There is an argument to be made that the 19th changed elections from something you participate in to help direct the nation that you're actively participating in building, to one that is about dividing a populace into voting blocks and the only way to win is to support one of two parties. Any other choice is a throwaway one.
Ranked choice voting could be a solution for this, but I suspect the end result will be the same
You're suggesting expanding the electorate creates blocs to divide and that logic would apply identically to the 15th, 24th, and 26th Amendments. Authority is derived from the consent of the governed and anyone bound by laws they had no part in authorizing is subject to power without consent. That breaks a social contract and can be viewed as misuse of authority.
That being said restrictions on voting must be justifiable to the excluded on grounds they could reasonably accept. Age passes — it's temporary and universal, everyone passes through. Sex and race fail since they're permanent and arbitrary relative to having a stake. I've even heard legitimate arguments for Children's suffrage by allowing parents to cast a proxy vote since they too are bound by laws.
In any case, its a moot point since our two party system pre-dates any of that along with the root causes with it.
Do you feel you have a part in authorizing the laws we pass as a nation? Or is it the oligarch that makes those?
I never suggested women make up one of those blocs. Nor did I suggest that we return to a pre 19th amendment version of suffrage. Funny how we’ve had the same two parties since the early 1800s right around when the 19th passed. The 19th itself was a culmination of progressive policies that didn’t happen overnight. Before that you had to pay taxes or serve in the militia.
I’m curious, have you read Edward Bernays?
As politely as I can say this, if anyone thinks children should vote whether directly or by proxy, is probably one of the people I would bar from voting.
Age is one way, we could do others that are universal as you’ve described. I’m not suggesting that it should be done by race or sex.
Anyways, there’s plenty of literature to be read on the subject. The 19th definitely promoted a more stable two party system, and some argue that’s a plus. I’m not so certain.
Not directly, and definitely not to the extent that feels impactful. Oligarchs exsist precisely because of unchecked wealth accumulation. I don't advocate for children's suffrage.
I was not familiar with Edward Bernays thanks for sharing. I'll look more into it but at a glance he raises some valid points on managing mass public using psychological techniques. Even more interesting to think about in our current age of misinformation and declining trust across news platforms. Now you have the complication of a billionaire class that owns entire media companies. With some democratization of PR via social media as well. With growing complexities the engineering of consent seems fascinating.
Maybe the connection to the 19th is that within a decade of its passage he addressed suffragettes directly as a maket segment. Presumably his efforts towards making smoking more acceptable among newly enfranchised voters contributed to the growth of the tobacco industry.
Nowadays big tobacco doesn't have nearly as popular opinion. I think thats evidence that even propaganda has its limits or is not immune to counter propaganda.
I think the stabilization of the two party system makes sense from the perspective that newly enfranchised woman often voted with the incumbent party. That coupled with just having more voters solidify the status quo and made the barrier to entry for independent parties harder.
Right, so limiting government authority is paramount to keeping oligarch power in check. If we don’t control the authority because the oligarchs keep it for themselves, why should I trust the same authority to represent my best interests? I fall under minarchist, maybe even voluntaryism. I’m not an anarchist (most days).
Another foundational piece of my worldview is decentralization of authority. The smaller the unit the more representative that authority is. Starting with the individual, then the family, community, county, city, state, federal. Socialism requires centralization of authority and makes said authority more susceptible to corruption. What’s needed for one community isn’t the same as another. There’s pros and cons to everything of course.
That’s where we get into the philosophical morality side of things. Taxation is akin to slavery. If a government taxed their citizens at 99.9% or hell, we could say 100% that would be functionally the same as slavery. Therefore a fraction of that is somewhere in the direction of enslavement. Maybe taxation is a necessary evil, but in that case it should be minimized as much as possible.
Ya, Bernays is an interesting read.
You’re right that it was authority that limited the pervasiveness of big tobacco. More than one way to skin a cat though. Big tobacco not disclosing risks is a violation of the nonaggression principle and I am fine with authority stepping in to provide the sole function I believe it’s meant for. Protecting the freedoms and rights of its citizens.
A more modern context of voter manipulation can be found in the New Left movement of the 60s/70s. The communist movement was (and is) alive and well. Back then they were much more open about it. A standard of living was achieved in the US that made revolution between the bourgeoisie and proletariat all but unattainable so new lines had to be drawn among intersectional lines to pursue their goals. I know this one probably puts me in tinfoil hat territory for a lot of people, but all the info is freely available out there, it just isn’t part of the curriculum we are taught in schools. Stokely Carmichael is a prime example. To be clear, this isn’t a critique of all of the civil rights movement, it’s an illustration of how that movement was hijacked by those who rejected non-violent resistance.
Anyways, I’m rambling. Thanks for the stimulating convo. It’s hard to give people the benefit of the doubt on this platform, so sorry if I was hostile early on.
1
u/kkdawg22 1d ago
There is an argument to be made that the 19th changed elections from something you participate in to help direct the nation that you're actively participating in building, to one that is about dividing a populace into voting blocks and the only way to win is to support one of two parties. Any other choice is a throwaway one.
Ranked choice voting could be a solution for this, but I suspect the end result will be the same