The 'educated voter' argument is bunkum, of course. Modern school education in developed countries is such that virtually every person alive today is far better 'educated' than virtually every person in the 19th century, so on the 'educated voter' argument almost all those property-enfranchised, male, white privileged electors should never have been electing parliaments back then. It's a rubbish argument.
The real purpose of parliaments is to create legitimacy and acceptance of government by subjecting government to control by representatives - of ALL the people. A close corollary, as Elliott mentions, is emphasising a sense of legal equality of all citizens.
Look, we can all see that this US stuff is just partisan (and in some minds, racist) attempts to manipulate electoral outcomes, and thus control the power of government. The education argument, bizarre as it is, is merely a cover.
Malcolm, Well put. What do you think is the difference between parliamentary v presidential democracies in the context of voting restrictions? Were you purposefully drawing a contrast?
Not sure if there is an examinable relevant difference.
To be frank, most of these 'voting restrictions', and the weak arguments used to defend them, are really a United States problem only, not very much seen in other developed democracies (otoh Malaysia has dreadful mallapportionment; and several developed countries also have single-member divisions, and therefore suffer voter-concentration effects even if those are not further exacerbated by mallapportionment or gerrymandering). The US is of course presidential, not parliamentary, at both national and state levels. But that does not conclusively prove that presidentialism inherently leads to voting restrictions.
One relevant historical driver might be that presidential systems tend to force parties - and voters - into an inevitable culture of two large, implacably opposed parties vying for the total executive power (to whit, the US), whereas democracies with a parliamentary culture (or 'presidential-parliamentary' hybrids) can more easily develop multiple parties and a willingness to compromise and explore coalitions over time. The parliamentary culture might be said to have less incentive to try to win through voting restrictions, and also less ability to do so even if there is a motive.
Elliott, see https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/03/arizona-voting-rights-act-supreme-court.html .
Thanks Martha!
The 'educated voter' argument is bunkum, of course. Modern school education in developed countries is such that virtually every person alive today is far better 'educated' than virtually every person in the 19th century, so on the 'educated voter' argument almost all those property-enfranchised, male, white privileged electors should never have been electing parliaments back then. It's a rubbish argument.
The real purpose of parliaments is to create legitimacy and acceptance of government by subjecting government to control by representatives - of ALL the people. A close corollary, as Elliott mentions, is emphasising a sense of legal equality of all citizens.
Look, we can all see that this US stuff is just partisan (and in some minds, racist) attempts to manipulate electoral outcomes, and thus control the power of government. The education argument, bizarre as it is, is merely a cover.
Malcolm, Well put. What do you think is the difference between parliamentary v presidential democracies in the context of voting restrictions? Were you purposefully drawing a contrast?
Not sure if there is an examinable relevant difference.
To be frank, most of these 'voting restrictions', and the weak arguments used to defend them, are really a United States problem only, not very much seen in other developed democracies (otoh Malaysia has dreadful mallapportionment; and several developed countries also have single-member divisions, and therefore suffer voter-concentration effects even if those are not further exacerbated by mallapportionment or gerrymandering). The US is of course presidential, not parliamentary, at both national and state levels. But that does not conclusively prove that presidentialism inherently leads to voting restrictions.
One relevant historical driver might be that presidential systems tend to force parties - and voters - into an inevitable culture of two large, implacably opposed parties vying for the total executive power (to whit, the US), whereas democracies with a parliamentary culture (or 'presidential-parliamentary' hybrids) can more easily develop multiple parties and a willingness to compromise and explore coalitions over time. The parliamentary culture might be said to have less incentive to try to win through voting restrictions, and also less ability to do so even if there is a motive.
It’s pretty ironic that people who are only in a position of power due to the democratic process are so willing to gut that very process.
One contributing factor might be that there really isn’t much process to the democratic process — upwards of 90% of incumbents seeking reelection win.
If about 90% of voters are hard Democrats or Republicans, does that incumbent reelection percentage make sense?
Maybe, but the 90% figure includes primary competition. I would expect more infighting within the respective party if that was the case.
Good point!