Recently, while studying some pre-civil war documents for a class, I came across an article by a man named James Kent, from 1821, discussing the extension of voting rights. Not the right of women to vote, or even blacks. It goes back even farther, the extension of the vote to all white males past a certain age. At the time, the senate was selected by the property holders of the nation, the purpose being that property couldn't be taxed without the consent of the represented property owners. I find one of his arguments for not extending that vote beyond property holders to be very compelling, and I'll quote it here.

"The tendancy of universal suffrage, is to jeopardize the rights of property, and the principles of liberty. There is a constant tendency in human society, and the history of every age proves it; there is a tendency in the poor to covet a share in the plunder of the rich; in the debtor to relax or avoid the obligation of contracts; in the majority to tyrannize over the minority, and trample down their rights; in the indolent and profligate, to cast the whole burdens of society upon the industrious and the virtuous; and there is a tendency in ambitious and wicked men, to inflame these combustable materials." (James Kent, 1821, "A Legal Scholar Opposes Spreading the Vote", excerpt from Fulfilling the Founding)

From my observations of our political situation today, I can see truth in those words. Have you taken a look at the welfare system recently? I have an uncle who escaped from that system by joining the Air Force, then getting a college education, and now he's a very succesful business man, with a million dollar home. His parents and siblings are still in a slum, on welfare, unwilling to get a job or a source of income because they'll stop getting handouts. His mother has never held a drivers liscense. He tells stories of what life was like, drugs, gangs, etc. So how was the program established? Was it the honest, hardworking taxpayers who really wanted to give money to the needy, but didn't want to go through the charity programs of churches or the Salvation Army, and decided to have the government forcibly tax the charity out of them? If not, who was it that voted for the representitives that passed it?

So, the question is, who should be able to vote? Maybe a better question is, who shouldn't be allowed to vote? It's my suggestion that the answer lies with the tax bracket system the government has so kindly supplied us with. Who should have a larger say in where the government's money goes than the the taxpayers? Give the higher tax brackets a voice! They're already being penalized for their sucess, having more of their money taken as a reward for hard work and applied intelligence! Who is in a better position to decide the people to lead America? If not that, maybe we could go back to the system of property owners. The assumption behind it is that for a person to own property, he/she is probably motivated and hardworking, and educated and intelligent enough to participate in polititcs with the public good in mind. I like this one, because it reduces the influence of people like college kids, who have idealistic ideas, and don't have the real-world experience to make truely informed decisions. (Sorry guys, but I'm one of you)

I'm curious to see some opinions on this, so please post a comment. I'm still learning and would love some input. ;)