Imagine a “democracy” where citizens could technically vote for anyone, but where authorities strongly recommended particular candidates for each office, and those who voted for others were given extensive psychiatric treatment, out of concern for their welfare, and taken away from their jobs and families, out of concern for the welfare of others. Technically, this could make sense — maybe there really is always a clear best candidate, and only crazy folks would think otherwise.
There is a "democracy" where the leaders advise people to vote for the correct candidate and sometimes send people to mental hospitals if they refuse to do so. It's called Russia.
Bill: I'm quite familiar with the history of black voting in the post-bellum South. Black voting was secured by the 15th Amendment. In LA, MS, FL, and SC, blacks were half (or more) of the population, and provided a base for Republicans to control these states. However, violent intimidation by the Democrat "Redeemers" (executed by the Klan) suppressed enough black votes (and dissident whites) to allow Democrat to seize control of these states in 1875-1877. Republicans agreed to withdraw Federal protection for the Reconstruction governments in return for Democrat acceptance of Hayes' election as President in 1876.
However, this did not end black voting in the South. There was a long rear-guard action, lasting until 1900. Several black Republicans were elected U.S. Representative from the South during this period. The last was George White of NC, elected in 1896 and 1898. Also in the 1890s, blacks won a few elections to state legislatures, and to the 1895 SC state constitutional convention. It was in the 1895 constitution that SC established literacy tests.
The final crackdown only came in 1900. And as noted, nearly all the Southern states had schools and colleges for blacks at that time. Disfranchisement was enforced largely by abusive registrars and clerks, backed by Klan intimidation. Black voting was zeroed out; but it was done without regard for black literacy.
We already limit a group of people from voting for exactly the reasons given: we believe them to be stupid, easily misguided and coercible, and in need of protection from themselves.
That children are not allowed to vote is proof that people are open to the idea of restricting the vote. The key, as always, is in the definition of the restrictions.
Do North Koreans have hope? I'm pretty sure there are fewer demonstrations there than in first-world liberal democracy. The American Civil War doesn't seem attributable to a deficiency of hope either, although arguably it may not qualify as a "civil war".
There’s also an essential tension between democracy and special interests who seek to buy the candidates they prefer.No there isn't, everyone's interests are "special". In a democracy politicians promise certain policies to constituents in hopes they will vote for them and otherwise support them. We just call it "special interests", "pandering" or "whoring" when we dislike it.
Robin: have the arguments you presented above made you believe that status is less of a factor in democracy than you previously thought?That is one possible way of interpreting your evidence...
Oops. Some more to disagree with.You might want to listen to Berkeley Prof. Brad de Long's economic history of the United States available at I Tunes U. He has a lecture on funding of black schools and the literacy test. Uh Uh. Quite clearly education was not funded, both for literacy reasons and to keep blacks in low paying jobs. He has some facts, even post reconstruction.
You are right that for a period of time after the war blacks could vote, but you might want to check your dates when it ended; I think it was in the early 1870s--but you can find out by listening to some informative lectures and tell me more.
"there was one period in American history when, following the Civil War, we disenfranchised some folks because they could not read, and the majority thereafter did all they could to be sure that that population would not be educated."
Not true. To begin with, "we" did not do it, unless you are writing as a self-identified White Southerner".
In the second place, the literacy tests and "grandfather clause" were put in place after the "Redeemers" overturned the Reconstruction-era governments. By that time (10 years after the War) schools and colleges for blacks had been established all over the South. The Redeemer governments did not shut down these schools. Underfunded them compared to schools for whites, but they continued to operate. The first black teachers' college in South Carolina was established during the governorship of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a notorious racist and white supremacist.
And in the third place, the literacy test was never actually used literally: it was simply an excuse for disfranchising a black. There was no need to prevent blacks from learning to read because they might then be able to pass the literacy test - blacks automatically "failed" the "test".
"... there is an essential tension between democracy and regulation that overrules voter beliefs."
There's also an essential tension between democracy and special interests who seek to buy the candidates they prefer.
Remember, this SCOTUS decision was about election financing, for a representative democracy, not a direct one. We're not talking about the people being wise enough to run the government -- we're talking about the people being wise enough to pick someone they think is wise enough to run the government. Which is itself an iffy proposition, perhaps, but not the same thing. But voters are only offered choices of candidates they believe were effectively bought for them in advance, why should they think that voting confers any status at all? Quite the contrary, if anything.
Let's also bear in mind that this recent SCOTUS decision also empowered labor unions and dot-orgs to finance their own advertising for candidates. (Indeed, it was a dot-org that brought suit.) The oldest (and still among the biggest) dot-orgs: churches. And let's imagine for a moment a true repeat of the Great Depression (which is still not impossible, especially the way things are going). That scenario could put corporate interests on the run, as consumer demand plummets, profits turn to losses, and businesses begin to fail. In the race to the bottom of "earnings", those who could command union dues and pew-side charitable contributions might actually gain in overall purchasing power, if their membership gains were grearter, their drop in losses were slower, and if deflation became strong enough.
You want the pre-election airwaves saturated with Huey Long backed by Jimmy Hoffa? Because if you're thinking "hurray for our side, we have won the right to hear candidate endorsements from the poor little previously-muzzled corporations!", that's the other edge of the blade, if the economy deteriorates much further.
Robin, you seem to be equating "Raising Their Status" with "Making Them More Content"; and if so then pretty much any change is either going to raise or lower status. Civil War (or more generally crime/demonstrations) more often occur as people become more and more discontent with their lives and the hopes. Voting gives people hope that they and others like them can change society without having to risk death or imprisonment. Hope, not status, "prevents" Civil War.
Also, foreigners vote through inanimate objects so you are extending the right of citizenry. Citizen natural persons bear the costs and the entity of foreign nationals investors do not.
You can also argue that managers of inanimate objects, if they could vote, get to vote twice. Once as a citizen, and a second time based on the voting power of the the inanimate object.
The current voting system isn't ideal, but it's the best choice we have. Voters should just seize this opportunity: it will not come again.
Karen
There is a "democracy" where the leaders advise people to vote for the correct candidate and sometimes send people to mental hospitals if they refuse to do so. It's called Russia.
Bill: I'm quite familiar with the history of black voting in the post-bellum South. Black voting was secured by the 15th Amendment. In LA, MS, FL, and SC, blacks were half (or more) of the population, and provided a base for Republicans to control these states. However, violent intimidation by the Democrat "Redeemers" (executed by the Klan) suppressed enough black votes (and dissident whites) to allow Democrat to seize control of these states in 1875-1877. Republicans agreed to withdraw Federal protection for the Reconstruction governments in return for Democrat acceptance of Hayes' election as President in 1876.
However, this did not end black voting in the South. There was a long rear-guard action, lasting until 1900. Several black Republicans were elected U.S. Representative from the South during this period. The last was George White of NC, elected in 1896 and 1898. Also in the 1890s, blacks won a few elections to state legislatures, and to the 1895 SC state constitutional convention. It was in the 1895 constitution that SC established literacy tests.
The final crackdown only came in 1900. And as noted, nearly all the Southern states had schools and colleges for blacks at that time. Disfranchisement was enforced largely by abusive registrars and clerks, backed by Klan intimidation. Black voting was zeroed out; but it was done without regard for black literacy.
We already limit a group of people from voting for exactly the reasons given: we believe them to be stupid, easily misguided and coercible, and in need of protection from themselves.
That children are not allowed to vote is proof that people are open to the idea of restricting the vote. The key, as always, is in the definition of the restrictions.
It is precisely hope which CAUSES civil war. Without hope, who would fight? On the other hand, break their spirits...
Do North Koreans have hope? I'm pretty sure there are fewer demonstrations there than in first-world liberal democracy. The American Civil War doesn't seem attributable to a deficiency of hope either, although arguably it may not qualify as a "civil war".
There’s also an essential tension between democracy and special interests who seek to buy the candidates they prefer.No there isn't, everyone's interests are "special". In a democracy politicians promise certain policies to constituents in hopes they will vote for them and otherwise support them. We just call it "special interests", "pandering" or "whoring" when we dislike it.
Robin: have the arguments you presented above made you believe that status is less of a factor in democracy than you previously thought?That is one possible way of interpreting your evidence...
Cheeky stuff by Patri Friedman here.
Oops. Some more to disagree with.You might want to listen to Berkeley Prof. Brad de Long's economic history of the United States available at I Tunes U. He has a lecture on funding of black schools and the literacy test. Uh Uh. Quite clearly education was not funded, both for literacy reasons and to keep blacks in low paying jobs. He has some facts, even post reconstruction.
You're right in some parts; wrong in others.
A great class on post civil war reconstruction is online at Yale University. Taught by Prof. Blight or Bright.
You can find it at oyc.yale.edu
You are right that for a period of time after the war blacks could vote, but you might want to check your dates when it ended; I think it was in the early 1870s--but you can find out by listening to some informative lectures and tell me more.
Or promoting his awareness, without affiliation.
"there was one period in American history when, following the Civil War, we disenfranchised some folks because they could not read, and the majority thereafter did all they could to be sure that that population would not be educated."
Not true. To begin with, "we" did not do it, unless you are writing as a self-identified White Southerner".
In the second place, the literacy tests and "grandfather clause" were put in place after the "Redeemers" overturned the Reconstruction-era governments. By that time (10 years after the War) schools and colleges for blacks had been established all over the South. The Redeemer governments did not shut down these schools. Underfunded them compared to schools for whites, but they continued to operate. The first black teachers' college in South Carolina was established during the governorship of "Pitchfork Ben" Tillman, a notorious racist and white supremacist.
And in the third place, the literacy test was never actually used literally: it was simply an excuse for disfranchising a black. There was no need to prevent blacks from learning to read because they might then be able to pass the literacy test - blacks automatically "failed" the "test".
"... there is an essential tension between democracy and regulation that overrules voter beliefs."
There's also an essential tension between democracy and special interests who seek to buy the candidates they prefer.
Remember, this SCOTUS decision was about election financing, for a representative democracy, not a direct one. We're not talking about the people being wise enough to run the government -- we're talking about the people being wise enough to pick someone they think is wise enough to run the government. Which is itself an iffy proposition, perhaps, but not the same thing. But voters are only offered choices of candidates they believe were effectively bought for them in advance, why should they think that voting confers any status at all? Quite the contrary, if anything.
Let's also bear in mind that this recent SCOTUS decision also empowered labor unions and dot-orgs to finance their own advertising for candidates. (Indeed, it was a dot-org that brought suit.) The oldest (and still among the biggest) dot-orgs: churches. And let's imagine for a moment a true repeat of the Great Depression (which is still not impossible, especially the way things are going). That scenario could put corporate interests on the run, as consumer demand plummets, profits turn to losses, and businesses begin to fail. In the race to the bottom of "earnings", those who could command union dues and pew-side charitable contributions might actually gain in overall purchasing power, if their membership gains were grearter, their drop in losses were slower, and if deflation became strong enough.
You want the pre-election airwaves saturated with Huey Long backed by Jimmy Hoffa? Because if you're thinking "hurray for our side, we have won the right to hear candidate endorsements from the poor little previously-muzzled corporations!", that's the other edge of the blade, if the economy deteriorates much further.
Robin, you seem to be equating "Raising Their Status" with "Making Them More Content"; and if so then pretty much any change is either going to raise or lower status. Civil War (or more generally crime/demonstrations) more often occur as people become more and more discontent with their lives and the hopes. Voting gives people hope that they and others like them can change society without having to risk death or imprisonment. Hope, not status, "prevents" Civil War.
I agree.
Also, foreigners vote through inanimate objects so you are extending the right of citizenry. Citizen natural persons bear the costs and the entity of foreign nationals investors do not.
You can also argue that managers of inanimate objects, if they could vote, get to vote twice. Once as a citizen, and a second time based on the voting power of the the inanimate object.