Limiting the franchise to males would not be enough to make Democracy 'work fine.'
Democracy, as a form of government, is fundamentally vulnerable to 'Demographic Shift.' A change in the voter base is indistinguishable from 'regime change.' Yes, giving women the vote altered the voter base so thoroughly that it amounted to losing the battle of the sexes-- but the same thing can happen racially, ethnically, or religiously, too. The Bantus in South Africa, Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and the Islamification of Dearborn, MI all show how Democracy is vulnerable to Demographic Siege.
A besieged Democracy which cannot police who becomes a voter will not maintain societal cohesion. Athens, the progenitor of Democracy, had the casting of potsherds to banish one person a year-- literal Ostracization-- and wasn't shy about banishing people in criminal circumstances, either. (Remember-- Socrates drank poison rather than be banished for his crimes of atheism and "corrupting the youth") Where is the modern Democracy's parallel to exile or Ostracization? What would the Athenians make of Open Borders or Multiculturalism?
No way. You vastly overestimate the marginal difference between men and women in voting preferences. You also vastly overestimate the actual effect of 'elections'.
The problem is that there is a kleptocratic ruling oligarchy that rules regardless of who is 'elected'. The oligarchy gets its way regardless.
I wish I had it, maybe I have a screen tucked away somewhere but there was a really great post on reddit ages back breaking down the argument for why giving women the right to vote screwed a lot of things up.
Some of the things I remember it touching on was how it encouraged division between husband and wife, as well as the absolutely huge increase in welfare spending.
Personally I just think most people shouldn't be able to vote but it gave a really compelling argument against women's suffrage.
Semi related funfact: at least in the US, most women didn't want the right to vote. It was a pet project of the rich (I'd like to say Democrat?) "progressive" women.
Aristotle was right; democracy is cringe.
I disagree.
Limiting the franchise to males would not be enough to make Democracy 'work fine.'
Democracy, as a form of government, is fundamentally vulnerable to 'Demographic Shift.' A change in the voter base is indistinguishable from 'regime change.' Yes, giving women the vote altered the voter base so thoroughly that it amounted to losing the battle of the sexes-- but the same thing can happen racially, ethnically, or religiously, too. The Bantus in South Africa, Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and the Islamification of Dearborn, MI all show how Democracy is vulnerable to Demographic Siege.
A besieged Democracy which cannot police who becomes a voter will not maintain societal cohesion. Athens, the progenitor of Democracy, had the casting of potsherds to banish one person a year-- literal Ostracization-- and wasn't shy about banishing people in criminal circumstances, either. (Remember-- Socrates drank poison rather than be banished for his crimes of atheism and "corrupting the youth") Where is the modern Democracy's parallel to exile or Ostracization? What would the Athenians make of Open Borders or Multiculturalism?
Open borders they wouldn't care. They'd let you die on the street if you weren't a citizen.
Multiculturalism is hard to say though.
and Simps. Remember, it was a bunch of Simps that gave them the right in the first place.
Switzerland waited until 1971. Which is why, up until recently, they've been less chucked than the rest of us.
No way. You vastly overestimate the marginal difference between men and women in voting preferences. You also vastly overestimate the actual effect of 'elections'.
The problem is that there is a kleptocratic ruling oligarchy that rules regardless of who is 'elected'. The oligarchy gets its way regardless.
I wish I had it, maybe I have a screen tucked away somewhere but there was a really great post on reddit ages back breaking down the argument for why giving women the right to vote screwed a lot of things up.
Some of the things I remember it touching on was how it encouraged division between husband and wife, as well as the absolutely huge increase in welfare spending.
Personally I just think most people shouldn't be able to vote but it gave a really compelling argument against women's suffrage.
Semi related funfact: at least in the US, most women didn't want the right to vote. It was a pet project of the rich (I'd like to say Democrat?) "progressive" women.
I guess you prefer Oysteroilia.
I the philosopher sigma should rule instead