals and kindergartens, etc. So when the voting power of singles vs. parents is 1 to 1, politics will try to win singles simply because it is cheaper. This deteriorates the society and contributes to the population decline spiral of many modern democracies.
In fact, USA is the exception among rich countries. In USA more are born than die every year. Elsewhere deaths prevail over births, even though life expectency is long in rich countries. If parents could also cast votes for their kids, not just themselves, their votes would be more valuable to politics and more would be spent on making child-rearing attractive again. 195.70.32.136 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure this is the place for advocacy of voting reform - Paul 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but better on the talk page than in the article!  And if anyone can document his claims that parents of minors are allowed to cast multiple votes on that basis, it would be important to include that as an additional variation. Mdotley 19:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children as the suffrage oppressed 

message: Social class: "Many countries also discriminate on the basis of ...psychiatric record ...very strongly correlated with class and race." Really? This should at least have a citation!
- Paul 18:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... did you read the section? The US is mentioned quite prominently. --Helenalex (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusion from suffrage 

message: The article asserts that "Residents of Washington DC have been excluded, in whole or in part, from voting...", which is patently untrue.  Residents of Washington DC who are U.S. citizens enjoy voting rights similar to those of U.S. citizens in the 50 states, including the right to vote for municipal officeholders, Congressional delegates, and the president and vice-president.
The rhetorical gist of the paragraph is that DC residents are excluded from _representation_ in Congress, historically for the reason described in the paragraph, currently because, as a simple political matter, Congressional Republicans would block any legislation or constitutional amendment providing for representation of DC in Congress, as such a measure would virtually guarantee the addition of 2 Democrat-held seats in the Senate and 1 in the House.
But the article conflates these two concepts, and should be corrected.
Corkybucek 19:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, fix it! Mdotley 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffrage in Washington, DC

message: I have corrected the definition of 'manhood suffrage' based on the Oxford English Dictionary: "manhood suffrage now chiefly hist., that form of popular election in which the right to vote is granted to all male citizens of sufficient age not disqualified by crime, insanity, etc."
The previous definition, that it meant equality between male and female voters, didn't make any kind of sense. --Helenalex 10:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manhood suffrage 

message: This is an interesting quote from the article, especially since the US Department of Justice prosecutes individuals for preventing people from voting under 18 U.S.C.A. § 241If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured--
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.The Supreme Court upheld the application of this statute to local elections in US v. Olinger 759 F.2d 1293.  Anyone who has taken a Constitutional Law course in an American law school would recognize that the right to vote is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution.  I cringe at the thought of a US citizen not a resident of any state reading "No national right to vote" and believing that they had no right to vote in a federal election.  This article needs more citations. Legis Nuntius 01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under U.S. suffrage: "No national right to vote" 

message: I don't know how true the dates are, but some information from Ani DiFranco's website for Righteous Babe Records - in the section on "vote, dammit!" - included info about the voting age in the US being lowered to 18 in 1971 after protests that men who could be drafted to Vietnam at age 18 couldn't vote about the war (and other issues) until age 21. Although I am Canadian, I find this compelling and expect that there are other examples of relatively arbitrary voting ages that are later changed to better reflect democratic principles. (As an aside, I still find it strange that here in Canada, you can drive a lethal weapon at age 16, vote for your national leader at 18, but you can't drink until age 19. Go figure.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.84.62 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age suffrage 

message: Say someone lives in Florida from October-March and in Illinois from April-September. The voter lives in both for roughly six months. For local elections, where does he get to vote? Does he get to vote in both states?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.141.111.2 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happens in this case? 

message: "Sometimes citizens become ineligible to vote because they are no longer resident in their country of citizenship. For example, Australian citizens who have been outside Australia more than one and less than six years may excuse themselves from the requirement to vote in Australian elections while they remain outside Australia (voting in Australia is compulsory for resident citizens)."
This is a bad and misleading example.   Australians do not become ineligible to vote if they are residing outside Australia.   They are excused from the inconvenience of compulsory voting,  but they are still eligible to vote provided they go to the trouble of visiting an embassy or consulate,  or going through the rigmarole to get a postal vote.Eregli bob (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ineligble to vote 

message: I don't know what this sentence means:
"The short-lived Corsican Republic (1755–1769) was the first country to grant limited universal suffrage for all inhabitants over the age of 25."
a) what is limited universal suffrage?  Sounds contradictory.
b) What precisely is it that they were first at?  The whole of the rest of the sentence ("limited universal ... age of 25") or some (unspecified) part of it?   Tom Beaton (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just follow the internal link to Corsican Republic and read "A national parliament, or Diet, was composed of delegates elected from each district for three-year terms. Suffrage was extended to all men over the age of 25. Traditionally, women had always voted in village elections for podestat i.e. village elders, and other local officials, and it has been claimed that they also voted in national elections under the Republic.". Universal suffrage in this case means suffrage for all men and women without wealth or any other limitation than age. But the French article is more accurate, there are references to other historical cases in Scandinavia, Italy or Switzerland, whereas it is not clear if elections really took place during the Corsican Republic. This was however an important step before the French Revolution as the Corsican constitution was written by Rousseau. --Minorities observer (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal suffrage and "the short-lived Corsican Republic" 

message: The section on equal suffrage mentions it is the opposite of using graded votes where some people might get more votes than others based on various criteria.
I would like to know if there is a term (maybe 'graded suffrage'?) used to describe this opposite system of suffrage which reflects various criteria.
For example a 'geniocracy' idea is promoted by raelians where geniuses get more votes, but I don't know what to call it. Ranze (talk) 22:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposite of equal

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121125082353/http://www.rdh50.ma/fr/pdf/contributions/GT10-9.pdf to http://www.rdh50.ma/fr/pdf/contributions/GT10-9.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section currently states "Where universal suffrage exists, the right to vote is not restricted by sex, race, social status, education level, or wealth. It typically does not extend a right to vote to all residents of a region; distinctions are frequently made in regard to citizenship, age, and occasionally mental capacity or criminal convictions"
Is this an appropriate definition of universal suffrage? 79.97.226.247 (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine. I'll move the neutrality tag. Whizz40 (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal suffrage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071219153108/http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr:80/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-extension.asp to http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/histoire/suffrage_universel/suffrage-extension.asp#militaires
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140228092047/https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx to https://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: termnoinlink..81.11.218.113 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:   shared sovereignty=wot? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/womens_suffrage_movement.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120819080640/http://www.elections.org.nz/study/education-centre/history/votes-for-women.html to http://www.elections.org.nz/study/education-centre/history/votes-for-women.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't quite understand this sentence, and it would benefit from a clarification:
:In Britain the Queen can vote, but in practice it is considered unconstitutional for the Monarch to vote in an election.
This invites multiple interpretations:
* The Queen is able to physically go to a polling station and cast a ballot, but the vote would be considered invalid/illegal afterwards.
* Legal scholars have interpreted it to be unconstitutional, but the issue has never been tested in a court of law because the Monarch doesn't vote anyway.
* The Queen is completely free to vote if she wants, but doesn't do it out of tradition (similarly to Denmark where the constitution doesn't mention whether the Monarch can vote, but chooses not to (and isn't registered in the electoral database).)
If someone with access to literature on this issue could clarify it, and add a source, it'd be much appreciated. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 21:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request 

message: Why is there no separate section on preventing women from voting? It seems most nations have done this and it's one of the most egregious human rights and civil rights violations that rulers, even in democracies, have imposed on citizens. Tshane3000 (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention of suffrage by sex 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Suffrage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071130011903/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/de02.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/de02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213082151/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc02.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/sc02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071213082118/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ga02.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/states/ga02.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130602040907/http://www.ife.org.mx/documentos/AI/semghin.htm to http://www.ife.org.mx/documentos/AI/semghin.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified