On the Right to Vote - Part II

Article V Blog ^ | September 11th 2017 | Rodney Dodsworth

[Jacquerie]

From our earliest colonial times, society expected freeholders, those self-sufficient men, to participate in government. At a minimum that meant voting for local, colonial/state, and federal officials. Only those with a will of their own, those independent men who did not rely on anyone else for their sustenance, were thought capable of self-government.

The Framers were concerned with a voting franchise that in time would extend to the shiftless and angry masses. Those who work and pay taxes resent voting by those who don’t work, and don’t pay taxes. In recent decades is the added insult of the untaxed voting ever-more government benefits for themselves.

Our Framers wrestled with the question, “Who or what institution should set the qualifications of electors to the House of Representatives?” Like today, late 18th century America was very diverse. Should the Constitution set a nation-wide standard, or is the matter best left to the states?

On August 7th 1787, delegates to the Philadelphia Convention took up Article IV of the Committee of Detail report:

Sect. 1. The members of the House of Representatives shall be chosen every second year, by the people of the several States comprehended within this Union. The qualifications of the electors shall be the same, from time to time, as those of the electors in the several States, of the most numerous branch of their own legislatures.

Gouverneur Morris (PA) motioned to restrict the franchise to freeholders, real estate property owners.

James Wilson, also a delegate from PA, believed the Committee of Detail arrived at the best alternative. Why was a uniform rule important? It wasn’t. Avoid unnecessary innovations. It would be very hard and disagreeable for the same person at the same time to vote for reps to his state legislature, and

[Reno89519]

Yes, there is a problem with people voting that strictly receive from the government, not give to it or the nation. It is what it is. Are you asking for a discussion on this? Or are you suggesting a change? And, if so, realistic or just wishful thinking?

[Maine Mariner]

I would be happy if we could eliminate voter fraud to almost zero. It would have changed the presidential election of 1960 and it now seems highly likely the senate seat in
New Hampshire in 2016.