The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
Before the reform act of 1832, something like 1% of the population of the UK could vote due to property requirements, stricter than any of the US states in the 1790s.
The majority of the population could not vote, either due to their skin color, sex, or degree of property ownership (colony by colony/state by state as I recall).
Yeah, you should look into other governments of the period.
Just to be specific, your argument is that the United States of the late 18th century can be considered a “trail blazer” in terms of democratic achievement. You are agreeing to my assertion that the franchise can be used as a measure of democracy, and you are asserting that the United States was uniquely forward in this area. This follow up statement is limiting this to a comparison of similar governments of the 18th century?
Late 18th century, yes. And if I hear pop history myths about the Iroquois, I will be irritated.
Women were not specifically barred from voting in the United Kingdom until the Great Reform Act of 1832. This doesn’t mean that they voted often - and would have been practically barred in most circumstances, but it was possible in some. There were no bars on suffrage for black men in the United Kingdom at any point.
If we talk about representative power, we can talk about how the balance of power in Congress was unfairly weighed in favor of southern states through things such as the 2/3 Compromise (having large, non voting enslaved population.) There was no direct voting on Senate positions until a later amendment which I’m too stoned to bother looking up right now. Even if your ideal of democracy is the Athens of direct democracy - one man one vote - I don’t think the 18th century US was that spectacular.
It was 3/5 compromise, but you’re both right. Pug is more correct though.
Before the reform act of 1832, something like 1% of the population of the UK could vote due to property requirements, stricter than any of the US states in the 1790s.