Table of Contents
Several reasons contributed to denial of voting rights along considerations such as gender, tenure of property, and racial background. These included prevailing social structures, social stratification, stereotypes that derided and degraded women and minorities, and established traditions. There were also fears among the elites that political equality would shift the power base, change existing power structures, and alter the status quo. The belief that universal suffrage would prove complicated and require monumental administrative resources also delayed enactment of the universal right to vote.
At the same time, fears abounded among the exclusionists (especially those in the south) that allowing immigrants, women, and people from other backgrounds to vote would weaken the oppressive governance system that they upheld. Therefore, they introduced barriers such as literacy tests in a bid to lock out women, minorities, and immigrants from the vote (Keyssar, 2000). Lastly, many leaders had misgivings about universal suffrage and doubted that it would improve the quality of policy decisions and augment governance.
- Arguments Justifying Exclusion of the poor, Women, Immigrants, African Americans and Native Americans from the vote
Opponents of universal suffrage adduced several arguments. At the outset, they felt that women and the poor were not equal members of the society, and had not earned the right to vote. They also argued that they were uninformed and lacked the intelligence and wisdom to make appropriate political decisions independently. At the same time, they denied these segments the opportunity to vote as an implicit ploy to retain power.
127 our experts are availableright now
Moreover, they argued that universal suffrage would have various undesired effects. For example, minorities would use the vote to seek additional rights and privileges. They would also elect individuals who would favor their interests, and this would disrupt the existing societal structure. In addition, it would instigate social chaos and undermine the integrity of the vote (Keyssar, 2000). Therefore, they used restricted voting in a bid to check and counteract this possibility. In short, they felt that the potential drawbacks of universal suffrage would offset the anticipated benefits.
Counter Arguments
The disenfranchised populations, including women and people of color fought strenuously and provided various rationales to support and justify their right to political franchise or the freedom to vote. Firstly, they argued that their disenfranchisement was discriminatory, illegitimated the government and the decisions that it made, and destabilized society. Secondly, they asserted that voting is a safeguard or protection against tyranny. It accorded people the right to elect their leaders and therefore to influence the prevailing governance structures. Moreover, they stated that the government was only representative to the extent that it incorporated the wishes and aspirations of all citizens. This meant that excluding some members of the populations from voting based on considerations such as gender and class was repressive or despotic.
Thirdly, they posited that it served as an instrument to confer citizens’ diverse rights and privileges. Further, it served a symbolic function, embodied citizens’ entrenched freedom, depicted belonging to the nation, and epitomized the liberties entrenched in the constitution. Another reason that informed the struggle for equal voting rights is that it would compel leaders to consult all people and seek their views when making laws and other decisions touching on national issues. Moreover, universal suffrage would avert partisanship, safeguard the interests of minorities, and enrich the quality of legislative decisions (Keyssar, 2000). At the same time, conferring women with the right to vote would act as s a tool for affirmative action. It would help in reversing historical wrongs and concurrently enable them to realize their unfulfilled aspirations by electing individuals who would further their agenda and speak on their behalves.
The disenfranchised groups also contested that the current group of elected representatives only considered the needs and interests of the electorate and neglected their interests. In addition, women desired to elect leaders who would purge retrogressive, outdated, and oppressive laws that oppressed them while enacting legislations that catered to their welfare. For example, legislations that govern social issues such as marriage, inheritance, education, employment, and parenting predominantly favored men, and women sought amendments that would guarantee social equality.
For instance, the right to vote would allow them to seek better paying jobs and therefore earn higher wages while concurrently increasing their participation in public administration. The representatives that they elected would also make proposals, pass laws, and enact statutes that would place more women in public leadership positions leading to reforms on diverse areas such as education, prisons, and workplaces (Keyssar, 2000). This would make it easier for them to carry out their primary functions and duties.
The Most Persuasive Arguments
The arguments for universal suffrage triumphed. Giving disenfranchised groups the right to vote did not pose veritable social risks but was vital for societal progression. At the same time, unremitting agitation for these rights threatened social order and portended anarchy. Moreover, women proved that the right to vote heralded diverse social benefits while disenfranchisement had numerous social disadvantages. At the same time, it would empower them and enable them to fulfill their social functions fully, which would ultimately benefit the society. Ultimately, the marginalized social members refused to submit to apparent coercion and tyranny, portraying disenfranchisement as unjust and imprudent (Keyssar, 2000). They protested and compelled legislators and policy makers to entrench universal voting rights.
Reference
- Keyssar, A. (2000). The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York, NY: Basic Books.
