Paradoxal Civics!

[r_rolo1]

^^Mentally handicapped people always had lived in the country, as well as the youngsters....You assume that they don't have the necessary mental skills to have a righteous vote.... ( Why? Are people with 17 years and 364 days of live stupid as a door, and they suddenly reach enlightement when they reach 18 years by a deus ex machina miracle? )... same thing, no divisionary line...

P.S Maybe it is better to stop this conversation.... I'm sensing a flame war starting and a mod closure of the thread

 

[CivAgamemnon]

*Erroneous post*

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Women can vote? Preposterous. Who does the washing?

Chinese laundromats. (No offense intended.)

That last comment was meant to reflect another aspect about universal suffrage: race is often not mentioned. In the time of American universal suffrage in the 1910's and 20's, race was not a factor--female suffrage was the goal. Theoretically, black citizens (former slaves) had the right to vote from the end of the Civil War and passage of the 13th and 14th amendments onward, but they were often prevented from exercising that until the Civil Rights campaign of the 1960's. I don't know how this extended to other races (Asians, etc.) but I can't imagine their votes were particularly welcomed or encouraged in an age where it was illegal to marry outside your own race.

So are Slavery and Universal Suffrage contradictory...? It's a bit of a gray area.

 

[Tonifranz]

Well, to make my point.

A mostly agree with you, Blaarg, but I feel that the term Universal is inappropriate, as it would imply 100% of the populace should vote. I think Widespread should be used, so it would be better understood.

That way, the state can call itself practicing Widespread Suffrage and still decide with clear conscience that people it deemed unfit for voting (children, criminals, etc...) can be excluded without compromising its claim that it practices WS?

WS could then be taken relatively in time.

In the 200B.C.s, Athens' suffrage is considered WS by the standards of the age, even if limited to Athenians.

In the 200s B.C., Rome joined Athens with WS the adoption of Lex Hortensia in 287 B.C. when people who does not have the blood of the original inhabitants of the city could vote.

In the principate, WS disappeared in Rome, and only reemerged in the 1500s.

By the middle of that century, the English is considered to have the most WS of all the states considering its Parliamentary system.

Etc. etc, until the concept of WS would be expanded with time.

Perhaps, if in the future, children and mentally retarted people and foreigners are allowed to vote, then the democratic governments of today might be considered by those who live in the future to have narrow suffrage, don't you think?

Then

 

[Blaarg]

I would think Children and Ex-cons would be just as good as voters as the throngs of ignorent people who are allowed to vote today.

 

[Peng Qi]

Free Speech and Police State are surely paradoxal, given the in game description. Pacfism could work, technically, it would result in the weakest police state ever though.

No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

 

[r_rolo1]

No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

This reminds me something.... 1984, isn't it?

Big Brother is watching you...

 

[Peng Qi]

This reminds me something.... 1984, isn't it?

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

 

[Gaius Octavius]

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

Caesar Augustus. When he tried to pretend he was laying down his power (resigning the consulship), the people rioted. So the Senate let him wear the toga of a consul in public to keep up appearances. Of course, later on he did have all the power of the consulship, just not the position itself. Very clever, these Romans.

 

[bonafide11]

I would say most authoritarian states enjoy support from the majority of its citizens.

 

[Blaarg]

No, you could have a Police State in which most or all citizens believed in the party line and therefore no enforcement would be necessary.

Oh, that's realistic...

 

[Blaarg]

You think there's never been an authoritarian situation where most of the people actually supported the person in charge?

Nope, not 100% of everybody.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

 

[Bushface]

I would say most authoritarian states enjoy support from the majority of its citizens.

Oh, come on. In an authoritarian state the citizens aren't allowed to be anything other than "supportive" until, in due course, the revolution comes. Think of the Iron Curtain countries, and of Burma.

 

[Bird Brain]

"police state + free speech"

You can say whatever you, but when you're through you get beaten and taken to jail .

 

[Peng Qi]

Nope, not 100% of everybody.

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's never happened.

I do believe I said "most."

 

[Blaarg]

No, you said most or all such that no enforcement was nessecary.

 

[Peng Qi]

No, you said most or all such that no enforcement was nessecary.

Such could be the case. No enforcement would be necessary if the dissenters were too frightened to act, for example.

 

[Jormungandr]

I would think Children and Ex-cons would be just as good as voters as the throngs of ignorent people who are allowed to vote today.

Everyone's stupid except you, eh?

 

[Blaarg]

You think the majority who can vote in America are educated about the canidates and issues?

 

[Jormungandr]

You think the majority who can vote in America are educated about the canidates and issues?

I sincerely doubt you're educated on every issue that's relevant to American policy.