Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Suffrage
View on Wikipedia

Suffrage, political franchise, or simply franchise is the right to vote in public, political elections and referendums (although the term is sometimes used for any right to vote).[1][2][3] In some languages, and occasionally in English, the right to vote is called active suffrage, as distinct from passive suffrage, which is the right to stand for election.[4] The combination of active and passive suffrage is sometimes called full suffrage.[5]
In most democracies, eligible voters can vote in elections for representatives. Voting on issues by referendum (direct democracy) may also be available. For example, in Switzerland, this is permitted at all levels of government. In the United States, some states allow citizens the opportunity to write, propose, and vote on referendums (popular initiatives); other states and the federal government do not. Referendums in the United Kingdom are rare.
Suffrage continues to be especially restricted on the basis of age, residency and citizenship status in many places. In some countries additional restrictions exist. In Great Britain and the United States a felon might lose the right to vote. In some countries being under guardianship may restrict the right to vote. Non-resident citizen voting allows emigrants and expats of some countries to vote in their home country.[6] Resident non-citizens can vote in some countries, which may be restricted to citizens of closely linked countries (e.g., Commonwealth citizens and European Union citizens) or to certain offices or questions.[7][8][9] Multiple citizenship typically allows to vote in multiple countries.[6] Historically the right to vote was more restricted, for example by gender, race, or wealth.
Etymology
[edit]The word suffrage comes from Latin suffragium, which initially meant "a voting-tablet", "a ballot", "a vote", or "the right to vote". Suffragium in the second century and later came to mean "political patronage, influence, interest, or support", and sometimes "popular acclaim" or "applause". By the fourth century the word was used for "an intercession", asking a patron for their influence with the Almighty. Suffragium was used in the fifth and sixth centuries with connection to buying influence or profiteering from appointing to office, and eventually the word referred to the bribe itself.[10] William Smith rejects the connection of suffragium to sub "under" + fragor "crash, din, shouts (as of approval)", related to frangere "to break"; Eduard Wunder writes that the word may be related to suffrago, signifying an ankle bone or knuckle bone.[11] In the 17th century the English suffrage regained the earlier meaning of the Latin suffragium, "a vote" or "the right to vote".[12]
Types
[edit]Universal suffrage
[edit]
Universal suffrage would be achieved when all have the right to vote without restriction. It could, for example, look like a system where everyone was presumed to have the right to vote unless a government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the need to revoke voting rights.[13] The trend towards universal suffrage has progressed in some democracies by eliminating some or all of the voting restrictions due to gender, race, religion, social status, education level, wealth, citizenship, ability and age. However, throughout history the term 'universal suffrage' has meant different things with the different assumptions about the groups that were or were not deemed desirable voters.
Early history
[edit]The short-lived Corsican Republic (1755–1769) was the first country to grant limited universal suffrage to all citizens over the age of 25.
In 1819, 60–80,000 women and men from 30 miles around Manchester assembled in the city's St. Peter's Square to protest their lack of any representation in the Houses of Parliament. Historian Robert Poole has called the Peterloo Massacre one of the defining moments of its age.[14] (The eponymous Peterloo film featured a scene of women suffragists planning their contribution to the protest.) At that time Manchester had a population of around 140,000 and the population totals of Greater Manchester were around 490,000.[15]
This was followed by other experiments in the Paris Commune of 1871 and the island republic of Franceville (1889). From 1840 to 1852, the Kingdom of Hawai'i granted universal suffrage without mention of sex. In 1893, when the Kingdom of Hawai'i was overthrown in a coup, New Zealand was the only independent country to practice universal (active) suffrage, and the Freedom in the World index lists New Zealand as the only free country in the world in 1893.[16][17]
Women's suffrage
[edit]
Women's suffrage is the right of women to vote.[18] This was the goal of the suffragists, who believed in using legal means, as well as the suffragettes, who used extremist measures. Short-lived suffrage equity was drafted into provisions of the State of New Jersey's first, 1776 Constitution, which extended the Right to Vote to unwed female landholders and black land owners.
IV. That all inhabitants of this Colony, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote for Representatives in Council and Assembly; and also for all other public officers, that shall be elected by the people of the county at large. New Jersey 1776
However, the document did not specify an Amendment procedure, and the provision was subsequently replaced in 1844 by the adoption of the succeeding constitution, which reverted to "all white male" suffrage restrictions.[19]
Although the Kingdom of Hawai'i granted female suffrage in 1840, the right was rescinded in 1852. Limited voting rights were gained by some women in Sweden, Britain, and some western U.S. states in the 1860s. In 1893, the British colony of New Zealand became the first self-governing nation to extend the right to vote to all adult women.[20] In 1894, the women of South Australia achieved the right to both vote and stand for Parliament. The autonomous Grand Duchy of Finland in the Russian Empire was the first nation to allow all women to both vote and run for parliament.
Anti-women's suffrage propaganda
[edit]

Those against the women's suffrage movement made public organizations to put down the political movement, with the main argument being that a woman's place was in the home, not polls. Political cartoons and public outrage over women's rights increased as the opposition to suffrage worked to organize legitimate groups campaigning against women's voting rights. The Massachusetts Association Opposed to the Further Extension of Suffrage to Women was one organization that came out of the 1880s to put down the voting efforts.[21]
Much anti-suffrage propaganda poked fun at the idea of women in politics. Political cartoons displayed the most sentiment by portraying the issue of women's suffrage to be swapped with men's lives. Some mocked the popular suffrage hairstyle of full-upward combed hair. Others depicted young girls turning into suffragettes after a failure in life, such as not being married.[22]
Equal suffrage
[edit]Equal suffrage is sometimes confused with Universal suffrage, although the meaning of the former is the removal of graded votes, wherein a voter could possess a number of votes in accordance with income, wealth or social status.[23]
Passive suffrage
[edit]Census suffrage
[edit]Also known as "censitary suffrage", it is the opposite of equal suffrage, meaning that the votes cast by those eligible to vote are not equal, but weighed differently according to the person's income or rank in society (e.g., people who do not own property or whose income is lower than a given amount are barred from voting; or people with higher education have more votes than those with lower education; stockholders who have more shares in a given company have more votes than those with fewer shares). In many countries, census suffrage restricted who could vote and be elected: in the United States, until the Jacksonian reforms of the 1830s, only men who owned land of a specified acreage or monetary value could vote or participate in elections.[26] Similarly, in Brazil, the Constitution of 1824 established that, in order to vote, citizens would need to have an annual income of 200,000 milréis and, to be voted, their minimum annual income would need to be 400,000 milréis.[27]
Compulsory suffrage
[edit]Where compulsory suffrage exists, those who are eligible to vote are required by law to do so. Thirty-two countries currently practise this form of suffrage.[28]
Business vote
[edit]
In local government in England and some of its ex-colonies, businesses formerly had, and in some places still have, a vote in the urban area in which they paid rates. This is an extension of the historical property-based franchise from natural persons to other legal persons.
In the United Kingdom, the Corporation of the City of London has retained and even expanded business vote, following the passing of the City of London (Ward Elections) Act 2002. This has given business interests within the City of London, which is a major financial centre with few residents, the opportunity to apply the accumulated wealth of the corporation to the development of an effective lobby for UK policies.[29][30] This includes having the City Remembrancer, financed by the City's Cash, as a parliamentary agent, provided with a special seat in the House of Commons located in the under-gallery facing the Speaker's chair.[31] In a leaked document from 2012, an official report concerning the City's Cash revealed that the aim of major occasions such as set-piece sumptuous banquets featuring national politicians was "to increase the emphasis on complementing hospitality with business meetings consistent with the City corporation's role in supporting the City as a financial centre".[32]
The first issue taken up by the Northern Ireland civil rights movement was the business vote, abolished in 1968 (a year before it was abolished in Great Britain outside the City of London).[33]
In the Republic of Ireland, commercial ratepayers[nb 1] can vote in local plebiscites, for changing the name of the locality or street,[37][nb 2] or delimiting a business improvement district.[40] From 1930 to 1935, 5 of 35 members of Dublin City Council were "commercial members".[41]
In cities in most Australian states, voting is optional for businesses but compulsory for individuals.[42][43]
Some municipalities in Delaware allow corporations to vote on local matters.[44]
Basis of exclusion
[edit]Gender
[edit]
In ancient Athens, often cited as the birthplace of democracy, only adult, male citizens who owned land were permitted to vote. Through subsequent centuries, Europe was generally ruled by monarchs, though various forms of parliament arose at different times. The high rank ascribed to abbesses within the Catholic Church permitted some women the right to sit and vote at national assemblies – as with various high-ranking abbesses in Medieval Germany, who were ranked among the independent princes of the empire. Their Protestant successors enjoyed the same privilege almost into modern times.[45]
Marie Guyart, a French nun who worked with the First Nations peoples of Canada during the seventeenth century, wrote in 1654 regarding the suffrage practices of Iroquois women, "These female chieftains are women of standing amongst the savages, and they have a deciding vote in the councils. They make decisions there like the men, and it is they who even delegated the first ambassadors to discuss peace."[46] The Iroquois, like many First Nations peoples in North America, had a matrilineal kinship system. Property and descent were passed through the female line. Women elders voted on hereditary male chiefs and could depose them.
The emergence of many modern democracies began with male citizens obtaining the right to vote in advance of female citizens, except in the Kingdom of Hawai'i, where universal suffrage without mention of age or sex was introduced in 1840; however, a constitutional amendment in 1852 rescinded female voting and put property qualifications on male voting.
Voting rights for women were introduced into international law by the United Nations' Human Rights Commission, whose elected chair was Eleanor Roosevelt. In 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 21 states: "(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures."
The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Convention on the Political Rights of Women, which went into force in 1954, enshrining the equal rights of women to vote, hold office, and access public services as set out by national laws. One of the most recent jurisdictions to acknowledge women's full right to vote was Bhutan in 2008 (its first national elections).[47] Most recently, in 2011 King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia let women vote in the 2015 local elections (and from then on) and be appointed to the Consultative Assembly.
Religion
[edit]In the aftermath of the Reformation it was common in European countries for people of disfavored religious denominations to be denied civil and political rights, often including the right to vote, to stand for election or to sit in parliament. In Great Britain and Ireland, Roman Catholics were denied the right to vote from 1728 to 1793, and the right to sit in parliament until 1829. The anti-Catholic policy was justified on the grounds that the loyalty of Catholics supposedly lay with the Pope rather than the national monarch.
In England and Ireland, several Acts practically disenfranchised non-Anglicans or non-Protestants by imposing an oath before admission to vote or to stand for office. The 1672 and 1678 Test Acts forbade non-Anglicans to hold public offices, and the 1727 Disenfranchising Act took away Catholics' voting rights in Ireland, which were restored only in 1788. Jews could not even be naturalized. An attempt was made to change this situation, but the Jewish Naturalization Act 1753 provoked such reactions that it was repealed the following year. Nonconformists (Methodists and Presbyterians) were only allowed to run for election to the British House of Commons starting in 1828, Catholics in 1829 (following the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which extended the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1791), and Jews in 1858 (with the Emancipation of the Jews in England). Benjamin Disraeli could only begin his political career in 1837 because he had been converted to Anglicanism at the age of 12.
In several states in the U.S. after the Declaration of Independence, Jews, Quakers or Catholics were denied voting rights and/or forbidden to run for office.[48] The Delaware Constitution of 1776 stated that:[49]
Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall (...) also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: I, A B. do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.
This was repealed by article I, section 2 of the 1792 Constitution: "No religious test shall be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under this State".[50] The 1778 Constitution of the State of South Carolina stated that "No person shall be eligible to sit in the house of representatives unless he be of the Protestant religion",[51] the 1777 Constitution of the State of Georgia (art. VI) that "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county (...) and they shall be of the Protestent (sic) religion".[52] In Maryland, voting rights and eligibility were extended to Jews in 1828.[53]
In Canada, several religious groups (Mennonites, Hutterites, Doukhobors) were disenfranchised by the wartime Elections Act of 1917, mainly because they opposed military service. This disenfranchisement ended with the closure of the First World War, but was renewed for Doukhobors from 1934 (via the Dominion Elections Act) to 1955.[54]
The first Constitution of modern Romania in 1866 provided in article 7 that only Christians could become Romanian citizens. Jews native to Romania were declared stateless persons. In 1879, under pressure from the Berlin Peace Conference, this article was amended, granting non-Christians the right to become Romanian citizens, but naturalization was granted on a case-by-case basis and was subject to Parliamentary approval. An application took over ten years to process. Only in 1923 was a new constitution adopted, whose article 133 extended Romanian citizenship to all Jewish residents and equality of rights to all Romanian citizens.[55]
Wealth, tax class, social class
[edit]
Until the nineteenth century, many Western proto-democracies had property qualifications in their electoral laws; e.g. only landowners could vote (because the only tax for such countries was the property tax), or the voting rights were weighted according to the amount of taxes paid (as in the Prussian three-class franchise). Most countries abolished the property qualification for national elections in the late nineteenth century, but retained it for local government elections for several decades. Today these laws have largely been abolished, although the homeless may not be able to register because they lack regular addresses.
In the United Kingdom, until the House of Lords Act 1999, peers who were members of the House of Lords were excluded from voting for the House of Commons as they were not commoners. Although there is nothing to prevent the monarch from voting, it is considered improper for the monarch to do so.[56]
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, many nations made voters pay to elect officials, keeping impoverished people from being fully enfranchised. These laws were in effect in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.[57]
Knowledge
[edit]Sometimes the right to vote has been limited to people who had achieved a certain level of education or passed a certain test. In some US states, "literacy tests" were previously implemented to exclude those who were illiterate.[58] Black voters in the South were often deemed by election officials to have failed the test even when they did not.[59] Under the 1961 constitution of Rhodesia, voting on the "A" roll, which elected up to 50 of the 65 members of parliament, was restricted based on education requirements, which in practice led to an overwhelming white vote. Voting on the "B" roll had universal suffrage, but only appointed 15 members of parliament.[60][clarification needed]
In the 20th century, many countries other than the US placed voting restrictions on illiterate people, including: Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ecuador, and Peru.[57]
Race
[edit]Various countries, usually countries with a dominant race within a wider population, have historically denied the vote to people of particular races, or to all but the dominant race. This has been achieved in a number of ways:
- Official – laws and regulations passed specifically disenfranchising people of particular races (for example, the Antebellum United States, Boer republics, pre-apartheid and apartheid South Africa, or many colonial political systems, who provided suffrage only for white settlers and some privileged non-white groups). Canada and Australia denied suffrage for their indigenous populations until the 1960s.
- Indirect – nothing in law specifically prevents anyone from voting on account of their race, but other laws or regulations are used to exclude people of a particular race. In southern states of the United States of America before the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, poll taxes, literacy and other tests were used to disenfranchise African-Americans.[58][61] Property qualifications have tended to disenfranchise a minority race, particularly if tribally owned land is not allowed to be taken into consideration. In some cases this was an unintended (but usually welcome) consequence.[citation needed] Many African colonies after World War II until decolonization had tough education and property qualifications which practically gave meaningful representation only for rich European minorities.
- Unofficial – nothing in law prevents anyone from voting on account of their race, but people of particular races are intimidated or otherwise prevented from exercising this right. This was a common tactic employed by white Southerners against Freedmen during the Reconstruction Era and the following period before more formal methods of disenfranchisement became entrenched. Unofficial discrimination could even manifest in ways which, while allowing the act of voting itself, effectively deprive it of any value – for example, in Israel, the country's Arab minority has maintained a party-system separate from that of the Jewish majority. In the run-up for the country's 2015 elections, the electoral threshold was raised from 2% to 3.25%, thus forcing the dominant Arab parties – Hadash, the United Arab List, Balad and Ta'al – either to run under one list or risk losing their parliamentary representation.
Age
[edit]| Youth rights |
|---|
All modern democracies require voters to meet age qualifications to vote.[citation needed] Worldwide voting ages are not consistent, differing between countries and even within countries, though the range usually varies between 16 and 21 years. The United Kingdom was the first major democratic nation to extend suffrage to those 18 and older in 1969.[62][63] The movement to lower the voting age is one aspect of the Youth rights movement. Demeny voting has been proposed as a form of proxy voting by parents on behalf of their children who are below the age of suffrage.
Nomination rules generally include age of candidacy rules.
Criminality
[edit]Some countries restrict the voting rights of convicted criminals. Some countries, and some U.S. states, also deny the right to vote to those convicted of serious crimes even after they are released from prison. In some cases (e.g. in many U.S. states) the denial of the right to vote is automatic upon a felony conviction; in other cases (e.g. France and Germany) deprivation of the vote is meted out separately, and often limited to perpetrators of specific crimes such as those against the electoral system or corruption of public officials. In the Republic of Ireland, prisoners are allowed the right to vote, following the Hirst v UK (No2) ruling, which was granted in 2006. Canada allowed only prisoners serving a term of less than 2 years the right to vote, but this was found to be unconstitutional in 2002 by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), and all prisoners have been allowed to vote as of the 2004 Canadian federal election.
Residency
[edit]Under certain electoral systems elections are held within subnational jurisdictions, thus preventing persons from voting who would otherwise be eligible on the basis that they do not reside within such a jurisdiction, or because they live in an area that cannot participate. In the United States, license plates in Washington, D.C. read "TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION," in reference to the district not holding a seat in either the House of Representatives or Senate, however residents can vote in presidential elections based on the Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution adopted in 1961. Residents of Puerto Rico enjoy neither.
Sometimes citizens become ineligible to vote because they are no longer resident in their country of citizenship. For example, Australian citizens who have been outside Australia for more than one and fewer than six years may excuse themselves from the requirement to vote in Australian elections while they remain outside Australia (voting in Australia is compulsory for resident citizens).[64] Danish citizens that reside permanently outside Denmark lose their right to vote.[65]
In some cases, a certain period of residence in a locality may required for the right to vote in that location. For example, in the United Kingdom up to 2001, each 15 February a new electoral register came into effect, based on registration as of the previous 10 October, with the effect of limiting voting to those resident five to seventeen months earlier depending on the timing of the election.
Nationality
[edit]In most countries, suffrage is limited to citizens and, in many cases, permanent residents of that country. However, some members of supra-national organisations such as the Commonwealth of Nations and the European Union have granted voting rights to citizens of all countries within that organisation. Until the mid-twentieth century, many Commonwealth countries gave the vote to all British citizens within the country, regardless of whether they were normally resident there. In most cases this was because there was no distinction between British and local citizenship. Several countries qualified this with restrictions preventing non-white British citizens such as Indians and British Africans from voting. Under European Union law, citizens of European Union countries can vote in each other's local and European Parliament elections on the same basis as citizens of the country in question, but usually not in national elections.
Naturalization
[edit]In some countries, naturalized citizens do not have the right to vote or to be a candidate, either permanently or for a determined period.
Article 5 of the 1831 Belgian Constitution made a difference between ordinary naturalization, and grande naturalisation. Only (former) foreigners who had been granted grande naturalisation were entitled to vote, be a candidate for parliamentary elections, or be appointed minister. However, ordinary naturalized citizens could vote for municipal elections.[66] Ordinary naturalized citizens and citizens who had acquired Belgian nationality through marriage could vote, but not run as candidates for parliamentary elections in 1976. The concepts of ordinary and grande naturalization were suppressed from the Constitution in 1991.[67]
In France, the 1889 Nationality Law barred those who had acquired the French nationality by naturalization or marriage from voting, and from eligibility and access to several public jobs. In 1938 the delay was reduced to five years.[68] These instances of discrimination, as well as others against naturalized citizens, were gradually abolished in 1973 (9 January 1973 law) and 1983.
In Morocco, a former French protectorate, and in Guinea, a former French colony, naturalized citizens are prohibited from voting for five years following their naturalization.[69][70]
In the Federated States of Micronesia, one must be a Micronesian citizen for at least 15 years to run for parliament.[71]
In Nicaragua, Peru and the Philippines, only citizens by birth are eligible for being elected to the national legislature; naturalized citizens enjoy only voting rights.[72][73][74]
In Uruguay, naturalized citizens have the right of eligibility to the parliament after five years.[75]
In the United States, the President and Vice President must be natural-born citizens. All other governmental offices may be held by any citizen, although citizens may only run for Congress after an extended period of citizenship (seven years for the House of Representatives and nine for the Senate).
Function
[edit]In France, an 1872 law, rescinded by a 1945 decree, prohibited all army personnel from voting.[76]
In Ireland, police (the Garda Síochána and, before 1925, the Dublin Metropolitan Police) were barred from voting in national elections, though not local elections, from 1923 to 1960.[77][78][79][80]
The 1876 Constitution of Texas (article VI, section 1) stated that "The following classes of persons shall not be allowed to vote in this State, to wit: (...) Fifth—All soldiers, marines and seamen, employed in the service of the army or navy of the United States."[81]
In many countries with a presidential system of government a person is forbidden to be a legislator and an official of the executive branch at the same time. Such provisions are found, for example, in Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
History around the world
[edit]
Australia
[edit]- 1855 – South Australia is the first colony to allow all male suffrage to British subjects (later extended to Aboriginal Australians over the age of 21.
- 1894 – South Australian women eligible to vote.[83]
- 1896 – Tasmania becomes last colony to allow all male suffrage.
- 1899 – Western Australian women eligible to vote.[83]
- 1902 – The Commonwealth Franchise Act enables women to vote federally and in the state of New South Wales. This legislation also allows women to run for government, making Australia the first democratic state in the world to allow this.
- 1921 – Edith Cowan is elected to the West Australian Legislative Assembly as member for West Perth, the first woman elected to any Australian Parliament.[84]
- 1962 – Australian Aborigines guaranteed the right to vote in Commonwealth elections, however, in practice this right was dependent on Aboriginal voting rights having been granted by the individual's respective state.
- 1965 – Queensland is the last state to grant voting rights to Aboriginal Australians.
- 1973 - After South Australian Premier Don Dunstan introduced the Age of Majority (Reduction) Bill in October 1970, the voting age in South Australia was lowered to 18 years old in 1973. Consequently, the voting age for all federal elections was lowered from 21 to 18. The states had lowered the voting age to 18 by 1973, the first being Western Australia in 1970.
Canada
[edit]- 1871 – One of the first acts of the new Province of British Columbia strips the franchise from First Nations, and ensures Chinese and Japanese people are prevented from voting.
- 1916 – Manitoba becomes the first province in which women have the right to vote in provincial elections.[85][86]
- 1917 – The federal Wartime Elections Act gives voting rights to women with relatives fighting overseas. Voting rights are stripped from all "enemy aliens" (those born in enemy countries who arrived in Canada after 1902; see also Ukrainian Canadian internment).[87] The federal Military Voters Act gives the vote to all soldiers, even non-citizens, (with the exception of Indian and Metis veterans)[88] and to women serving as nurses or clerks for the armed forces, but the votes are not for specific candidates but simply for or against the government.
- 1918 – Women gain full voting rights in federal elections.[89]
- 1919 – Women gain the right to run for federal office.[89]
- 1940 – Quebec becomes the last province where women's right to vote is recognized. (see Canadian women during the world wars for more information on Canadian suffrage)
- 1947 – Racial exclusions against Chinese and Indo-Canadians lifted.
- 1948 – Racial exclusions against Japanese Canadians lifted.[90]
- 1955 – Religious exclusions are removed from election laws.[91]
- 1960 – Right to vote is extended unconditionally to First Nations peoples. (Previously they could vote only by giving up their status as First Nations people.)[92]
- 1960 – Right to vote in advance is extended to all electors willing to swear they would be absent on election day.[93]
- 1965 – First Nations people granted the right to vote in Alberta provincial elections, starting with the 1967 Alberta general election.[92]
- 1969 – First Nations people granted the right to vote in Quebec provincial elections, starting with the 1970 Quebec general election.[92]
- 1970 – Voting age lowered from 21 to 18.[94]
- 1982 – The new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees all adult citizens the right to vote.
- 1988 – Supreme Court of Canada rules mentally ill patients have the right to vote.[95]
- 1993 – Any elector can vote in advance.[91]
- 2000 – Legislation is introduced making it easier for people of no fixed address to vote.
- 2002 – Prisoners given the right to vote in the riding (voting district) where they were convicted. All adult Canadians except the Chief and Deputy Electoral Officers can now vote in Canada.[96]
- 2019 – The Supreme Court of Canada rules that portions of the federal Canada Elections Act which prevent citizens who have been living abroad for more than five years from voting by mail are in violation of Section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and thus unconstitutional.[97]
European Union
[edit]The European Union has given the right to vote in municipal elections to the citizen of another EU country by the Council Directive 94/80/EG from 19 December 1994.[98]
Finland
[edit]- 1907 - Universal suffrage in all elections for all over 24 years old[99]
- 2000 – Section 14, al. 2 of the 2000 Constitution of Finland states that "Every Finnish citizen and every foreigner permanently resident in Finland, having attained eighteen years of age, has the right to vote in municipal elections and municipal referendums, as provided by an Act. Provisions on the right to otherwise participate in municipal government are laid down by an Act."[100]
France
[edit]- 11 August 1792: Introduction of universal suffrage (men only)
- 1795: Universal suffrage for men is replaced with indirect Census suffrage
- 13 December 1799: The French Consulate re-establishes male universal suffrage increased from 246,000 to over 9 million.
- In 1850 (31 May): The number of people eligible to vote is reduced by 30% by excluding criminals and the homeless.
- Napoleon III calls a referendum in 1851 (21 December), all men aged 21 and over are allowed to vote. Male universal suffrage is established thereafter.
- As of 21 April 1944 the franchise is extended to women over 21.
- Effective 9 July 1974 the minimum age to vote is reduced to 18 years old.[101]
Germany
[edit]- 1848 – male citizens (citizens of state in German Confederation), adult and "independent" got voting rights, male voting population - 85%[102][103]
- 1849 – male citizens above 25, not disfranchised, not declared legally incapable, did not claim pauper relief a year before the election, not a bankrupt nor in bankruptcy proceedings, not convicted of electoral fraud,[104]
- 1866 – male citizens above 25 (citizen for at least three years), not disfranchised, not declared legally incapable, did not claim pauper relief a year before the election, enrolled on the electoral roll, inhabitant of the electoral district,[105]
- 1869 – male citizens above 25 (citizens of state in North German Confederation), not disfranchised, not a bankrupt nor in bankruptcy proceedings, not serving soldier, did not claim pauper relief a year before the election, inhabitant of the electoral district, not in prison, not declared legally incapable,[106]
- 1918 - full suffrage for all citizens above 20[107]
- 1970 - full suffrage for all citizens above 18[108]
- 2019 - suffrage for citizens with insanity defense, and persons under guardianship.[109]
India
[edit]Since the very first Indian general election held in 1951–52, universal suffrage for all adult citizens aged 21 or older was established under Article 326 of the Constitution of India. The minimum voting age was reduced to 18 years by the 61st Amendment, effective 28 March 1989.
Ireland
[edit]Italy
[edit]The Supreme Court states that "the rules derogating from the passive electoral law must be strictly interpreted".[110]
Japan
[edit]- 1889 – Male taxpayers above 25 that paid at least 15 JPY of tax got voting rights,[111] the voting population were 450,000 (1.1% of Japan population),[112]
- 1900 – Male taxpayers above 25 that paid at least 10 JPY of tax got voting rights, the voting population were 980,000 (2.2% of Japan population),[112]
- 1919 – Male taxpayers above 25 that paid at least 3 JPY of tax got voting rights, the voting population were 3,070,000 (5.5% of Japan population)[113]
- 1925 – Male above 25 got voting rights, the voting population were 12,410,000 (20% of Japan population),[112]
- 1945 – Japan citizens above 20 got voting rights, the voting population were 36,880,000 (48.7% of Japan population),[113]
- 2015 – Japan citizens above 18 got voting rights, voting population - 83.3% of Japan population.[114]
New Zealand
[edit]- 1853 – British government passes the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, granting limited self-rule, including a bicameral parliament, to the colony. The vote was limited to male British subjects aged 21 or over who owned or rented sufficient property and were not imprisoned for a serious offence. Communally owned land was excluded from the property qualification, thus disenfranchising most Māori (indigenous) men.
- 1860 – Franchise extended to holders of miner's licenses who met all voting qualifications except that of property.
- 1867 – Māori seats established, giving Māori four reserved seats in the lower house. There was no property qualification; thus Māori men gained universal suffrage before other New Zealanders. The number of seats did not reflect the size of the Māori population, but Māori men who met the property requirement for general electorates were able to vote in them or in the Māori electorates but not both.
- 1879 – Property requirement abolished.
- 1893 – Women won equal voting rights with men, making New Zealand the first nation in the world to allow women to vote.
- 1969 – Voting age lowered to 20.
- 1974 – Voting age lowered to 18.
- 1975 – Franchise extended to permanent residents of New Zealand, regardless of whether they have citizenship.
- 1996 – Number of Māori seats increased to reflect Māori population.
- 2010 – Prisoners imprisoned for one year or more denied voting rights while serving the sentence.
Norway
[edit]- 1814 – The Norwegian constitution gave male landowners or officials above the age of 25 full voting rights.[115]
- 1885 – Male taxpayers that paid at least 500 NOK of tax (800 NOK in towns) got voting rights.
- 1900 – Universal suffrage for men over 25.
- 1901 – Women, over 25, paying tax or having common household with a man paying tax, got the right to vote in local elections.
- 1909 – Women, over 25, paying tax or having common household with a man paying tax, got full voting rights.
- 1913 – Universal suffrage for all over 25, applying from the election in 1915.
- 1920 – Voting age lowered to 23.[116]
- 1946 – Voting age lowered to 21.
- 1967 – Voting age lowered to 20.
- 1978 – Voting age lowered to 18.
Poland
[edit]- 1918 – In its first days of independence in 1918, after 123 years of partition, voting rights were granted to both men and women. Eight women were elected to the Sejm in 1919.
- 1952 – Voting age lowered to 18.
Singapore
[edit]South Africa
[edit]- 1910 – The Union of South Africa is established by the South Africa Act 1909. The House of Assembly is elected by first-past-the-post voting in single-member constituencies. The franchise qualifications are the same as those previously existing for elections of the legislatures of the colonies that comprised the Union. In the Transvaal and the Orange Free State the franchise is limited to white men. In Natal the franchise is limited to men meeting property and literacy qualifications; it was theoretically colour-blind but in practise nearly all non-white men were excluded. The traditional "Cape Qualified Franchise" of the Cape Province is limited to men meeting property and literacy qualifications and is colour-blind; nonetheless 85% of voters are white. The rights of non-white voters in the Cape Province are protected by an entrenched clause in the South Africa Act requiring a two-thirds vote in a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament.
- 1930 – The Women's Enfranchisement Act, 1930 extends the right to vote to all white women over the age of 21.
- 1931 – The Franchise Laws Amendment Act, 1931 removes the property and literacy qualifications for all white men over the age of 21, but they are retained for non-white voters.
- 1936 – The Representation of Natives Act, 1936 removes black voters in the Cape Province from the common voters' roll and instead allows them to elect three "Native Representative Members" to the House of Assembly. Four Senators are to be indirectly elected by chiefs and local authorities to represent black South Africans throughout the country. The act is passed with the necessary two-thirds majority in a joint sitting.
- 1951 – The Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951 is passed by Parliament by an ordinary majority in separate sittings. It purports to remove coloured voters in the Cape Province from the common voters' roll and instead allow them to elect four "Coloured Representative Members" to the House of Assembly.
- 1952 – In Harris v Minister of the Interior the Separate Representation of Voters Act is annulled by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court because it was not passed with the necessary two-thirds majority in a joint sitting. Parliament passes the High Court of Parliament Act, 1952, purporting to allow it to reverse this decision, but the Appellate Division annuls it as well.
- 1956 – By packing the Senate and the Appellate Division, the government passes the South Africa Act Amendment Act, 1956, reversing the annulment of the Separate Representation of Voters Act and giving it the force of law.
- 1958 – The Electoral Law Amendment Act, 1958 reduces the voting age for white voters from 21 to 18.
- 1959 – The Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959 repeals the Representation of Natives Act, removing all representation of black people in Parliament.
- 1968 – The Separate Representation of Voters Amendment Act, 1968 repeals the Separate Representation of Voters Act, removing all representation of coloured people in Parliament.
- 1969 – The first election of the Coloured Persons Representative Council (CPRC), which has limited legislative powers, is held. Every Coloured citizen over the age of 21 can vote for its members, in first-past-the-post elections in single-member constituencies.
- 1978 – The voting age for the CPRC is reduced from 21 to 18.
- 1981 – The first election of the South African Indian Council (SAIC), which has limited legislative powers, is held. Every Indian South African citizen over the age of 18 can vote for its members, in first-past-the-post elections in single-member constituencies.
- 1984 – The Constitution of 1983 establishes the Tricameral Parliament. Two new Houses of Parliament are created, the House of Representatives to represent coloured citizens and the House of Delegates to represent Indian citizens. Every coloured and Indian citizen over the age of 18 can vote in elections for the relevant house. As with the House of Assembly, the members are elected by first-past-the-post voting in single-member constituencies. The CPRC and SAIC are abolished.
- 1994 – With the end of apartheid, the Interim Constitution of 1993 abolishes the Tricameral Parliament and all racial discrimination in voting rights. A new National Assembly is created, and every South African citizen over the age of 18 has the right to vote for the assembly. The right to vote is also extended to long term residents. It is estimated the 500 000 foreign nationals voted in the 1994 national and provincial elections. Elections of the assembly are based on party-list proportional representation. The right to vote is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
- 1999 – In August and Another v Electoral Commission and Others the Constitutional Court rules that prisoners cannot be denied the right to vote without a law that explicitly does so.
- 2003 – The Electoral Laws Amendment Act, 2003 purports to prohibit convicted prisoners from voting.
- 2004 – In Minister of Home Affairs v NICRO and Others the Constitutional Court rules that prisoners cannot be denied the right to vote, and invalidates the laws that do so.
- 2009 – In Richter v Minister for Home Affairs and Others the Constitutional Court rules that South African citizens outside the country cannot be denied the right to vote.
Sri Lanka
[edit]- 1931 - Donoughmore Constitution granted equal suffrage for women and men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions.
Sweden
[edit]- 1809 – New constitution adopted and separation of powers outlined in the Instrument of Government.
- 1810 – The Riksdag Act, setting out the procedures of functioning of the Riksdag, is introduced.
- 1862 – Under the municipal laws of 1862, some women were entitled to vote in local elections.
- 1865 – Parliament of Four Estates abolished and replaced by a bicameral legislature. The members of the First Chamber were elected indirectly by the county councils and the municipal assemblies in the larger towns and cities.
- 1909 – All men who had done their military service and who paid tax were granted suffrage.
- 1918 – Universal, and equal suffrage were introduced for local elections.
- 1919 – Universal, equal, and women's suffrage granted for general elections.
- 1921 – First general election with universal, equal, and women's suffrage enacted, although some groups were still unable to vote.
- 1922 – Requirement that men had to have completed national military service to be able to vote abolished.
- 1937 – Interns in prisons and institutions granted suffrage.
- 1945 – Individuals who had gone into bankruptcy or were dependent on welfare granted suffrage.
- 1970 – Indirectly elected upper chamber dismantled.[117][relevant?]
- 1974 – Instrument of Government stopped being enforced.[needs context].
- 1989 – The final limitations on suffrage abolished along with the Riksdag's decision to abolish the 'declaration of legal incompetency'.[118]
Turkey
[edit]- 1926 – Turkish civil code (Equality in civil rights)
- 1930 – Right to vote in local elections
- 1933 – First woman muhtar (Village head) Gülkız Ürbül in Demircidere village, Aydın Province
- 1934 – Right to vote in General elections
- 1935 – First 18 Women MPs in Turkish parliament
- 1950 – First woman city mayor Müfide İlhan in Mersin
United Kingdom
[edit]
From 1265, a few percent of the adult male population in the Kingdom of England (of which Wales was a full and equal member from 1542) were able to vote in parliamentary elections that occurred at irregular intervals to the Parliament of England.[119][120] The franchise for the Parliament of Scotland developed separately. King Henry VI of England established in 1432 that only owners of property worth at least forty shillings, a significant sum, were entitled to vote in an English county constituency. The franchise was restricted to males by custom rather than statute.[121] Changes were made to the details of the system, but there was no major reform until the Reform Act 1832.[nb 3] A series of Reform Acts and Representation of the People Acts followed. In 1918, all men over 21 and some women over 30 won the right to vote, and in 1928 all women over 21 won the right to vote resulting in universal suffrage.[123]
- Reform Act 1832 – extended voting rights to adult males who rented propertied land of a certain value, so allowing 1 in 7 adult males in the UK voting rights.
- Chartism – The People's Charter was drawn up in 1838 by the London Working Men's Association. The following year, the first Chartist petition was presented to House of Commons. Further Chartist petitions were presented in 1842 and 1848.[124]
- Reform Act 1867 – extended the franchise to men in urban areas who met a property qualification, so increasing male suffrage.
- Reform Act 1884 – addressed imbalances between the boroughs and the countryside; this brought the voting population to 5,500,000, although 40% of males were still disenfranchised because of the property qualification.
- Between 1885 and 1918 moves were made by the women's suffrage movement to ensure votes for women. However, the duration of the First World War stopped this reform movement.
- Representation of the People Act 1918 – the consequences of World War I persuaded the government to expand the right to vote, not only for the many men who fought in the war who were disenfranchised, but also for the women who worked in factories, agriculture and elsewhere as part of the war effort, often substituting for enlisted men and including dangerous work such as in munitions factories. All men aged 21 and over were given the right to vote. Property restrictions for voting were lifted for men. The local government franchise was extended to include all women over 21, on the same terms as men. Parliamentary Votes were given to 40% of women, with property restrictions and limited to those over 30 years old. This increased the electorate from 7.7 million to 21.4 million with women making up 8.5 million of the electorate. Seven percent of the electorate had more than one vote, either because they owned business property or because they were university graduates. The first election with this system was the 1918 general election.
- Representation of the People Act 1928 – equal suffrage for women and men, with voting possible at 21 with no property restrictions.
- Representation of the People Act 1948 – removed plural voting in parliamentary elections for university graduates and business owners.
- Representation of the People Act 1969 – extension of suffrage to those 18 and older, the first major democratic country to do so,[62][125] and abolition of plural voting in local government elections.
United States
[edit]The Constitution of the United States did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to decide this status. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only white male adult property owners to vote (about 6% of the population).[126][127] By 1856 property ownership requirements were eliminated in all states, giving suffrage to most white men. However, tax-paying requirements remained in five states until 1860 and in two states until the 20th century.[128][129]
Since the Civil War, five amendments to the Constitution have limited the ways in which the right to vote may be restricted in American elections, though none have added a general right to vote.[nb 4]
- 15th Amendment (1870): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
- 19th Amendment (1920): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
- 23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice President.
- 24th Amendment (1964): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." This did not change the rules for state elections.
- 26th Amendment (1971): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
The use of grandfather clauses to allow European-Americans to vote while excluding African-Americans from voting was ruled unconstitutional in the 1915 decision Guinn v. United States. States continued to use literacy tests and poll taxes, which also disenfranchised poor white citizens. Racial equality in voting was substantially secured after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a major victory in the Civil Rights Movement. State elections, it was not until the 1966 decision Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections that the U.S. Supreme Court declared state poll taxes violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[130][131]
Majority-Muslim countries
[edit]See also
[edit]Notes
[edit]- ^ Strictly speaking, all ratepayers; however, domestic rates were abolished after the 1977 election.[34][35][36]
- ^ For example South Dublin County Council produced lists of addresses of residences[38] and ratepayers[39] within Palmerstown for the 2014 plebiscite on changing the district's spelling.
- ^ Until this Act specified 'male persons', a few women had been able to vote in parliamentary elections through property ownership, although this was rare.[122]
- ^ The 14th Amendment (1868) altered the way each state is represented in the House of Representatives. It counted all residents for apportionment including former slaves, overriding the three-fifths compromise of the original Constitution; it also reduced a state's apportionment if it wrongfully denied the right to vote to males over age 21. However, this sanction was not enforced in practice.
References
[edit]- ^ "suffrage". The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (5th ed.). HarperCollins.
- ^ "Definition of "suffrage" – Collins English Dictionary". Retrieved 28 July 2015.
- ^ "suffrage – definition of suffrage in English from the Oxford dictionary". Archived from the original on 27 November 2013. Retrieved 28 July 2015.
- ^ "Deprivation of the Right to Vote". ACE Electoral Knowledge Network. Aceproject.org.
- ^ Gianoulis, Tina (2015). "Women's Suffrage Movement" (PDF). glbtq. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 March 2019.
- ^ a b Umpierrez de Reguero, Sebastián; Finn, Victoria (2 July 2024). "Migrants' intention to vote in two countries, one country, or neither". Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 34 (3): 466–489. doi:10.1080/17457289.2023.2189727. hdl:1814/75483. ISSN 1745-7289.
- ^ "Who is eligible to vote at a UK general election?". The Electoral Commission. Archived from the original on 19 April 2014. Retrieved 9 February 2016
- ^ "Can I vote?". European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom. Archived from the original on 11 March 2016. Retrieved 9 February 2016
- ^ "Why Can Commonwealth Citizens Vote in the U.K.? An Expat Asks". The Wall Street Journal. 27 April 2015. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
- ^ G. E. M. de Ste. Croix (March 1954), "Suffragium: From Vote to Patronage", The British Journal of Sociology, 5 (1), The London School of Economics and Political Science: 33–48, doi:10.2307/588044, JSTOR 588044
- ^ "LacusCurtius • Voting in Ancient Rome – Suffragium (Smith's Dictionary, 1875)". Penelope.uchicago.edu. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ "Suffrage". Merriam-Webster. 31 August 2012. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ Hamilton, Vivian E. (2012). "Democratic Inclusion, Cognitive Development, and the Age of Electoral Majority". Rochester, NY. SSRN 2086875.
- ^ Poole, Robert (April 2006). "'By the Law or the Sword': Peterloo Revisited". History. 2 (302): 254–276. doi:10.1111/j.1468-229X.2006.00366.x. JSTOR 24427836.
- ^ A Vision of Britain through time. "Greater Manchester Met.C: Total Population". Retrieved 6 April 2007.
- ^ Nohlen, Dieter, e al. (2001). Elections in Asia and the Pacific: South East Asia, East Asia, and the South Pacific. p. 14. Oxford University Press, 2001
- ^ A. Kulinski, K. Pawlowski. The Atlantic Community – The Titanic of the XXI Century. p. 96. WSB-NLU. 2010
- ^ "Definition of SUFFRAGE". merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 1 July 2019.
- ^ "The New Jersey Constitution of 1776". Retrieved 17 December 2006.
- ^ "Votes for Women". Electoral Commission of New Zealand. Archived from the original on 19 August 2012. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
- ^ "Opposition to Suffrage". History of U.S. Woman's Suffrage. 5 April 2016. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "12 Cruel Anti-Suffragette Cartoons". mentalfloss.com. 21 June 2015. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
- ^ "Definition: suffrage". Websters Dictionary. Archived from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 24 October 2011.
- ^ Bishop, Sylvia; Hoeffler, Anke (2016). "Free and fair elections: A new database". Journal of Peace Research. 53 (4): 608–616. doi:10.1177/0022343316642508. S2CID 110571606.
- ^ "Criteria to stand as a candidate — ACE Electoral Knowledge Network". Aceproject.org. 3 September 2010. Retrieved 29 October 2012.
- ^ Keyssar, Alexander (2009), The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (PDF) (2nd ed.), p. 5.
- ^ Constitution of the Empire of Brazil
- ^ "CIA:The World Factbook". Archived from the original on 9 January 2008. Retrieved 22 May 2012.
- ^ Johal, Sukhdev; Moran, Michael; Williams, Karel (2012). "The future has been postponed: The Great Financial Crisis and British politics". British Politics. 7 (1): 69–81. doi:10.1057/bp.2011.30. ISSN 1746-918X. S2CID 153648412.
- ^ Leaver, Adam. "Banking's groundhog day". redpepper.org.uk. Red Pepper. Retrieved 21 December 2017.
- ^ "Written Answers to Questions – City of London Remembrancer". Hansard. UK Parliament. 3 March 2014. 3 March 2014 : Column 593W. Retrieved 28 October 2014.
- ^ Mathiason, Nick; Newman, Melanie (9 July 2012). "City of London Corporation: a lesson in lobbying". The Guardian.
- ^ Arthur, Paul (17 June 2014). "Northern Ireland 1968–72". In Aughey, Arthur; Morrow, Duncan (eds.). Northern Ireland Politics. Taylor & Francis. p. 24. ISBN 9781317890836. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
- ^ Callanan, Mark; Keogan, Justin F. (2003). Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out. Institute of Public Administration. p. 332. ISBN 9781902448930. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
- ^ "Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1978". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
- ^ "Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1978 – Debates". Bills index. Oireachtas. 14 December 1977. Retrieved 8 January 2018.;
- ^ "S.I. No. 31/1956 – Local Government (Changing of Place Names) Regulations, 1956". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
- ^ "Plebiscite Palmerston Addresses". South Dublin County Council. 2014. Archived from the original on 9 January 2018. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
- ^ "Plebiscite Palmerston Rated Occupiers". South Dublin County Council. 2014. Archived from the original on 9 January 2018. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
- ^ "S.I. No. 166/2007 – Local Government (Business Improvement Districts Ratepayer Plebiscite) Regulations 2007". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 8 January 2018.; "Q.50 – Councillor Mannix Flynn" (PDF). Questions Lodged Pursuant to Standing Order No.16 for Reply at the Monthly Meeting of Dublin City Council to be Held on Monday, 4th September 2017. pp. 11–13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 December 2017. Retrieved 8 January 2018.
- ^ "Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1930 §§31(1), 32(2)–(3), 34, 35". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 2 February 2017.; "Local Government (Dublin) Act, 1935, Section 2". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 2 February 2017.
- ^ Hasham, Nicole; McKenny, Leesha (16 August 2014). "City of Sydney business vote plan may falter, backers concede". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
- ^ Weissmann, Jordan (August 2014). "Australia businesses get to vote: Sydney conservatives want it to be required by law". Slate. Retrieved 27 November 2015.
- ^ Ivanova, Irina (21 June 2023). "A Delaware city is set to give corporations the right to vote in elections". Moneywatch. CBS News.
- ^ "Abbess". Original Catholic Encyclopedia. 21 July 2010. Archived from the original on 14 January 2012. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
- ^ Women Mystics Confront the Modern World (Marie-Florine Bruneau: State University of New York: 1998: p. 106)
- ^ Ridge, Mian (25 March 2008). "Bhutan makes it official: it's a democracy". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2 September 2011.
- ^ Williamson, Chilton (1960), American Suffrage. From property to democracy, Princeton University Press
- ^ Constitution of Delaware, 1776, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, archived from the original on 30 November 2007, retrieved 7 December 2007
- ^ State Constitution (Religious Sections) – Delaware, The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State, retrieved 7 December 2007
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) - ^ An Act for establishing the constitution of the State of South Carolina, 19 March 1778, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, archived from the original on 13 December 2007, retrieved 5 December 2007
- ^ Constitution of Georgia, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, 5 February 1777, archived from the original on 13 December 2007, retrieved 7 December 2007
- ^ An Act for the relief of Jews in Maryland, passed 26 February 1825, vol. 3183, Archives of Maryland, 26 February 1825, p. 1670, retrieved 5 December 2007
- ^ A History of the Vote in Canada, Chapter 3 Modernization, 1920–1981, Elections Canada, retrieved 6 December 2007
- ^ Chronology – From the History Museum of the Romanian Jews; Hasefer Publishing House, The Romanian Jewish Community, archived from the original on 14 September 2012, retrieved 6 December 2007
- ^ "UK Parliamentary Website Election FAQs". Archived from the original on 16 August 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
- ^ a b de Ferranti, David (2004). Inequality in Latin America: Breaking with History? (PDF). Washington DC, USA: The World Bank. pp. 109–122.
- ^ a b Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965) U.S. National Archives.
- ^ "Civil Rights Movement – Literacy Tests & Voter Applications". crmvet.org. Retrieved 10 December 2018.
- ^ Wood, J. R. T. (June 2005). So far and no further! Rhodesia's bid for independence during the retreat from empire 1959–1965. Victoria, British Columbia: Trafford Publishing. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-4120-4952-8.
- ^ The Constitution: The 24th Amendment Time. Retrieved 24 October 2011.
- ^ a b Bingham, Adrian (25 June 2019). "'The last milestone' on the journey to full adult suffrage? 50 years of debates about the voting age". History & Policy. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ Loughran, Thomas; Mycock, Andrew; Tonge, Jonathan (3 November 2021). "Lowering the voting age: three lessons from the 1969 Representation of the People's Act". British Politics and Policy at LSE. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ "Australian Electoral Commission, "Voting Overseas – Frequently Asked Questions", 20 November 2007". Aec.gov.au. 10 January 2011. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ "Lov om valg til Folketinget – Valgret og valgbarhed", 10 April 2014". Retrieved 24 October 2015.
- ^ Delcour, M.C., Traité théorique et pratique du droit électoral appliqué aux élections communales, Louvain, Ickx & Geets, 1842, p. 16
- ^ Lambert, Pierre-Yves (1999), La participation politique des allochtones en Belgique – Historique et situation bruxelloise, Academia-Bruylant (coll. Sybidi Papers), Louvain-la-Neuve, retrieved 6 December 2007
- ^ "Patrick Weil, Nationalité française (débat sur la)", dans Jean-François Sirinelli (dir.), Dictionnaire historique de la vie politique française au XXe siècle, Paris, PUF, 1995, pp. 719–721
- ^ Nadia Bernoussi, L'évolution du processus électoral au Maroc, 22 December 2005 Archived 25 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "art. 3, al. 3, Loi Organique portant code électoral guinéen". Ife.org.mx. Archived from the original on 2 June 2013. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ "Federated States of Micronesia". Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved 12 December 2007.
- ^ "Nicaragua". Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved 12 December 2007.
- ^ "Peru". Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved 12 December 2007.
- ^ "Philippines". Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved 12 December 2007.
- ^ "Uruguay". Inter-Parliamentary Union. Retrieved 12 December 2007.
- ^ Plénitude de la République et extension du suffrage universel (in French), Assemblée nationale (National Assembly of France), archived from the original on 19 December 2007, retrieved 5 December 2007
- ^ "Electoral Act, 1923, Section 5". Irish Statute Book. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
- ^ "Electoral Act, 1960". Irish Statute Book. pp. sec.3 and Schedule. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
- ^ "Private Members' Business. – Garda Síochána Franchise—Motion". Dáil Éireann debates. Oireachtas. 2 November 1955. Retrieved 8 December 2015.
- ^ Blaney, Neil (6 December 1960). "Electoral Bill, 1960 – Second Stages". Dáil Éireann debates. Oireachtas. Retrieved 4 December 2015.
One of the important proposals is contained in Section 3 and in the Schedule which provides for the repeal of the prohibition on the registration of Gardaí as voters at Dáil elections. In future, if this provision is enacted, Gardaí can vote at Dáil and Presidential elections and at referendums.
- ^ Constitution of the State of Texas (1876), Tarlton Law Library, The University of Texas School of Law, archived from the original on 29 January 2008, retrieved 8 December 2007
- ^ "Universal suffrage granted to women". Our World in Data. Retrieved 6 March 2020.
- ^ a b "Women and the Right to Vote in Australia". Australian Electoral Commission. 28 January 2011. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ "Electoral Milestones for Women". Australian Electoral Commission. 8 March 2013. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ "Women win the vote : Digital Resources on Manitoba History". manitobia.ca. Archived from the original on 27 August 2011. Retrieved 16 March 2017.
- ^ Canada, Elections. "A History of the Vote in Canada". Retrieved 16 March 2017.
- ^ "The Famous Five – Timeline". Abheritage.ca. 8 December 2010. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ Indian Act of Canada S.C. 1938 chap 46 sec 14(2)(i)/Dominion Elections Act S.C.1948 chap 46
- ^ a b "Canada – Women's Vote – Women Suffrage". Faculty.marianopolis.edu. 27 January 1916. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ "CBC Digital Archives". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ a b Canada, Elections. "A History of the Vote in Canada". Retrieved 16 March 2017.
- ^ a b c Noel Dyck; Tonio Sadik (15 April 2016). "Aboriginal people, political organization and activism". The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 August 2019.
{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ Canada, Elections. "The Evolution of the Federal Franchise". Retrieved 16 March 2017.
- ^ "The Evolution of the Federal Franchise". Elections Canada. 9 December 2020.
- ^ "CBC Digital Archives". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 21 June 2013.
- ^ Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer)
- ^ "Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1". Lexum. January 2001. Retrieved 27 January 2019.
- ^ "Council Directive 94/80/EG". EUR-Lex.
- ^ Mylly, Juhani (2006). Edustuksellisen kansanvallan läpimurto. Suomen eduskunta 100 vuotta. Helsinki: Edita. ISBN 978-951-37-4541-7. OCLC 77267222.
- ^ "The Constitution of Finland" (PDF). 11 June 1999. Archived from the original (PDF) on 19 February 2002. Retrieved 10 December 2007.
- ^ "France lowers age of minors to 18". Kitchener-Waterloo Record. Ontario. 10 July 1974. p. 36.
- ^ "Geschichte des Wahlrechts". bundestagswahl-bw.de (in German). Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "Verfassungen und Gesetze des Rheinbundes und des Deutschen Bundes (1806-1866)". verfassungen.de. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "documentArchiv.de - Gesetz, betreffend die Wahlen der Abgeordneten zum Volkshause ["Frankfurter Reichswahlgesetz"] (12.04.1849)". documentarchiv.de. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "Wahlgesetz für den konstituierenden Reichstag des Norddeutschen Bundes (1866". verfassungen.de. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "Wahlgesetz für den Reichstag des Norddeutschen Bundes – Wikisource". de.wikisource.org (in German). Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "Deutsches Reichsgesetzblatt 1918 Nr. 167 – Wikisource". de.wikisource.org (in German). Retrieved 18 March 2022.
- ^ "Plenarprotokoll Deutscher Bundestag 60. Sitzung" (PDF). Deutscher Bundestag (in German). Retrieved 18 March 2022.
- ^ Wahlrechtsausschlüsse für Betreute in allen Angelegenheiten und wegen Schuldunfähigkeit untergebrachte Straftäter verfassungswidrig, exclusion from suffrage is unconstitutional, 29 January 2019.
- ^ Buonomo, Giampiero (2000). "Nel passaggio Usl-Asl solo tre dirigenti restano ineleggibili negli enti locali". Diritto&Giustizia Edizione Online. Archived from the original on 11 December 2019. Retrieved 14 March 2016.
- ^ "選挙のあゆみ". pref.yamaguchi.lg.jp. Archived from the original on 11 May 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ a b c "川崎市:日本の選挙権拡大の歴史". city.kawasaki.jp. 7 April 2010. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ a b "わが国の選挙権の拡大". gakusyu.shizuoka-c.ed.jp. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "選挙の歴史を学ぼう|選挙フレンズ|京都市選挙管理委員会事務局". www2.city.kyoto.lg.jp. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ "Stemmerettens historie i Norge" (in Norwegian). Espend Søbye. 19 March 2021.
- ^ "Stemmerettens historie" (in Norwegian). Laila Ø. Bakken, NRK. 12 June 2007.
- ^ Ruin, Olof (1990). Tage Erlander: serving the welfare state, 1946–1969. Pitt series in policy and institutional studies, 99-0818751-1. Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press. p. 93. ISBN 9780822936312. SELIBR 5791923.
riksdag bicameral.
- ^ History of the Riksdag Official Riksdag Website. Retrieved 19 May 2018
- ^ "Origins and growth of Parliament". The National Archives. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ "Getting the vote". The National Archives. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
- ^ "Ancient voting rights", The History of the Parliamentary Franchise, House of Commons Library, 1 March 2013, p. 6, retrieved 16 March 2016
- ^ Heater, Derek (2006). Citizenship in Britain: A History. Edinburgh University Press. p. 107. ISBN 9780748626724.
- ^ "The History of the Parliamentary Franchise". House of Commons Library. 1 March 2013. Retrieved 16 March 2016.
- ^ "Key dates". UK Parliament.
- ^ Loughran, Thomas; Mycock, Andrew; Tonge, Jonathan (3 November 2021). "Lowering the voting age: three lessons from the 1969 Representation of the People's Act". British Politics and Policy at LSE. Retrieved 31 December 2022.
- ^ "Expansion of Rights and Liberties – The Right of Suffrage". Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom. National Archives. Archived from the original on 6 July 2016. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
- ^ Janda, Kenneth; Berry, Jeffrey M.; Goldman, Jerry (2008). The challenge of democracy : government in America (9. ed., update ed.). Houghton Mifflin. p. 207. ISBN 9780618990948; Murrin, John M.; Johnson, Paul E.; McPherson, James M.; Fahs, Alice; Gerstle, Gary (2012). Liberty, Equality, Power: A History of the American People (6th ed.). Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. p. 296. ISBN 9780495904991.
- ^ Engerman, Stanley L.; Sokoloff, Kenneth L. (February 2005). "The Evolution of Suffrage Institutions in the New World" (PDF). pp. 16, 35. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 November 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2016.
By 1840, only three states retained a property qualification, North Carolina (for some state-wide offices only), Rhode Island, and Virginia. In 1856 North Carolina was the last state to end the practice. Tax-paying qualifications were also gone in all but a few states by the Civil War, but they survived into the 20th century in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
- ^ "U.S. Voting Rights". Infoplease. Retrieved 21 April 2015.
- ^ Scher, Richard K. (2015). The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?. Routledge. p. viii–ix. ISBN 9781317455363.
- ^ "Civil Rights in America: Racial Voting Rights" (PDF). A National Historic Landmarks Theme Study. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 July 2015.
Bibliography
[edit]- Adams, Jad. Women and the vote: A world history (Oxford University Press, 2014); wide-ranging scholarly survey. excerpt
- Atkinson, Neill. Adventures in Democracy: A History of the Vote in New Zealand (Dunedin: University of Otago Press, 2003).
- Banyikwa, A.K., "Gender and Elections in Africa" in The Routledge Handbook of Gender and Elections (2019)
- Banyikwa, A.K., and G.L. Brown. "Women's Suffrage in Africa" in Encyclopedias of Contemporary Women's Issues (2020)
- Barnes, Joel. "The British women's suffrage movement and the ancient constitution, 1867–1909." Historical Research 91.253 (2018): 505-527.
- Crook, Malcolm. "Universal Suffrage as Counter‐Revolution? Electoral Mobilisation under the Second Republic in France, 1848–1851." Journal of Historical Sociology 28.1 (2015): 49-66.
- Daley, Caroline, and Melanie Nolan, eds. Suffrage and beyond: International feminist perspectives (NYU Press, 1994).
- Edwards, Louise P. and Mina Roces, eds. Women's Suffrage in Asia: Gender, Nationalism, and Democracy (Routledge, 2004).
- Kenney, Anne R. Women's Suffrage and Social Politics in the French Third Republic (1984).
- Mukherjee, Sumita. Indian Suffragettes: Female Identities and Transnational Networks (Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2018)
- Mukherjee, Sumita. "Sisters in Arms" History Today (Dec 2018) 68#12 pp. 72–83. Short popular overview woman suffrage of major countries.
- Oguakwa, P.K. "Women's suffrage in Africa" in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Women in World History (2008)
- Juhani Mylly: Edustuksellisen kansanvallan läpimurto. Helsinki: Suomen eduskunta (Edita), 2006. ISBN 951-37-4541-4
- Pedroza, Luicy. "The democratic potential of enfranchising resident migrants." International Migration 53.3 (2015): 22-35. online
- Purvis, June, and June Hannam, eds. The British Women's Suffrage Campaign: National and International Perspectives (Routledge, 2021)
- Rose, Carol. "The Issue of Parliamentary Suffrage at the Frankfurt National Assembly." Central European History 5.2 (1972): 127-149. regarding universal suffrage in German history.
- Sangster, Joan. One Hundred Years of Struggle: The History of Women and the Vote in Canada (2018)
- Seghezza, Elena, and Pierluigi Morelli. "Suffrage extension, social identity, and redistribution: the case of the Second Reform Act." European Review of Economic History 23.1 (2019): 30-49. on 1867 law in Britain
- Senigaglia, Cristiana. "The debate on democratization and parliament in Germany from 1871 to 1918." Parliaments, Estates and Representation 40.3 (2020): 290-307.
- Smith, Paul. "Political parties, parliament and women's suffrage in France, 1919–1939." French History 11.3 (1997): 338-358.
- Teele, Dawn Langan. Forging the Franchise (Princeton University Press, 2018); why US and Britain came early.
- Towns, Ann. "Global Patterns and Debates in the Granting of Women's Suffrage." in The Palgrave Handbook of Women's Political Rights (Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2019) pp. 3–19.
- Willis, Justin, Gabrielle Lynch, and Nic Cheeseman. "Voting, Nationhood, and Citizenship in late-colonial Africa." Historical Journal 61.4 (2018): 1113–1135. online
United States
[edit]- Englert, Gianna. "'Not more democratic, but more moral': Tocqueville on the suffrage in America and France." The Tocqueville Review 42.2 (2021): 105-120.
- Keyssar, Alexander. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States (New York: Basic Books, 2000). ISBN 0-465-02968-X.
- Lichtman, Allan J. The Embattled Vote in America: From the Founding to the Present (Harvard UP. 2018)
- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Reports on Voting (2005) ISBN 978-0-8377-3103-2.
External links
[edit]- A History of the Vote in Canada, Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 2007.
- Suffrage in Canada
- Women's suffrage in Germany—19 January 1919—first suffrage (active and passive) for women in Germany
- . New International Encyclopedia. 1905.
Suffrage
View on GrokipediaDefinition and Conceptual Foundations
Etymology and Terminology
The term suffrage derives from the Latin suffragium, which originally denoted "support" or "assistance," evolving to signify a vote cast in an assembly or the right to vote by the classical period.[12] In Medieval Latin, suffragium shifted toward meanings related to intercessory prayer or ecclesiastical pleas on behalf of others, reflecting a connotation of supplication or backing.[13] This ecclesiastical sense entered Old French as sofrage or souffrage around the 13th century, denoting a plea or intercession, before passing into Middle English in the late 14th century primarily as "prayer" or "intercessory plea."[13] By the 17th century, the term regained its classical political connotation in English, referring explicitly to "a vote" or "the right to vote," aligning with its Roman roots in electoral contexts such as ballot tablets or assembly decisions.[2] In political terminology, suffrage specifically denotes the legal right to vote in public elections or referendums, often used interchangeably with franchise, which emphasizes the granted privilege or qualification to participate in the electoral process.[14] While franchise can extend to broader entitlements like commercial or property rights, in democratic theory it aligns closely with suffrage as the mechanism for citizen input into governance.[15] Voting rights, by contrast, encompasses not only the affirmative right to cast a ballot but also protections against disenfranchisement, such as prohibitions on discrimination by race, sex, or other traits, as codified in instruments like the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965.[16] Distinctions arise in comparative contexts: for instance, universal suffrage implies eligibility extended to all adult citizens without qualifiers like property ownership, whereas restricted forms (e.g., censitary suffrage) limit it to specific groups.[17] These terms underscore suffrage's role as a foundational element of representative government, distinct from mere participation, which requires active exercise of the right.[14]Core Principles of Franchise Allocation
The allocation of the franchise in democratic systems rests on principles aimed at ensuring that voters possess sufficient cognitive capacity, personal stake in societal outcomes, and allegiance to the polity, thereby promoting decisions that reflect rational judgment and accountability rather than impulsivity or external influence.[18][19] These criteria derive from the understanding that voting entails wielding coercive power over others through law, necessitating restrictions to mitigate risks of incompetent or uncommitted participation; historical expansions beyond such bounds, as in unrestricted universal suffrage, have often prioritized inclusivity over efficacy, leading to critiques of diminished electoral quality.[20] A primary principle is the minimum age threshold, typically set at 18 years in most democracies, serving as a proxy for the development of executive functions like impulse control and long-term foresight, which neuroscientific evidence links to prefrontal cortex maturation occurring predominantly after adolescence.[18] This cutoff balances inclusion with competence, as younger individuals exhibit higher susceptibility to peer pressure and lower predictive accuracy in political outcomes, justifying exclusion to safeguard collective decision-making; proposals to lower it to 16, while advanced in some locales like parts of Austria since 2007, overlook empirical gaps in adolescents' causal reasoning abilities compared to adults.[21] Similarly, exclusions for mental incapacity—such as guardianship due to severe cognitive impairment—uphold the competence standard, preventing votes cast without comprehension of their implications, as affirmed in electoral laws worldwide.[19] Citizenship requirements ensure franchise limited to those bound by the jurisdiction's laws and bearing direct fiscal or social costs of governance, embodying a stake-in-the-game rationale rooted in classical republican thought that non-citizens lack equivalent accountability or loyalty.[22] In the United States, federal law mandates citizenship for national elections, with states verifying via documentation to exclude non-citizens, who comprise less than 1% of purported illegal votes per audits but pose integrity risks if unbarred.[23] Disenfranchisement of felons, applied in varying degrees across jurisdictions—permanent in states like Florida for certain crimes—stems from the view that serious violations forfeit civic trust, akin to ancient concepts of civil death, though modern courts uphold it as a permissible regulation to preserve electoral legitimacy rather than mere punishment.[24] Historical property or literacy qualifications, once tied to tangible stakes, have largely yielded to these core filters, reflecting a shift toward broader but competence-bounded access.[25]Distinction from Related Concepts
Suffrage, defined as the legal right to vote in public elections and referendums, is conceptually distinct from citizenship, which establishes an individual's membership in a sovereign state and entails broader rights and obligations such as protection under law and potential taxation.[17] While many constitutions link suffrage eligibility to citizenship—such as Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution implicitly tying federal voting to citizenship status—disqualifications like felony convictions or mental incapacity can deny suffrage to citizens without revoking citizenship.[23] Conversely, certain non-citizens, including resident aliens in local elections in places like San Francisco since 2016, have been granted limited suffrage, underscoring that citizenship is neither necessary nor sufficient for voting rights.[26] Historically, in early American republics, suffrage was restricted to propertied male citizens, separating it from full civic equality.[27] A key delineation within suffrage itself is between active and passive forms: active suffrage grants the right to vote for representatives, while passive suffrage (or the passive electoral right) permits eligibility to run for or hold office.[28] Passive suffrage often carries stricter criteria, such as elevated age thresholds—18 for active voting but 25 or higher for parliamentary candidacy in countries like Austria—or additional residency and non-conviction requirements, ensuring that those seeking office demonstrate greater stake or maturity than mere voters.[29] This distinction promotes democratic balance by allowing broader participation in selection while limiting candidacy to qualified individuals, as reflected in electoral laws across Europe where passive rights are constitutionally protected but more narrowly applied.[30] Suffrage differs from enfranchisement, the latter being the procedural or legislative act of extending voting rights to previously excluded groups, such as through constitutional amendments or statutes.[2] For example, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1920 represented enfranchisement by prohibiting denial of suffrage on sex grounds, thereby conferring the right rather than defining it anew.[10] Enfranchisement can be partial or conditional, as in gradual expansions via literacy tests or property qualifications historically, whereas suffrage denotes the exercised right post-grant. It also contrasts with compulsory voting systems, where suffrage remains a right but enforcement mandates participation for eligible voters, imposing fines or penalties for abstention in nations like Australia since 1924, without altering the underlying franchise.[31][32] This enforcement addresses turnout issues but raises debates over coercion versus voluntary civic duty.[33]Philosophical and Theoretical Perspectives
Justifications for Restricted Suffrage
Restricted suffrage has been justified on the grounds that voting confers significant power over collective resources and policies, warranting qualifications to ensure decisions reflect competence and stake in outcomes rather than mere numerical majority. Proponents argue that unrestricted franchise risks poor governance, as uninformed or disinterested voters may prioritize short-term gains over long-term stability, leading to fiscal irresponsibility or policy errors. This view draws from epistemic critiques positing that democracy's equal weighting of votes violates a competence principle, where electoral outcomes should approximate knowledgeable judgment akin to jury selection or professional licensing.[34] A primary historical justification emphasized property ownership or tax payment as a prerequisite, on the rationale that those funding government expenditures possess a direct stake and thus incentive for prudent fiscal policy. In the American founding era, figures like John Adams contended that property-less individuals lack the judgment and independence required for voting, as they might favor redistributive measures at others' expense without bearing equivalent costs. Federalist writings, including No. 57, implicitly supported such qualifications by noting that suffrage tied to property prevented dominance by transient majorities, safeguarding against confiscatory policies that could undermine economic incentives and liberty.[35][36] Competence-based restrictions, such as literacy, education, or knowledge tests, have been advanced to filter for voters capable of evaluating complex issues, thereby elevating policy quality over populist appeals. John Stuart Mill proposed plural voting—extra votes for the educated—to weight ballots by intellectual merit, arguing in Considerations on Representative Government (1861) that universal equal suffrage would entrench ignorance, as the less informed outnumber the informed and skew outcomes toward mediocrity. Empirical correlations between voter knowledge and policy preferences, such as studies showing low civic literacy correlating with support for inefficient entitlements, bolster this by suggesting restricted electorates yield more effective governance.[37][38] From first-principles reasoning, franchise allocation should mirror accountability: since votes impose externalities on non-voters (e.g., debt on future generations or taxes on stakeholders), limiting it to those demonstrably affected or qualified prevents moral hazard, akin to restricting high-stakes decisions like surgery to trained professionals. Critics of universal suffrage, including modern epistocrats, contend that equal voting ignores variance in decision-making ability, empirically evidenced by surveys where median voters fail basic economic tests yet influence redistributive policies with cascading costs, as seen in ballooning public debts post-expansions like the U.S. 26th Amendment lowering the age to 18 in 1971, which correlated with increased entitlement spending without proportional fiscal restraint.[34][39]Arguments for Expanding Suffrage
Proponents of expanding suffrage have advanced arguments rooted in the principle of popular sovereignty, positing that legitimate government authority derives from the consent of those governed rather than a restricted elite.[40] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his 1762 work The Social Contract, contended that sovereignty resides in the general will of the people, advocating for direct participation by adult citizens to ensure laws reflect collective interests and prevent alienation from arbitrary rule.[41] This view holds that excluding large segments of the population undermines democratic legitimacy, as laws bind all subjects equally yet only a subset consents, echoing Enlightenment critiques of absolutism where unchecked minorities impose burdens without accountability.[42] A complementary ethical argument emphasizes individual autonomy and equality under law: since policies affect all citizens' lives, liberties, and properties, denying the vote to competent adults constitutes unjust subjugation akin to taxation without representation.[43] Advocates, drawing from natural rights traditions, assert that arbitrary exclusions—such as by gender, race, or minor property thresholds—fail first-principles tests of reciprocity, as affected parties bear risks and costs without influence, fostering resentment and instability.[22] Historical expansions, like the extension of voting rights in Western Europe from 1869 to 1960, are cited as demonstrating that inclusion enhances political responsiveness without destabilizing governance, with women's enfranchisement correlating to sustained increases in social spending (0.6–1.2% of GDP short-term) directed toward public goods like health and welfare.[44] Empirical claims further bolster the case, particularly from U.S. women's suffrage post-1920, where expanded electorates facilitated policy shifts prioritizing child welfare; bacteriological public health reforms, previously resisted, accelerated, reducing infant mortality by enabling maternal advocacy for sanitation and education investments.[45] Studies attribute intergenerational benefits, including improved childhood education outcomes and long-term health gains, to women's voting power incentivizing family-oriented policies over elite preferences.[46] [47] Proponents argue these effects arise causally from diversified voter interests countering narrow-group capture, as broader suffrage dilutes factional dominance and aligns governance with aggregate societal needs, evidenced by wartime accelerations of enfranchisement yielding inclusive reforms without proportional rises in unrest.[48] Such data, while drawn from peer-reviewed analyses, warrant scrutiny for potential confounders like concurrent industrialization, yet consistently link inclusion to measurable welfare gains absent in restricted systems.[49]First-Principles Analysis of Voter Competence
Voter competence, evaluated from foundational considerations of rational decision-making, entails individuals possessing sufficient factual knowledge, analytical skills, and foresight to assess policies and candidates in ways that align with accurate predictions of causal outcomes, such as economic trade-offs or institutional incentives. In electoral systems, where votes aggregate to determine governance, this competence is essential for producing outcomes superior to alternatives like markets or expert rule, as uninformed choices risk endorsing inefficient or harmful policies due to misperceptions of reality. Yet, the marginal impact of a single vote in mass democracies—often calculated as less than one in tens of millions—creates a high informational cost relative to benefit, fostering what economists term "rational ignorance," where citizens rationally forgo acquiring political knowledge because their effort yields negligible personal influence on results.[50][51] Empirical assessments reveal pervasive deficits in this competence. Surveys demonstrate that large majorities of voters fail basic tests of civic knowledge: for instance, fewer than one-third of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government, and similar proportions cannot identify key officeholders or legislative functions.[52] Political scientist Ilya Somin documents that this ignorance extends to policy-relevant facts, with voters often unaware of the size of government programs, the direction of economic trends, or the implications of fiscal deficits, leading to systematic errors in evaluating trade-offs.[53] Bryan Caplan's analysis of public opinion data identifies four robust cognitive biases—antiforeign, antitrade, antimarket, and pro-spending—where lay voters diverge from expert economists, favoring policies that empirical evidence shows reduce prosperity, such as protectionism despite net gains from free trade. These biases persist even among the informed, suggesting not mere ignorance but "rational irrationality," where voters indulge expressive preferences over truth-seeking due to low stakes.[54] Such incompetence undermines the causal efficacy of suffrage as a mechanism for accountability. Jason Brennan argues that universal enfranchisement equates to entrusting high-stakes decisions to an electorate akin to "hobbits" (uninformed but well-intentioned) or "hooligans" (misinformed and biased), yielding governance no better than chance or worse than epistocratic alternatives restricting votes to the knowledgeable. Studies of election outcomes corroborate this, showing voter ignorance correlates with support for demagogic or fiscally irresponsible platforms, as politicians exploit misperceptions rather than correct them.[55] While proponents of broad suffrage counter that collective deliberation or heuristics mitigate individual flaws, evidence indicates these mechanisms falter under informational asymmetries and partisan cues, perpetuating suboptimal equilibria.[56] Institutional biases in academia and media, which often prioritize egalitarian ideals over scrutiny of voter flaws, may understate these realities, yet the data compel recognition that unrestricted franchise amplifies errors over expertise.[57]Types and Variants of Suffrage
Universal Suffrage
Universal suffrage refers to the extension of voting rights to nearly all adult citizens of a polity, without discrimination based on sex, race, ethnicity, wealth, property ownership, literacy, or social status, though typically qualified by minimum age requirements (often 18 years) and citizenship or residency criteria.[58] This principle contrasts with earlier restricted franchises by prioritizing broad inclusion to reflect the collective will of the governed, grounded in egalitarian democratic ideals that emerged during Enlightenment thought and 19th-century reform movements.[59] In practice, no polity achieves absolute universality, as exclusions persist for minors, non-citizens, individuals deemed mentally incompetent, and often those with criminal convictions, reflecting ongoing debates over competence and civic responsibility.[60] Historically, universal suffrage developed incrementally, building on male-only expansions in the early 19th century. New Zealand achieved the first national implementation in 1893 by enfranchising all adult women alongside existing male voters, marking a pivotal shift toward gender-neutral adult eligibility.[61] Australia followed in 1902 with federal legislation granting full rights to women, including Indigenous populations in principle, though practical barriers lingered until later.[62] In Europe, Finland pioneered universal suffrage in 1906, extending equal rights to women and men over 24 in parliamentary elections amid revolutionary pressures.[63] World War I accelerated adoption elsewhere: Germany and Austria enacted it in 1918, the United Kingdom extended it to women over 30 in 1918 (full parity by 1928), and France in 1944, often tied to wartime contributions and social upheavals that underscored broad societal stakes in governance.[64] By the mid-20th century, decolonization and post-war constitutions embedded universal suffrage in newly independent states, such as India in 1950 and much of Africa and Asia by the 1960s, aligning with anti-imperialist and human rights frameworks like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948).[65] Today, over 190 countries claim adherence to this standard for citizens aged 18 or older, per international electoral databases, though empirical turnout and enforcement vary.[8] Remaining restrictions include felony disenfranchisement, affecting about 2% of the U.S. voting-age population (roughly 4.4 million people in 2022, concentrated in states like Florida and Texas), rooted in traditions linking criminality to forfeited civic rights.[66] Some nations, such as Argentina and Brazil, impose compulsory voting on eligible adults to maximize participation, fining non-voters, while others experiment with lowering age thresholds to 16 (e.g., Austria, Brazil) based on arguments for youthful civic engagement.[67] These variations highlight that universal suffrage remains an aspirational benchmark rather than an unqualified reality, with exclusions justified by concerns over informed consent and societal stability.[68]Equal and Unequal Suffrage
Equal suffrage denotes the electoral principle under which each qualified voter exercises a single vote of uniform weight, ensuring parity in individual influence on election outcomes. This standard emerged prominently in modern democracies as a counter to earlier hierarchical systems, aiming to embody the notion of political equality among enfranchised citizens.[69] Unequal suffrage, by contrast, allocates varying voting power to individuals based on criteria such as property ownership, education, income, or social status, resulting in some votes carrying multiple or weighted value relative to others. Such systems, often termed censitary or plural voting arrangements, were rationalized historically as mechanisms to amplify the voices of those presumed to have greater stakes in governance stability or competence in decision-making, thereby mitigating risks from uninformed majorities. Censitary suffrage, for instance, subdivided voters into classes where influence scaled with wealth or rank, producing a gradient of electoral power rather than uniformity.[70][71] In the United Kingdom, plural voting exemplified unequal suffrage until the mid-20th century, permitting certain electors—such as owners of business premises, long-term lodgers, or university graduates entitled to additional constituency seats—to cast multiple votes in parliamentary elections. This practice, inherited from pre-reform eras and persisting through acts like the Reform Act 1867, effectively granted extra electoral weight to propertied and educated classes; by 1918, it accounted for approximately 2 million additional votes amid a total electorate of around 21 million. The system faced criticism for distorting representation, as it allowed a minority to exert disproportionate influence, and was fully abolished by the Representation of the People Act 1948, which mandated "one vote only in respect of each person—one man one vote" for both parliamentary and local elections.[72][69] Similar unequal mechanisms appeared across 19th-century Europe, including in Belgium, where until 1919, male citizens could earn up to three votes through factors like household headship, primary education, or higher income and secondary education, weighting suffrage toward economic contributors and the literate. These arrangements reflected a broader philosophical tension between egalitarian ideals and elitist safeguards, with proponents arguing they aligned voting power with civic responsibility; however, pressures from industrialization, literacy gains, and democratization waves led to their phased replacement by equal suffrage models post-World War I, as evidenced by Belgium's shift to universal male suffrage in 1919 and subsequent female inclusion in 1948.[73][70] Today, unequal suffrage survives rarely in pure form within national legislatures, though echoes persist in weighted systems like corporate shareholder voting or certain international bodies (e.g., population-based vote allocation in the European Council). Proposals for reintroducing weights—tied to taxpayer contributions or cognitive tests—surface in academic discourse but encounter resistance on grounds of eroding foundational democratic equality, underscoring a global normative pivot toward uniform voting since the early 20th century.[74][75]Compulsory and Voluntary Suffrage
Compulsory suffrage, also known as mandatory or universal civic duty voting, imposes a legal obligation on eligible citizens to participate in elections, typically enforced through penalties such as fines, community service, or disenfranchisement for repeated non-compliance.[31] In contrast, voluntary suffrage permits citizens the right to vote without any requirement to exercise it, allowing abstention as a personal choice, which prevails in the majority of democracies including the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.[33] This distinction hinges on whether non-participation incurs state-sanctioned consequences, with compulsory systems aiming to maximize turnout while voluntary ones treat voting as an optional civic act.[76] Historically, compulsory suffrage emerged in modern democracies to counteract declining voluntary participation rates. Belgium adopted it in 1892 following low turnout in voluntary elections, making it one of the earliest implementations with fines up to €80 for non-voters.[77] Australia introduced compulsory enrollment in 1912 and full compulsory voting in 1924 after federal elections saw turnout drop to 59.4% in 1922, resulting in sustained national turnout above 90% in subsequent decades.[78] Other nations followed: Argentina in 1912 (though enforcement varies), Brazil in 1932 for those aged 18-70, and Singapore in 1959, where non-voting leads to removal from the electoral roll.[67] As of 2023, approximately 20-25 countries enforce compulsory voting to varying degrees, including Peru (since 1931, with fines), Turkey (1927, fines up to $100 equivalent), and Uruguay (1918, with escalating penalties), though some like the Netherlands abandoned it in 1970 due to administrative burdens and public resistance.[31][77]| Country | Year Enacted | Enforcement Mechanism | Typical Turnout Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1924 | Fines up to AUD 20 initially, now higher; imprisonment for evasion | 90-95% in federal elections[78] |
| Belgium | 1892 | Fines; temporary disenfranchisement | 87-94%[67] |
| Brazil | 1932 | Fines; restrictions on public services for non-voters | 70-80%[31] |
| Argentina | 1912 | Fines; labor certification denial | 70-80%, with variability[67] |
Passive, Active, and Census-Based Suffrage
Active suffrage denotes the legal right of eligible citizens to participate in voting during public elections and referendums.[30] Passive suffrage, in contrast, refers to the right of citizens to stand as candidates for election or to hold public office.[30] These concepts, rooted in constitutional frameworks across Europe and beyond, distinguish between electoral participation and eligibility for representation, with passive suffrage typically imposing additional criteria beyond those for active suffrage, such as minimum age thresholds (often 25 years or older for candidacy versus 18 for voting), extended residency periods, or absence of certain criminal convictions.[28] For instance, in Ukraine's electoral law, active suffrage requires citizenship and age 18, while passive suffrage for parliamentary seats demands age 21, Ukrainian nationality, and residency for at least five years.[87] Historically, the sequencing of active and passive rights has varied, sometimes granting passive suffrage to groups before full active participation. In the Netherlands, a 1917 constitutional revision extended passive suffrage to women, permitting them to run for parliament, though active suffrage followed only in 1919.[88] Similarly, in Germany, the Weimar Constitution of 1919 provided women with both rights simultaneously, but early implementations in some states differentiated qualifications, reflecting debates over competence for office-holding.[89] Passive suffrage restrictions serve to ensure candidates possess greater maturity or stake in governance, as rationalized in 19th-century European reforms where property or professional qualifications amplified passive eligibility to align with perceived leadership capacities.[70] Census-based suffrage, also termed censitary suffrage, restricts voting rights—primarily active suffrage—to individuals meeting wealth or tax contribution thresholds, often weighting votes by socioeconomic rank rather than granting equal say.[90] This system, derived from "census" as a register of taxable property or income, emerged prominently in post-revolutionary Europe to limit franchise to those with economic stakes, thereby purportedly enhancing decision quality by excluding the propertyless.[71] In France under the 1830 July Monarchy, censitary suffrage confined active voting to males paying at least 200 francs in direct taxes, enfranchising roughly 250,000 out of 35 million inhabitants, or about 0.7% of the population, until broader reforms in 1848. Such mechanisms persisted in nations like Belgium and Prussia into the mid-19th century, where plural voting granted extra ballots to higher taxpayers, embedding inequality to reflect "virtual representation" of societal interests.[70] Critics, including early socialists, argued this perpetuated oligarchic control, as empirical data from the era showed electorates dominated by landowners and bourgeoisie, sidelining industrial workers despite their growing economic role.[70]Historical Rationales for Franchise Restrictions
Wealth and Property Qualifications
Wealth and property qualifications for suffrage originated from the principle that only those with a tangible stake in society's economic stability—through ownership of land, houses, or other assets—should influence governance, as they bore the direct costs of taxation and policy decisions.[91] Proponents, including Founding Father John Adams in 1776, argued that extending the vote to non-property owners risked "universal plunder," where the propertyless majority could enact redistributive measures at the expense of owners without personal accountability.[91] This view posited that property ownership fostered civic virtue, independence, and rational decision-making, reducing susceptibility to demagoguery or short-term populism that might undermine long-term prosperity.[92] Such restrictions aimed to align electoral participation with those funding the state, echoing classical concerns over mob rule in democracies lacking economic filters.[5] In ancient Athens, Solon's constitutional reforms around 594 BCE stratified citizens into four wealth-based classes—the pentakosiomedimnoi (wealthiest, yielding 500 measures of produce), hippeis (cavalry class), zeugitai (hoplite farmers), and thetes (laborers)—with political rights scaled accordingly; thetes could participate in the assembly but were initially barred from most offices, reflecting a belief that higher wealth correlated with greater competence for leadership.[93] Cleisthenes' reforms circa 508 BCE expanded citizenship and assembly access to adult male citizens without explicit property thresholds for voting, yet property classes persisted for military and magisterial roles, ensuring that key decisions remained influenced by those with economic investment. This system balanced broader participation with safeguards against the landless exerting disproportionate power, as thetes' votes were diluted by their exclusion from elite institutions. Colonial America and early U.S. states universally imposed property requirements by the 18th century, typically mandating 40-50 acres of land or equivalent value (e.g., £40-£50 in some colonies) for white male voters, excluding about 50-60% of adult white males in regions like Virginia.[94][95] These ensured voters paid direct taxes, tying franchise to fiscal responsibility; for instance, New Jersey's 1776 constitution required £50 in property.[96] Gradual abolition began post-1800 amid westward expansion and Jacksonian egalitarianism, with states like Massachusetts dropping requirements by 1821, though full elimination for white males occurred unevenly by the 1850s, expanding the electorate from roughly 10-20% to near-universal manhood suffrage among whites.[5] In Britain, pre-1832 suffrage hinged on property thresholds, such as the 40-shilling freehold for county voters since 1430, limiting the electorate to about 3-5% of adults, primarily landowners and substantial tenants who financed parliamentary representation.[97] The 1832 Reform Act standardized and lowered these—e.g., £10 householders in boroughs—enfranchising middle-class owners and doubling voters to around 650,000, while retaining exclusions for the working poor to prevent radical shifts toward property redistribution.[97] The 1867 Act further extended urban £10 occupiers, adding 1 million voters, but property criteria endured until the 1918 Representation of the People Act, which enfranchised most adult males irrespective of wealth amid wartime pressures.[98] These reforms reflected pragmatic expansions tied to economic growth, yet preserved the core rationale until broader suffrage movements prevailed.[95]Knowledge and Literacy Requirements
Knowledge and literacy requirements for suffrage historically served as mechanisms to restrict the franchise to individuals deemed capable of informed participation in electoral processes. Proponents argued that such tests ensured an electorate able to read and comprehend ballots, constitutions, and policy issues, thereby preventing manipulation by demagogues or undue influence from employers and political machines.[99][100] This rationale drew from an English legal tradition positing that uneducated voters were susceptible to coercion, prioritizing electoral integrity over universal access.[100] In the United States, Connecticut became the first state to enact a literacy requirement in its 1855 constitution, mandating that voters demonstrate the ability to read any article of the U.S. Constitution or state constitution, primarily targeting Irish immigrants perceived as easily swayed.[100] Following Reconstruction, Southern states adopted similar tests between the 1890s and 1920s, such as Mississippi's 1890 constitution provision requiring voters to read or interpret any section of the state constitution, ostensibly to elevate voter quality amid widespread illiteracy.[99] During congressional debates from 1864 to 1869, advocates for literacy tests in freedmen's voting rights contended they established a necessary barrier for competent citizenship, while opponents viewed them as tools to exclude newly emancipated African Americans lacking formal education.[101] These requirements often functioned as proxies for broader knowledge of civic duties, with administrators wielding discretion to interpret answers, leading to disproportionate disenfranchisement of African Americans, poor whites, and immigrants despite grandfather clauses exempting pre-1867 voters in some states.[99] By 1965, the Voting Rights Act suspended literacy tests nationwide in jurisdictions with low voter turnout, and a 1970 amendment extended the federal ban, reflecting recognition of their role in suppressing minority participation rather than enhancing competence.[100] Beyond the U.S., literacy qualifications appeared in Latin American constitutions, such as in Ecuador and Peru, where they persisted until reforms in the mid-20th century despite illiteracy rates exceeding 20% of the population, rationalized similarly as safeguards for deliberative democracy but often limiting rural and indigenous enfranchisement.[102] In Europe, formal literacy tests were rare for native suffrage, with restrictions more commonly tied to property or residency, though debates on educational competence influenced weighted voting proposals, underscoring a recurring tension between inclusivity and voter qualifications.Age and Maturity Thresholds
In ancient Greek city-states such as Athens, male citizens were generally eligible to vote upon reaching adulthood, typically around age 20, following completion of military training and marking the transition to full civic responsibility.[103] This threshold reflected the view that younger males lacked the requisite experience and judgment for participating in assemblies, where decisions affected warfare, alliances, and governance. Similarly, in the Roman Republic, suffrage in popular assemblies was restricted to adult male citizens, with boys attaining legal manhood around age 16 via rituals like assuming the toga virilis, though full political maturity for higher offices was set at 25 or later to ensure seasoned decision-making.[104][105] During the early modern period in Europe and its colonies, the voting age standardized at 21, derived from English common law traditions where this marked the age of majority for inheritance, contracts, and military service without guardianship, presuming sufficient physical and mental maturity for independent action.[106] This rationale emphasized protecting polities from impulsive or uninformed votes by the young, who were seen as prone to factionalism or external influence due to incomplete life experience. In the United States, state constitutions from the late 18th century onward uniformly adopted 21 as the minimum, aligning franchise with the capacity for rational civic judgment rather than mere chronological adulthood.[107] Empirical support for age thresholds draws from developmental psychology, indicating that prefrontal cortex maturation—critical for impulse control, long-term planning, and risk assessment—continues into the mid-20s, correlating with lower competence in complex decisions among adolescents.[108] Historical restrictions thus served as a proxy for ensuring voter competence, avoiding the causal risks of enfranchising those with underdeveloped executive functions, as evidenced by studies showing younger cohorts exhibit higher susceptibility to peer influence and lower information-seeking in political contexts.[109] Critics of lowering thresholds, such as prior to the U.S. 26th Amendment in 1971, argued that 18- to 20-year-olds, despite draft eligibility, often lacked the deliberative maturity for electoral choices, prioritizing short-term gains over societal stability.[110]| Historical Voting Age Examples | Threshold | Rationale/Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ancient Athens (5th c. BCE) | ~20 years | Post-military service; full civic maturity |
| Roman Republic (c. 509–27 BCE) | ~16–25 years | Legal manhood at 16, offices at 25 for experience |
| Early U.S. States (1789–1971) | 21 years | Common law majority; judgment for contracts/governance |
| England (pre-1969) | 21 years | Inheritance and responsibility age |
Gender Exclusions and Rationales
Throughout history, suffrage systems in most societies excluded women from voting, with rationales rooted in established gender roles, legal doctrines, and perceived differences in civic responsibilities. In ancient Athens, for instance, only free adult males participated in the assembly, as citizenship and military obligations were tied to men, while women were confined to domestic spheres without public duties. Similar exclusions persisted in medieval Europe, where feudal obligations like knight service applied to men, justifying male-only political voice. A primary rationale was the legal concept of coverture in English common law, under which married women lost independent legal identity, subsumed under their husbands' authority, rendering separate female suffrage redundant as male votes represented family interests. Anti-suffragists in the 19th century extended this by arguing that women's domestic responsibilities—child-rearing and household management—left insufficient time or aptitude for political engagement, potentially disrupting family stability if women entered partisan conflicts.[7] Both men and women voiced concerns that suffrage would erode natural gender complementarity, pitting sexes against each other in governance rather than fostering companionship, as nature intended distinct roles for harmony.[111] Perceived psychological differences formed another basis, with opponents claiming women were more emotional and less capable of dispassionate judgment on state matters like war or economics, unfit for the "cool and calm" deliberation required of voters.[112] Empirical observations supported this in some contexts; for example, in 19th-century Britain, surveys indicated a majority of women opposed enfranchisement, prioritizing indirect influence through family over direct political involvement.[113] In the United States, the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, comprising thousands of women, contended that existing power in the home sufficed, warning that votes might dilute maternal focus and invite corruption or radicalism.[6] These exclusions were not merely patriarchal impositions but reflected causal links between gender-specific societal contributions and franchise allocation; men's exposure to economic risks and defense justified their primacy in policy, while women's sheltered roles preserved social cohesion.[114] Post-enfranchisement data, such as divergent voting patterns by gender on security issues, retrospectively aligns with pre-suffrage apprehensions of differing risk assessments influencing outcomes like welfare expansions.[115] Though modern narratives often frame these as outdated biases, historical proponents grounded them in observable family dynamics and reluctance among women themselves, evidenced by repeated referendum defeats, such as Switzerland's 1959 vote where women joined men in rejecting female suffrage.Racial, Religious, and Nationality-Based Limits
In the United States, racial restrictions on suffrage predated the Constitution, with enslaved Africans and their descendants denied citizenship and voting rights under state laws treating them as property rather than political participants.[116] The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, explicitly prohibited denying the vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, yet Southern states circumvented it through devices like literacy tests, poll taxes, and grandfather clauses that disproportionately affected Black voters, reducing their turnout from over 50% in some Reconstruction-era states to under 2% by 1900 in Mississippi.[116] [5] Proponents of these measures, including Southern Democratic legislatures, justified them as necessary to maintain social order and prevent what they viewed as unqualified or vengeful majorities from upending established governance structures, often citing lower literacy rates—around 20-30% among Southern Blacks in 1900 compared to 80% among whites—as evidence of incapacity for informed voting.[117] Similar racial exclusions persisted globally; in Australia, Indigenous Aboriginals were denied federal suffrage until the 1962 Commonwealth Electoral Act, despite earlier state-level grants, with rationales rooted in colonial perceptions of nomadism and cultural incompatibility rendering them unprepared for democratic participation.[118] In South Africa under apartheid, non-white suffrage was limited to advisory Colored and Indian councils until the 1994 elections, defended by the National Party as preserving a European-derived civilization against numerical swamping by Black majorities lacking equivalent historical ties to parliamentary traditions.[119] Religious limits on suffrage were common in early modern Europe and its colonies to align voters with dominant faiths and exclude perceived threats to moral or confessional unity. In colonial New England, Puritan authorities in Massachusetts restricted voting to full church members, estimated at 40-60% of adult males, arguing that only those demonstrating spiritual regeneration could responsibly steward civil authority as "public ministers of God."[120] Post-independence, nine of the thirteen original U.S. states imposed religious tests for officeholding or voting in their 1776-1784 constitutions, requiring oaths affirming Protestant Christianity or belief in God to exclude Catholics, Jews, or atheists, whom framers like John Witherspoon saw as prone to divided loyalties or subversive doctrines undermining republican virtue.[121] [122] The federal Constitution's Article VI clause of 1787 banned religious tests for national offices, reflecting Enlightenment influences but leaving states free; Maryland retained a Trinitarian oath for office until 1826 and for some voting contexts into the 20th century, rationalized as safeguarding against "infidel" influences eroding Protestant ethical foundations essential for self-governance.[123] [124] Nationality-based restrictions typically tied suffrage to citizenship, emphasizing allegiance and assimilation to avert foreign meddling or balkanized polities. The U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790 confined citizenship—and thus voting eligibility—to "free white persons" of good character after two years' residency, extended in 1870 to persons of African descent but excluding Asians until piecemeal reforms like the 1943 repeal of Chinese exclusion, with nativists arguing that non-European nationalities harbored incompatible customs or loyalties, as evidenced by anti-Irish Catholic campaigns in the 1850s citing papal allegiances over American sovereignty.[5] [125] In the British Empire, the 1801 Act of Union initially barred Irish Catholics from parliamentary voting until the 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act, justified by Protestant ascendancy fears of reversing the 1690-1714 Penal Laws' suppression of Jacobite rebellions tied to Vatican influence.[5] Some 19th-century U.S. states permitted non-citizen declarant aliens to vote after intent-to-naturalize filings—peaking at 14 states by 1890—but revoked this by 1926 amid concerns over unvetted immigrant blocs swaying elections, as in San Francisco's 1870s debates over Chinese laborers diluting native-born control without cultural integration.[95] These limits often intersected; for instance, U.S. states like California imposed alien land laws and suffrage bars on Japanese immigrants until 1920, blending racial and nationality criteria under rationales of economic protectionism and preventing "inassimilable" groups from altering policy toward ancestral homelands.[126] While modern scholarship frequently frames such restrictions as discriminatory artifacts, historical defenders invoked empirical observations of group differences in literacy, property ownership, and conflict histories to argue they preserved cohesive republics capable of deliberative consent over mob rule or external subversion.[116][122]Criminality, Residency, and Functional Restrictions
Restrictions on suffrage based on criminal convictions have historical roots in English common law, where individuals convicted of felonies—termed "infamous crimes"—forfeited civil capacities, including the right to vote, as a form of civil death signifying a breach of the social contract.[127] This rationale posited that serious offenders demonstrated moral unfitness or untrustworthiness for self-governance, justifying temporary or permanent exclusion to maintain electoral integrity and deter antisocial behavior.[128] In the United States, early state constitutions from the late 18th century, such as New York's 1777 provision excluding those convicted of "infamous crime," embedded this principle, with the U.S. Constitution's Article I, Section 4 deferring voter qualifications to states while implicitly allowing such limits.[129] By the 19th century, as suffrage expanded to white male adults without property tests, felony disenfranchisement persisted as a targeted restraint, applied to crimes like treason or murder, reflecting a retributive logic that voting rights were privileges contingent on lawful conduct.[127] Residency requirements emerged to verify a voter's genuine stake in the polity, preventing manipulation by non-residents or transients who lacked accountability to local outcomes.[130] In colonial America and early republics, domicile-based rules ensured electors were embedded in the community, with durations like six months to one year common by the 19th century to allow administrative verification and curb fraud, such as organized voting by outsiders.[131] For instance, the U.S. Constitution's Article I indirectly supported state-set residency via elector qualifications, while international precedents, including ancient Athenian citizenship tied to residency, underscored the causal link between territorial attachment and informed participation.[130] These thresholds balanced accessibility with safeguards against electoral distortion, though durations exceeding 30-50 days faced constitutional scrutiny by the 1970s for unduly burdening mobility without proportional justification.[132] Functional restrictions, targeting mental incapacity, rested on the premise that suffrage demands cognitive competence for rational deliberation and comprehension of issues, akin to contractual capacity in common law traditions excluding "idiots" or the "insane" since medieval England.[133] Historically, U.S. states from the 19th century onward codified exclusions for those adjudicated incompetent, as in Massachusetts' 1780 constitution barring the "insane," rationalized by the need to preserve vote quality against uninformed or manipulable inputs that could undermine democratic legitimacy.[134] This drew from philosophical views, including John Locke's emphasis on rational consent in governance, positing incapacity as evidencing unfitness for civic judgment without implying broader discrimination.[135] Globally, similar provisions appeared in European codes, such as France's 19th-century laws linking voting to mental soundness, prioritizing electoral efficacy over universal inclusion for those demonstrably unable to engage meaningfully.[133]Global Historical Development
Ancient and Medieval Origins
In ancient Athens, the development of democratic institutions around 508 BCE under Cleisthenes marked an early instance of formalized suffrage, granting voting rights in the Ecclesia assembly to free adult male citizens, who numbered approximately 30,000 to 40,000 out of a total population exceeding 250,000, thereby excluding women, slaves (who comprised about 20-30% of the populace), and resident foreigners (metics).[136] Voting occurred via hand-raising or secret ballots using pebbles or pottery shards (ostraka) for mechanisms like ostracism, which allowed citizens to exile potentially tyrannical figures by majority vote if at least 6,000 participated.[136] Earlier reforms by Solon circa 594 BCE had introduced property-based classes (timai) influencing political eligibility, but Cleisthenes' tribal reorganization aimed to dilute aristocratic control, establishing a precursor to broader citizen participation, though still restricted to those born of Athenian fathers (tightened further by Pericles' law in 451 BCE requiring both parents to be citizens).[137] In the Roman Republic, established circa 509 BCE, suffrage was exercised by male citizens in popular assemblies such as the comitia centuriata and comitia tributa, where votes elected magistrates like consuls and passed laws, but the system weighted influence heavily toward wealthier classes: the centuriate assembly divided citizens into 193 centuries based on property, with the top five equestrian and first senatorial classes (holding about 1% of citizens) controlling 97 votes, often deciding outcomes before lower classes voted.[138] Tribal assemblies offered somewhat more equitable voting by geographic tribe (35 total), yet excluded women, slaves, and non-citizens, with full citizenship rights accruing to freeborn males upon reaching adulthood around age 17, subject to military service obligations; bribery (ambitus) and patronage networks frequently undermined formal equality.[138] This structure reflected a causal emphasis on property ownership and martial capacity as prerequisites for rational political judgment, limiting participation to roughly 10-20% of the empire's inhabitants by the late Republic. Medieval Europe saw suffrage evolve from ancient precedents into consultative assemblies dominated by feudal elites, with broad voting absent until later periods; for instance, Anglo-Saxon England featured the witan, a council of nobles and clergy advising kings on laws and succession from at least the 7th century, but without general enfranchisement.[139] The Icelandic Althing, convened in 930 CE at Thingvellir, represented a rare continuity of participatory governance, where freehold chieftains (goðar) and their supporters—adult males owning land or aligned with chieftains—gathered annually to proclaim laws, resolve disputes, and elect officials via consensus or acclamation in the lögrétta legislative council, encompassing perhaps 1,000-2,000 participants from a population of around 50,000, excluding women and thralls (slaves).[140][141] Elsewhere, emerging estates assemblies in 12th-13th century kingdoms like León (1188) and England (Simon de Montfort's 1265 parliament) included clergy, nobility, and occasionally burgesses, but suffrage remained tied to status and land tenure, serving fiscal-military coordination rather than popular consent, with monarchs convening them ad hoc amid warfare pressures.[142] These bodies prioritized representation by corporate orders over individual votes, reflecting a causal logic where political agency derived from economic independence and social hierarchy, not universal inclusion.[143]Early Modern Reforms in Europe
In England, the Glorious Revolution of 1688–1689 entrenched parliamentary authority through the Bill of Rights 1689, which reaffirmed the electoral rights of Protestant male freeholders possessing property valued at least at 40 shillings annually in counties, alongside freemen and burgage holders in boroughs, while prohibiting royal interference in elections.[144] This reform emphasized regular parliamentary sessions, reinforced by the Triennial Act of 1694 mandating dissolution and new elections at least every three years, yet the qualified electorate numbered roughly 200,000–250,000 voters, or about 4–5% of adult males, excluding non-property owners, Catholics, and women.[144] Sweden's Age of Liberty (1718–1772) represented a notable shift from royal absolutism to estate-based parliamentary dominance in the Riksdag, comprising nobility, clergy, burghers, and—uniquely—peasants elected by male freeholding farmers paying taxes on at least half a hides of land, thus incorporating rural proprietors into national decision-making at a time when many European monarchies marginalized agrarian interests. This structure convened assemblies biennially after 1720, expanding deliberative influence beyond urban elites, though total voters remained under 10% of adult males due to property and estate restrictions, with decisions requiring consensus among estates rather than majority rule. In the Dutch Republic during the 17th century, municipal voting qualifications typically required male citizenship (poorterrecht), entailing residency, oath of allegiance, and payment of a modest wealth or trade tax, enabling several thousand urban males per city to participate in indirect elections for vroedschappen (city councils) that selected delegates to provincial states.[145] However, regent oligarchies—intermarrying patrician families—dominated outcomes through co-optation and controlled nominations, limiting competitive reforms despite the republic's decentralized federalism, which excluded rural laborers, women, and non-citizens from formal franchise.[145] Elsewhere, such as in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the early modern period codified "Golden Liberty" for the szlachta (nobility), granting near-universal male noble suffrage in local sejmiki assemblies numbering up to 10% of the population by the 18th century, with delegates electing the king via electoral sejm; yet this entrenched class exclusivity, excluding burghers and peasants, and lacked reforms toward broader inclusion amid growing noble factionalism. Across Europe, these adjustments prioritized property-holding males within estates or corporations, reflecting causal priorities of fiscal contribution and stakeholding over egalitarian expansion, with absolutist states like France suspending assemblies entirely after 1614 until the late 18th century.19th-Century Expansions and Backlashes
In Britain, the Reform Act of 1832 marked a pivotal expansion of male suffrage by redistributing parliamentary seats from "rotten boroughs" to growing industrial cities and extending the franchise to middle-class men meeting a £10 household occupancy qualification, increasing the electorate from approximately 400,000 to 650,000 voters.[97] This reform addressed grievances over electoral corruption and unrepresentative districts but explicitly defined voters as male, formalizing the exclusion of women.[97] Subsequent acts in 1867 and 1884 further broadened male suffrage to include many urban working-class men and agricultural laborers, respectively, driven by pressures from Chartist movements demanding universal manhood suffrage and fears of social unrest.[146] Across Europe, the 19th century saw uneven suffrage expansions amid revolutionary fervor, such as France's 1848 constitution granting near-universal male suffrage to over 9 million voters before its restriction under Napoleon III in 1852 to about 250,000 property-owning men, reflecting elite concerns over democratic excess.[147] Similar patterns emerged in other states, where suffrage extensions to broader male populations aimed to legitimize regimes or avert uprisings, though often limited by property, literacy, or residency requirements to maintain control.[148] In the United States, Jacksonian Democracy from the 1820s to 1850s eliminated property qualifications for voting in most states, extending suffrage to nearly all white adult males and boosting voter turnout to over 80% in presidential elections by the 1840s, as partisan competition mobilized the "common man."[149] This shift transformed politics from elite deference to mass participation but reinforced exclusions based on race, gender, and property in some southern states.[150] Early women's suffrage advocacy gained traction mid-century, exemplified by the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention in the US, where organizers like Elizabeth Cady Stanton demanded voting rights alongside other reforms, inspiring petitions and societies but yielding no immediate enfranchisement.[4] In Britain, the London National Society for Women's Suffrage formed in 1867, petitioning Parliament amid male-focused reforms, yet faced dismissal as peripheral to core democratic struggles.[151] Backlashes against these expansions manifested in violent suppression and ideological resistance, notably the 1819 Peterloo Massacre in Manchester, where cavalry charged a crowd of 60,000 reformers seeking parliamentary reform and broader suffrage, killing 18 and injuring hundreds, prompting government crackdowns on radical organizing under the Six Acts.[152] Elites justified such measures by invoking fears of mob rule and instability, as seen in post-1848 European restorations curtailing franchises to restore monarchical authority.[64] Anti-suffrage sentiments, particularly against women's inclusion, coalesced around arguments preserving social order and gender roles, with early 19th-century reversals like New Jersey's 1807 law revoking women's voting rights—previously allowed since 1776—to counter perceived threats from expanding democracy.[153] These reactions often stemmed from causal concerns that wider enfranchisement would redistribute wealth or disrupt hierarchies, as evidenced by bourgeois opposition to proletarian votes in Britain and France unless offset by institutional checks. Despite backlashes, incremental expansions laid groundwork for later universalization by demonstrating that controlled democratization could stabilize rather than destabilize regimes.[154]20th-Century Universalization Efforts
The early 20th century marked accelerated pushes for universal suffrage amid World War I's social upheavals, with many European nations enfranchising women and standardizing male voting rights. Finland became the first European country to grant full suffrage to women in 1906, allowing them to vote and stand for election in parliamentary contests.[155] Following the war, Germany's Weimar Republic constitution of 1919 established universal suffrage for all citizens over 20, encompassing women for the first time.[64] Austria and the Netherlands similarly adopted universal adult suffrage in 1918 and 1919, respectively, reflecting pressures from wartime contributions by women and socialist movements advocating broader electoral inclusion.[156] In the interwar period, expansions continued despite economic instability. The United Kingdom's Representation of the People Act 1918 enfranchised women over 30 meeting property qualifications, extending to all adults over 21 by the 1928 Equal Franchise Act, thereby achieving near-universal suffrage excluding only minors and certain felons.[157] France delayed until 1944, when General Charles de Gaulle's provisional government granted women voting rights amid World War II liberation efforts, influenced by resistance movements and Allied democratic rhetoric.[156] Italy followed in 1945 under its post-fascist constitution, while Switzerland lagged, requiring a 1971 federal referendum to extend women's federal voting rights after cantonal variations.[118] Across the Atlantic, the United States ratified the 19th Amendment on August 18, 1920, prohibiting sex-based voting denial, though Southern states maintained racial barriers via poll taxes and literacy tests until the 1965 Voting Rights Act suspended such devices, effectively universalizing access for Black Americans. Latin American nations varied: Uruguay granted women suffrage in 1932, Mexico in 1953, and Brazil in 1932, often tied to revolutionary or authoritarian reforms rather than grassroots campaigns.[156] Post-World War II decolonization propelled universal suffrage in Asia and Africa, as emerging states embedded it in independence constitutions to legitimize new regimes. India's 1950 constitution instituted universal adult suffrage for those over 21, enfranchising approximately 173 million voters regardless of gender, caste, or literacy, a scale unprecedented at the time.[158] Ghana's 1957 independence adopted universal suffrage over 21, followed by rapid African adoptions like Nigeria in 1960 and Kenya in 1963, though implementation faced ethnic and logistical hurdles.[159] In Asia, the Philippines granted women suffrage via 1937 plebiscite, while Indonesia's 1955 elections under its provisional constitution extended votes to all literate adults over 21, later universalized.[156] These efforts, while formalizing broad enfranchisement, often coexisted with one-party dominance or military rule, limiting electoral competition. Communist states declared universal suffrage early but under controlled systems: the Soviet Union extended it to all adults over 18 in 1918, excluding only certain political opponents, yet elections lacked multiparty choice.[64] Eastern European satellites post-1945 mirrored this, granting formal universality while suppressing opposition, highlighting a distinction between legal expansion and substantive democratic practice. By century's end, formal universal adult suffrage prevailed globally, though age thresholds (typically 18-21) and residency persisted, with outliers like South Africa's 1994 abolition of racial restrictions completing its universality.[5]Post-Colonial and Contemporary Adoptions
Following the decolonization wave after World War II, numerous newly independent nations in Asia and Africa adopted universal adult suffrage as part of their inaugural constitutions, extending voting rights to both sexes without the property, literacy, or racial restrictions common under colonial rule.[118] This shift enfranchised large populations rapidly; for instance, India's 1950 Constitution granted suffrage to all citizens aged 21 and older, incorporating over 173 million voters from diverse castes and literacy levels upon implementation.[118] Similarly, in Africa, countries like Ghana (independent 1957) and Kenya (1963) included gender-neutral voting rights in their independence frameworks, reflecting a break from prior selective colonial franchises that often excluded women and indigenous majorities.[118] These adoptions prioritized numerical inclusion over capacity-based thresholds, amid low literacy rates—India's hovered around 18% in 1951—and contributed to immediate expansions in electorate size, though implementation faced logistical challenges in rural areas.[118] In sub-Saharan Africa, the pattern held across 29 nations south of the Sahara by the 1960s, where women exercised constitutional suffrage rights post-independence, often modeled on British or French systems but applied universally to adults.[160] Exceptions persisted in settler colonies like South Africa, where racial exclusions limited non-white suffrage until 1994, despite earlier nominal grants to white women in 1930.[118] Post-colonial Asia saw parallel moves, with Indonesia extending full suffrage to women in 1955 elections following 1945 independence declarations, and Pakistan mirroring India's approach in its 1956 Constitution before political disruptions.[118] These reforms, while advancing formal equality, occurred in contexts of fragile governance, where expanded electorates correlated with populist policies but also instability, as evidenced by frequent coups in African states enfranchising illiterate majorities.[161] Contemporary adoptions have focused on lingering exclusions in non-colonial holdouts, particularly Gulf monarchies and isolated kingdoms. Saudi Arabia permitted women to vote and run in municipal elections for the first time in December 2015, enacting a 2011 royal decree that applied to about 130,000 female voters in limited local contests, though national parliamentary elections remain absent.[162] The United Arab Emirates granted women suffrage in 2006 for the Federal National Council, an advisory body selected via electoral colleges representing roughly 12% of citizens, marking a partial extension amid broader gender reforms.[163] Other Gulf states followed sequenced timelines: Oman in 1994, Qatar in 1999, Bahrain in 2001, and Kuwait in 2005, often confining women's votes to consultative majlis rather than sovereign assemblies.[163] Bhutan achieved full universal suffrage in 2008 with its first parliamentary elections, enfranchising women alongside men aged 18 and over after constitutional monarchy reforms.[118] These late extensions, driven by royal initiatives rather than grassroots movements, have yielded modest participation—Saudi women's 2015 turnout was under 20% in some areas—while preserving male-dominated selection processes and excluding expatriate majorities.[162] Vatican City remains the sole polity without women's suffrage, restricting votes to male cardinals in papal conclaves as of 2025.[164] Such adoptions highlight causal tensions between formal rights and substantive power, with empirical data showing minimal shifts in policy outcomes where elections lack competitive pluralism.[163]Regional Case Studies
United Kingdom and Commonwealth
Suffrage in the United Kingdom originated in the medieval period with voting rights restricted to free male property owners, comprising roughly 3% of the adult population by the early 19th century.[165] The Great Reform Act of 1832 expanded the male electorate by enfranchising most middle-class men through standardized property qualifications and seat redistribution, increasing voters from approximately 400,000 to 650,000 in England and Wales while excluding working-class men and all women.[97] This reform addressed electoral corruption and urban underrepresentation but maintained property-based rationales tied to stakeholding in society.[166] The Second Reform Act of 1867 further broadened male suffrage by granting household suffrage to urban working men, roughly doubling the electorate to 2 million across the UK and incorporating those with modest economic contributions.[98] The Third Reform Act of 1884 extended similar qualifications to rural agricultural laborers, raising the total electorate to about 5 million, or two-thirds of adult males, though paupers, criminals, and non-residents remained excluded.[167] Women's suffrage campaigns, initiated with petitions in the 1830s and formalized societies by 1867, gained traction amid arguments for equal civic capacity but faced opposition on grounds of differing interests and potential family disruption.[168] The Representation of the People Act 1918 marked a pivotal shift, enfranchising all men over 21 and women over 30 meeting property or residency criteria, tripling the electorate to 21 million and adding 8.4 million women, largely crediting their World War I industrial and military support roles.[169] The Equal Franchise Act 1928 equalized terms, granting women over 21 the vote regardless of property, adding 5 million more voters and establishing near-universal adult suffrage, though peers and certain professionals retained special qualifications until later.[170] In the British Commonwealth, suffrage developments mirrored the UK's gradualism but often incorporated racial and colonial exclusions reflecting governance stability concerns. New Zealand granted women full suffrage in 1893, the first self-governing dominion to do so without property limits.[171] Australia achieved federal women's enfranchisement in 1902 via the Commonwealth Franchise Act, building on state precedents, while extending rights primarily to white subjects.[172] Canada adopted federal male universal suffrage by 1918 alongside partial women's rights, with full equality by 1919, though Indigenous and Asian populations faced disenfranchisement until mid-20th century reforms.[173] Colonial territories under British rule typically restricted suffrage to European settlers or property-qualified elites, prioritizing administrative control over universal inclusion; for instance, in India, limited communal electorates based on literacy and wealth persisted until independence in 1947, when universal adult suffrage was adopted in 1950.[165] Post-colonial Commonwealth nations like South Africa delayed non-racial suffrage until 1994, underscoring how empire-era rationales of civic competence and contribution influenced uneven expansions, often lagging behind metropolitan Britain due to fears of ethnic fragmentation.[174] These patterns highlight causal links between suffrage criteria and perceived taxpayer or societal stakeholder status, with empirical delays in diverse polities correlating to stability risks.[175]United States
In the early years of the United States, suffrage was restricted primarily to white male property owners, with states determining qualifications under the Constitution's delegation of electoral authority. Property requirements, often requiring ownership of land or payment of taxes, excluded a significant portion of white men, as well as all women, enslaved people, free Black individuals, and Native Americans. By the 1820s and 1830s, most states eliminated property qualifications for white men, expanding the electorate to nearly all adult white males and aligning with Jacksonian democratic ideals, though literacy tests and other barriers persisted in some areas.[5][176] The Civil War prompted formal expansions via constitutional amendments. The 15th Amendment, ratified on February 3, 1870, prohibited denial of voting rights based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, enabling Black male enfranchisement during Reconstruction; thousands of Black men registered to vote, leading to elected officials in Southern legislatures. However, after federal troops withdrew in 1877, Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws—including poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, and white primaries—that effectively disenfranchised most Black voters without explicitly violating the amendment. By 1900, Black voter registration in states like Mississippi had fallen below 2%, sustained by intimidation and fraud until federal intervention.[177][178] Women's suffrage advanced through state-level campaigns and national advocacy, beginning with the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention, which demanded voting rights alongside other reforms. Territorial Wyoming granted women suffrage in 1869, followed by several Western states, but federal resolution came with the 19th Amendment, passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, barring denial of suffrage on account of sex. This enfranchised approximately 26 million women, though barriers like poll taxes and literacy tests continued to limit minority women's access until later reforms.[4][5] Mid-20th-century laws addressed lingering restrictions. The 24th Amendment, ratified January 23, 1964, abolished poll taxes in federal elections, targeting Jim Crow holdovers. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed August 6, authorized federal oversight of discriminatory practices in jurisdictions with histories of suppression, resulting in Black voter registration in the South rising from about 29% in 1964 to 61% by 1969. Subsequent expansions included the 23rd Amendment (1961) granting electoral votes to Washington, D.C., and the 26th Amendment (1971) lowering the voting age to 18, prompted by Vietnam War-era arguments for youth enfranchisement. Native Americans gained citizenship via the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, though full practical access varied by state until Voting Rights Act enforcement.[179][176]Continental Europe
In France, universal male suffrage was introduced in 1848 under the Second Republic, marking the first implementation of voting rights for nearly all adult men regardless of property or tax qualifications, though it was briefly suspended under Napoleon III before being reinstated. [148] [180] This reform enfranchised approximately 9 million voters, a dramatic expansion from the roughly 250,000 under the July Monarchy's restricted system. [181] Across other continental states, 19th-century male suffrage expansions were gradual and tied to constitutional reforms. In the German Empire, universal male suffrage for the Reichstag was established in 1871, applying to all men over 25 without property tests, though state-level voting remained more restricted. Prussia adopted near-universal male suffrage in 1849 during its constitutional assembly, but with three-class voting that weighted votes by wealth. [182] Belgium introduced universal male suffrage in 1893 after social unrest, initially with plural voting for certain classes before equalizing in 1919. [183] Women's suffrage emerged later and unevenly, often amid revolutionary or wartime disruptions. Finland, then a grand duchy under Russia, granted women the right to vote and stand for election in 1906, the first in Europe, enfranchising about 1.2 million women and leading to 19 female MPs in the 1907 parliament. [184] [185] Post-World War I republics accelerated progress: Germany extended full suffrage to women in 1918 via the Weimar Constitution, enabling their participation in the January 1919 elections. [186] Austria followed in 1918, with women voting in the November constituent assembly. [187] The Netherlands achieved women's suffrage in 1919, after partial municipal rights in 1908. [188] Southern and Western delays persisted due to conservative institutions and wartime priorities. Italy granted women suffrage in 1945 under the post-fascist provisional government, with first votes in the 1946 referendum. [189] France, despite early feminist demands during the 1789 Revolution, withheld national women's suffrage until 1944, when a decree under Charles de Gaulle enfranchised them for the 1945 elections. [186] Spain briefly allowed women to vote in 1931 under the Second Republic, but Franco's regime suspended it until restoration in 1977. [187] Switzerland lagged furthest, approving federal women's suffrage only in 1971 via referendum, after some cantons like Neuchâtel in 1959; Appenzell Innerrhoden held out until 1990. [190]| Country | Women's Suffrage Year | Key Context |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1906 | Parliamentary reform amid Russian autonomy struggles. [185] |
| Germany | 1918 | Weimar Republic constitution post-WWI abdication. [186] |
| Netherlands | 1919 | Post-WWI constitutional amendment. [188] |
| France | 1944 | Provisional government decree during WWII liberation. [186] |
| Italy | 1945 | Anti-fascist coalition amid Allied occupation. [189] |
| Switzerland | 1971 | National referendum; cantonal variations persisted. [190] |
Asia and Majority-Muslim Countries
Suffrage in Asia expanded unevenly, often linked to decolonization, post-war occupations, and nationalist movements, with many nations adopting universal adult voting rights upon independence or constitutional reform in the mid-20th century. India established universal adult suffrage through its 1950 Constitution, enfranchising all citizens aged 21 and older regardless of gender, literacy, or property, marking one of the world's largest immediate expansions to over 173 million voters by 1951. Japan granted women the right to vote on December 17, 1945, via revisions to the General Election Law under Allied occupation, enabling their participation in the 1946 elections where 67% of eligible women voted.[192] In China, women secured voting rights under the Republic of China's 1947 Constitution, effective April 12, though implementation varied amid civil war and subsequent communist rule.[193] Earlier adoptions occurred in select cases; Thailand extended suffrage to women in 1932 following the Siamese Revolution, while Mongolia did so in 1924 under Soviet-influenced reforms.[194] Post-colonial expansions prioritized broad enfranchisement to foster national unity, contrasting with property or literacy restrictions in earlier European models, though enforcement faced challenges from illiteracy and rural isolation.| Country | Year of Universal/Women's Suffrage | Key Context |
|---|---|---|
| India | 1950 | Constitution granted to all adults over 21. |
| Japan | 1945 | Post-WWII reforms under U.S. influence.[192] |
| China | 1947 | Republic Constitution amid political upheaval.[193] |
| Thailand | 1932 | Following constitutional monarchy shift.[194] |