Is universal suffrage a mistake?
Would you be able to vote without it?
The US constitution, for example, originally gave the right to vote to not just any white men, but property-owning white men.
So super upper-class white males were legally privileged to run the country. In today's terms that would be a white man making near 300,000 dollars per year (the approximate threshold to make it to the 1%). These would be the people able to vote. Does this describe you? No? Then you support universal suffrage.
>>1394218
>Super upper-class white males were legally privileged to run the country
>implying its actually different today
>>1394218
That's a pretty fallacious and frankly stupid dichotomy you've got going there.
>>1394218
>implying I participate in politics
>>1394220
I want BLM to leave
>>1394220
>>1394218
America isn't the only nation on Earth.
>>1394220
if this were the case why are white men go from having a virtual monopoly in congress and in corporate positions 50 years ago, and today it's roughly 60-70% in both and falling.
Why are white men experiencing 3 decades of stagnation in wages? Why are white men seeing declining education rates?
>>1394237
>>1394232
>>1394224
>lower/middle class whites taking offence
Why should you? Members of the upper class who are born into your race are, and have been, running this country. Its no secret, its not some BLM propaganda, it's literal historical and empirical fact.
Lower and middle class whites are just as hurt by this bullshit as any other minority.
>>1394224
Go fuck yourself. 4chan is not your hugbox.
>>1394256
Did you not read the first part of what I said?
If white men were in control why did they go from being nearly 100% of congressmen and occupying nearly 100% of elite corporate positions in the 1950s-1960s, and literally two generations later they have lost roughly a third of their share in both arenas.
Clearly white men both upper class and working class are losing territory.
>>1394218
Property requirements are somewhat misleading because a lot of things counted as "property". Owning a government bond for instance was one form of "property". Land was also in abundance. The end of the Revolutionary War doubled the size of the US open to settlement. Very few white men in America failed to meet the property requirements to vote. This was also a time when America, outside the deep south, was overwhelmingly white.
This perception that it was only some tiny percentage of people that was allowed to vote doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
One thing I thing worth noting about Universal Suffrage, is that political systems don't work in a vacuum. Even if you could devise a system where only the most worthy subsection of society is allowed the privilege of choosing the leaders, people tend to become upset, even violent, when they live in a 'representational' government that doesn't represent them.
>>1394259
"property owning" was a substitute for "wealthy" and nothing else.
>>1394271
1.) No, it wasn't. Plenty of poor land-owning whites in the South voted before Jackson.
2.) Fuck yourself.
>>1394269
>lost roughly a third of their share
Care to give some sources on those numbers there buddy?
Heres an article from this friday,7/8/2016:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/congress-make-up-race-gender-225306
>Of the Senate’s 100 members, 93 are white, 80 are male and 55 are Protestant.
>The average age is 61.
>While African-Americans make up 13 percent of the nation’s population, there are only two black senators.
So, not only are you full of shit, but EVEN IF YOU WEREN'T and the white upper class was actually losing as much ground as you claim, what would be the problem with the (hypothetical, completely not happening and not true) """"""""""fact"""""""" of 1/3 of the upper class being non-white in a country that is 1/3 non-white?
>>1394289
not the senate you dumbass. the senate and the house. that's what congress is.
fucking foreigners
>>1394218
Petty lies: the post.
>>1394252
Nothing to do with being white or black. Everything to do with being poor. Washington has been pitting poor blacks against poor whites for generations now to keep the poor focused on a fictional race war. This week in the US was no different.
Congratulations to contributing to the suffering of your race, white/black anon.
>>1394290
Click the fucking link retard.
>In the House, of 434 voting members as of June 23,
>350 are men
>10 percent are African-American
>nearly 8 percent Hispanic.
And, again, EVEN IF YOU WERE RIGHT (and, again, I want to stress to you that you are not), what fucking difference would it really make?
>oh, my pre-concivered bullshit views on race don't stand up to scrutiny
>better shift to goal post
>oh wait, it still doesn't stand up to scrutiny
>>1394269
Wow, you mean since black people obtained basic civil rights they hold significantly more government jobs!!!???
If I didn't know any better that almost sounds like common sense there
>>1394200
NO; THE ACTUAL "MISTAKE" IS DEMOCRACY ITSELF.
>>1394200
One of the biggest mistakes
>>1394297
Do you not know the difference between men and women? fucking illiterate leftists.
80% of congress are white
68% of congress are WHITE MEN
http://www.dailynewsgems.com/2015/01/by-the-numbers-how-well-do-you-know-the-114th-congress.html
The even if it is proportional or even higher than proportional IT'S STILL LOSING GROUND. If this so called white patriarchy exists, why the fuck would they be losing ground?
It's because it doesn't exist, it's a leftist boogeymen. White men are on a trajectory to be eliminated from power in society.
>>1394218
I probably wouldn't be able to vote without universal suffrage but i'd vey much prefer if only rich- and ntellectuals could vote in my country.
>>1394299
Except that's not at all true and just because it comes across as "common sense" doesn't make it true.
>>1394200
Only because it allows you to vote
>>1394254
>Why should you? Members of the upper class who are born into your race are, and have been, running this country. Its no secret, its not some BLM propaganda, it's literal historical and empirical fact.
Because its bullshit. The current US president is a negro ffs
Letting anyone outside the king and those he delegates powers to decide on national matters is a mistake, period. It's lunacy. Yes, obviously you should decide on local matters, but this was always done by the people, even the serfs, under all monarchies. But the idea of Joe the Plumber or Steve the Accountant deciding matters that are far more complex and affect millions and demand considerable expertise, is lunacy, it's like conducting brain surgery through voting.
And no, authoritarianism does not automatically entail totalitarianism, monarchy was nearly always the former but not the latter, the latter is more modernist dictatorships.
The only reason modern republicanism became a thing is because puritans who wanted to ban playing with balls and seeing plays aggravated their own autism to the extent that they were willing to senselessly murder their own monarch to ensure their ideology of literally NO FUN ALLOWED would be imposed.
>>1394310
You're only proving my point and you don't even realize it. That's how fucking stupid and retarded you are.
If only you could get it through your thick skull that
A- 80% of the country is not white
B- 68% of the country are not women
C- The white upper class that you love to defend does not give A FUCK about you just because you are white.
And seeing as how this is not just over who holds positions of power in government, which, I want to remind you, for the THIRD FUCKING TIME NOW, that both the numbers I'm posting and you're posting don't back your views, lets look at class and economic statistics.
And since I'm not retarded like you, I won't use some random fucking blog and I'll instead link to a source thats credible like pewresearch.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/12/racial-wealth-gaps-great-recession/
>The wealth of white households was 13 times the median wealth of black households in 2013, compared with eight times the wealth in 2010.
>The wealth of white households is now more than 10 times the wealth of Hispanic households, compared with nine times the wealth in 2010.
AND AGAIN, if this shit isn't politically correct enough for some of you (which is ironic since you right-wingers are supposedly so tired of PC arguments yet you have such thin skins and love to jump to conclusions) - THE WHITE LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS IS JUST AS HURT BY THESE REALITIES AS THE MINORITIES ARE.
From the same pew source:
>From 2007 to 2010, the median net worth of American families decreased by 39.4%, from $135,700 to $82,300.
But still
>data does reveal a stark divide in the experiences of white, black and Hispanic households during the economic recovery.
It is a combination of class and race that hounds this country, although it is more class than it is race. If you take some superficial and full-of-shit comfort in racial, the I have nothing else to tell you, and I hope other members of your race are smarter than you.
>>1394337
>A- 80% of the country is not white
Where the fuck do you live dumb negro? You seem to ignore that most polititians have an average age of 61. Why do you ignore demographics dumb nigger?
>B- 68% of the country are not women
See A. Most old woman are not qualified to take any job with some qualification
>C- The white upper class that you love to defend does not give A FUCK about you just because you are white.
No one is defending no one,you just created a strawman,to defend your own BLM bullshit.
>>1394218
> These would be the people able to vote.
Doesn't matter who votes, anon. Laws are always pass in rich people interests anyway.
>>1394345
What a retarded chart. I would be ashmed to post such a bullshit graph.
>>1394337
>I hope other members of your race are smarter than you.
Do you realise that the average white is way more inteligent than the average negro?
>>1394347
> I am trying to be smart by denying facts! XD
>>1394343
Nice ad-hominems. I have nothing more to say to your stupid ass, because once some internet tough guy starts throwing around shit like "where do you live dumb nigger" I know they've lost.
Stay mad retard. I'm not surprised the education you've received in rural alabama or wherever the fuck didn't teach you enough to decipher some basic statistics and class analysis.
>>1394348
>IQ means anything
Even if it did, you and your butt buddy I'm replying to would be in the lower end of the margin, so what does it matter to you?
>>1394351
>. I have nothing more to say to your stupid ass, because once some internet tough guy starts throwing around shit like "where do you live dumb nigger" I know they've lost.
Not an argument. You just threw a tantrum ignoring demographics.
> Stay mad retard. I'm not surprised the education you've received in rural alabama or wherever the fuck didn't teach you enough to decipher some basic statistics and class analysis.
Not an argument. You are just to dumb to understand simple stadistics and demographics.
> Even if it did, you and your butt buddy I'm replying to would be in the lower end of the margin, so what does it matter to you?
>Negro doing damage control
You just proved how dumb you are. With your dumb replies.
>>1394335
The essential problem with monarchies is, Kings have this annoying habit of dying without an acceptable heir. How would YOU choose who gets to be King?
>>1394374
Next of kin regardless of nationality.
>>1394200
Giving the bourgeoisie the right to vote was a mistake.
>>1394390
Or giving it to anyone outside the vanguard party, for that matter
>>1394397
Large, privately owned firms are generally close to republicanism than monarchy.
>>1394403
>Large, privately owned firms are generally close to republicanism than monarchy.
If most of the actions are distributed,it would be true. If one person holds most of the actions,it would be close to monarchism
>>1394407
That's completely against the natural evolution of privately owned firms.
>>1394418
>That's completely against the natural evolution of privately owned firms.
It depends on how big the company wants to be. Or how much they can expand without going public.
>>1394424
If it's big, it will be that way. In Bolshevism (which is what you're in talking about), even where there is an autocratic leader occasionally, like Stalin, most leaders are subject to the party (board of directors).
>>1394428
>If it's big, it will be that way
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries
>>1394429
The East India Company is closer to what you're talking about.
Anyway, it's all ridiculous, to say that the natural evolution of monarchy is everyone employed by the state is pretty ridiculous and bears no resemblance to even the most powerful monarchies of all time, like France after the centralization of power.
>>1394438
You told me that it was impossible for a big company to remain big without going public. I just put an example that shows the opposite
>>1394259
>owns property
It wasn't about property, it was about land. Chances are you don't even own the house you live in but rent it. And in the early US Republic even homeowners (who at the time were most people) would still not qualify for the vote. In the UK and US, right to vote (in the commons for the UK) was tied to owning a specific number of acres of land, that number was gradually downgraded over time until universal suffrage was instituted.
>>1394445
That's not big on the level you're talking about, not even close. Big on the level you're talking about is every enterprise in any entire country along with the state.
>>1394469
>That's not big on the level you're talking about, not even close
There hasnt been one company that big because the market there has never existed.
I wonder if people who advocate for a return to the property voting system realize that most rich property owners are liberal
>>1394482
>most rich property owners are liberal
>>1394476
There have been companies big enough to do that before. but it's much more difficult now because a given country has or requires way more infrastructure and lodging.
>>1394484
Now plug in Trump and Brexit
>>1394488
>Now plug in Trump and Brexit
We have no info about Trump,and Brexit was mostly old people vs young.People tend to forget that old people own way more property than young one,which is something natural.Most liberals are just losers,with low paying jobs without any prospect of improving.
>>1394351
>>1394337
>>1394297
>>1394289
>This fucking guy
>>1394486
>There have been companies big enough to do that before.
When?>>1394486
>but it's much more difficult now because a given country has or requires way more infrastructure and lodging.
Most goverment spending is pure welfare.Besides,big enough companies haven't appear due anti-trust laws and the like
>>1394464
I own 30 acres outside of Minot, NoDak. You're half right, though, I don't own my house nor do I even live on the land I own. Why? Because it's far more profitable to lease the mineral rights to oil and gas companies than to buy a house and live on my land. :^)
There should be a minimum Testosterone level of 800 to vote so no pussyboy liberals and women can vote
>>1394200
Absolutely not. Every human being has an intrinsic right to control their own life, and that is reflected through democracy. The only people who disagree with universal suffrage are
sore losers who are mad about the current government and people too lazy to get up and affect change themselves who expect other people to do it for them.
>>1394218
I make less than $60,000 a year and I own property. You've got a point, but if only property owning-white males could vote, it would be a lot more than 1% of the population.
>>1394218
>someone automatically believes something is good just because they can do it
How is this qualitatively different from an aristocracy?
>>1394200
>Parents put child inside swirly-ladder as punishment
>Can't get him out
>20 years later
>>1394345
What the fuck is the black line supposed to mean?
If you take away the black line, then it's hard too see much difference between the bottom and top graph, so if the black line is meaningless, then the image is misleading.
>>1394200
Voting itself is stupid because the masses are stupid and easily manipulated. If you want proof of this then just look at /pol/.
