What do they mean by "Universal Suffrage"?

[Some guy]

Does this civic imply a government in which every body literally votes on everything or is it just a regular republic that's more liberal than representation?

I added a poll just in case there were more people who thought the opposite of the majority of the ones who decide to respond.

 

[MrCynical]

It implies a goverment in which all allowed to vote to some (equal) degree, regardless of race, sex, etc. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't necessarily imply everyone votes on "everything".

 

[bestbrian]

It means that everyone has the right to vote by virtue of being a citizen, period, without witholding of the franchise based upon race/color/creed/wealth/property/sex/social status, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with what issues are put up for a vote, or the system whereby such votes are conducted. You could have US, but a political system that never puts anything up for a vote.

 

[AmazonQueen]

A modern 'democracy' where everyone gets to vote, although probably for their representative rather than directly on the issues.

You can roughly compare most governments with some combination of Civ civics. Ancient Athens was Representation (limited franchise) and Slavery, modern Iran is Democracy (of a sort, everyone gets to vote) + Theocracy.

 

[Some guy]

If universal suffrage is just a more liberal republic-type government, then why does representation get a happiness bonus? You'd think everyone having the right to vote would make your citizens happier than a discriminatory republic?

 

[Jazzmail]

Universal Suffrage means all adults (except criminals and foreigners) get to vote.
Representation doesn't preclude US, on the contrary they often go together.


To the people at Firaxis, US means having a chosen president.
For them Representation means having a prime minister and a monarch head of state.

 

[davidis.ca]

A modern 'democracy' where everyone gets to vote, although probably for their representative rather than directly on the issues.

You can roughly compare most governments with some combination of Civ civics. Ancient Athens was Representation (limited franchise) and Slavery, modern Iran is Democracy (of a sort, everyone gets to vote) + Theocracy.

Ancient Athens was direct democracy the able citizens voted on everything (able citizens were Athenian males)

 

[Some guy]

Universal Suffrage means all adults (except criminals and foreigners) get to vote.
Representation doesn't preclude US, on the contrary they often go together.

I think that's why it's confusing to some people (including myself). As much as I like how they try to give the player many choices to mix and alternate one's rule, they're sometimes still too specific in some civics in my opinion, but is still good for a game like this. I think it would be interesting if they tried further dividing the civics into something like "singe rule/minority rule/majority rule", and then adding a civic system that would describe what kind if single/minority/majority rule it would be and such.

To the people at Firaxis, US means having a chosen president.
For them Representation means having a prime minister and a monarch head of state.

I completely forgot about that. . . If a city becomes extremely happy, they will say "We love the prime minister/president!". I guess this settles it then.

 

[Baskedyt]

Universal Suffrage means all adults (except criminals and foreigners) get to vote.
Representation doesn't preclude US, on the contrary they often go together.

US means everybody is equal to the law.
Just an example from my own country. When democracy (Representation) was introduced here in Denmark it gave voting rights to males above the age of 30, who owned a piece of land and didn't owe any taxes. Not quite the democracy must people think of.

Today, in Denmark, prisoners can vote like everybody else, and foreigners who live here permanently can vote on local issues (city council etc., not parliament and national referendums)

So in my mind US just means the everybody has basic equal rights, oppose to slavery, fascism, apartheid, communism etc.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Ancient Athens was direct democracy the able citizens voted on everything (able citizens were Athenian males)

I know that but neither Representation or Universal Suffrage make any reference to participatory democracy. I would argue that both are meant to include either participatory or representative democracies, the distinction between them being in the franchise which in Athens was very limited.

 

[Baskedyt]

I know that but neither Representation or Universal Suffrage make any reference to participatory democracy.

"Demo" in democracy means people - but how do you define people? That's the big issue. Is everybody eligible? Including infants? If not, how do you define adult? Should everybody vote on everything or should you select someone to choose for you?

Hitler come to power by democratic selection, then change the constitution afterwards. Stalin and Saddam Hussein both held election where they won with 100% of the votes. Does that make the countries democracies?

Looking at the Government civics in CIV my country should have hereditary rule because we have a constitutional monarchy - which means we have chosen to have a monarch. Does that means that we do not have a democracy?

I think you should see the "Representation" civic as the "old" form of democracy where only powerful men filled the seats. And "Universal Suffrage" as the "modern" democracy where (almost) everyone can vote for a Representative and on big issue (IE. referemdums).

 

[Jazzmail]

US means everybody is equal to the law.

I'm sure the meaning is limited to the right to vote.

 

[AmazonQueen]

"Demo" in democracy means people - but how do you define people? That's the big issue. Is everybody eligible? Including infants? If not, how do you define adult? Should everybody vote on everything or should you select someone to choose for you?

Universal Suffrage means no limitation of right to vote on grounds of race, sex, religion, property or educational qualification. Limitations on the rights of children, criminals, the insane (and in the UK the peerage) to vote are generally considered compatible with US IMO.

Hitler come to power by democratic selection, then change the constitution afterwards. Stalin and Saddam Hussein both held election where they won with 100% of the votes. Does that make the countries democracies?

Germany was certainly a democracy when Hitler came to power. Stalin and Saddam never held free or fair elections. They only 'won' with 100% of the votes because they got to count the votes.

Looking at the Government civics in CIV my country should have hereditary rule because we have a constitutional monarchy - which means we have chosen to have a monarch. Does that means that we do not have a democracy?

How much power does the monarch have? Little if any I suspect.

I think you should see the "Representation" civic as the "old" form of democracy where only powerful men filled the seats. And "Universal Suffrage" as the "modern" democracy where (almost) everyone can vote for a Representative and on big issue (IE. referemdums).

In most modern democracies men from privilieged backgrounds still tend to fill most of the seats. I'd argue the difference between Representation and US is the franchise. England has had Representation (to some degree) since the 13th century, Iceland (and possibly other places) even longer but Britian has only had US since about 1930.

 

[unclethrill]

It really means that no matter who you are or who you vote for, everyone will suffer univerally. Hence the name Universal Sufferage.

 

[mrt144]

the thing is though, in US situations there are clearly defined losers and winners in the process. a winner takes all system will leave some large group people unhappy. As for representation coalition governments form because of proportional representation, which might explain why there is a happiness bonus; no one group is totally screwed by the system.

 

[Baskedyt]

In most modern democracies men from privilieged backgrounds still tend to fill most of the seats. I'd argue the difference between Representation and US is the franchise. England has had Representation (to some degree) since the 13th century, Iceland (and possibly other places) even longer but Britian has only had US since about 1930.

The question posed were to the difference of the two in . The Constitution tech comes around the French Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence, with granted freedom but not voting right for all sane adults. So I believe the developers though of these when the came up with the Representation civic. The US civic becomes available around the turn of the 20th century, were countries began to give rights to woman and serf and there were a general demand for US.

As for the rest of my former thread - I was playing devils advocate