Saudi Arabian Votes

From the Wash Post:

More than 1,800 candidates were contesting 127 seats in the capital and surrounding villages on Thursday, with almost 700 of them running for seven seats in Riyadh. Only 149,000 out of 600,000 eligible voters have registered to vote. Two more phases will cover the rest of the country in March and April.

Whole account here.

Let's not confuse this with democracy (well, maybe with the 18th century equivalent) but let's also not pretend it isn't a significant change (however small)--or that it likely would have happened absent George W. Bush's foreign policy. I don't think we should have invaded Iraq and I remain intensely skeptical of the efficacy of the region-shaping aspirations of Dubya, but it may well be that the occupation of Iraq may have a salutary effect on the area beyond anything already going on in that country.

Comments

[R C Dean]

By being no fan of Bush's aspirations, are you saying that you are not in favor of reforming the Mideast away from thugocracies and theocracies, and toward something a little more democratic?

[Nick Gillespie]

RC,

I think I clarified my comment: Thug- and theocracies bad; democracies good (or better). The question is how you get from one to the other in a way that lasts for the long haul.

[joe]

Why is this so obviously a consequence of Bush's foreign policy? The House of Saud arranging for the richest male property owners to vote in municipal elections doesn't exactly line up with the model of democratization that's become the justification for this war - that the vision of a democratic Iraq will inspire the populations of other countries.

[UFP]

As Nick said, this is more like 18th century democracy instead of the modern type we are trying to install in Iraq. Would you suggest, joe, that the Revolutionary War really accomplished nothing, and it was the suffragettes and Freedom Riders that made this country a democracy?

[Ken Shultz]

"...but let's also not pretend it isn't a significant change (however small)--or that it likely would have happened absent George W. Bush's foreign policy."

It may not have happened absent the Bush Administration's withdrawal from Saudi Arabia, but I'm dubious of the idea that the Bush Administration's success in Iraq is a shining example that inspires imitators.

[joe]

UFP, the parallel you draw isn't right. These elections were not foisted up the House of Saud in a challenge to their rule, but were implemented by the House of Saud to consolidate their rule by coopting the 600,000 "equals" (big sloppy joe kiss to the first one who gets the reference) into the ruling elite.

A more apt parallel would be the election of colonial legislatures by the property owning Christian white males during colonial times. Perhaps a step towards democracy, but given a monarch with a little more skill and capacity to relate to the elite who get to vote, just as likely to be a co-option of nascent democratic stirrings.

[R C Dean]

Whether the Saudis are inspired by the shining example of all those blue fingers, or by the smoldering corpses of dead Wahhabists and sundry other Islamofascists, makes no difference to me.

I know correlation isn't causality, but the coincidence of voting in Iraq and voting in "saudi" arabia is striking, no?

[UFP]

joe, you are attributing a parallel to me that I haven't drawn. Nowhere did I say that Saudi's are voting because they have stood up to there government. I was disputing your assertion that Bush's foreign policy (i.e. - the Iraq War) had nothing to do with this limited display of democracy in Saudi Arabia.

[UFP]

Wow, I really can't get my use of 's and which there is their right this morning.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Wow, knock me over with an electron -- joe can't see any way that the Bush administration's policies in Iraq could have affected Saudi internal politics in a positive way.

Let's see -- the Earth orbits the sun, what goes up must come down, joe won't give Bush credit for anything -- okay, I can go back to sleep now, I know the laws of the universe will be the same when I wake up.

[joe]

"I know correlation isn't causality, but the coincidence of voting in Iraq and voting in "saudi" arabia is striking, no?"'

Not really. Similar elections, for relatively meaningless positions that will remain subordinate to the monarch who holds true power, have been more and more frequent in the region for some time now. Bahrain, Iran, and if I remember correctly, Kuwait and Jordan have had similar elections. These municipal elections had been planned for quite some time, no?

This is not to rule out the possibility that the Bush administration played some role in moving them forward - Ken's idea that the withdrawal of troops from the "land of the two cities" is interesting. I'm just noting that there were movements in this direction prior to Bush, and that the model of the king granting the vote to a tiny elite whose interests align closely with his own doesn't exactly jibe with the admin's stated democratization model.

[Ken Shultz]

Perhaps I'm terribly misinformed, but given my limited understanding of Saudi public opinion as it regards American foreign policy, it seems a wonder to me that elections were held in Saudi Arabia. That is to say, considering the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq, I think it more likely that elections took place in spite of Bush's foreign policy--not because of it.

[UFP]

One might draw the far-out conclusion that some elections can lead to more elections. One might also keep one's head in the sand and pretend that no sign of progress really amounts to anything as long as King George the Illegimate could somehow get the credit.

[joe]

So basically, UFP, you've got nothing to say. Have elections of this sort been held before in the region? Uh, joe's a liberal. Does the format of the elections represent a real movement towards popular sovereignty and liberalization? Uh, joe's a liberal.

Baa baa, we can't listen to comments that don't glorify George Bush, because the source is biased. How do we know the source is biased? Well, he's writing comments that don't glorify George Bush. Baa baa.

You can try to explain, using arguments and facts, how American policy over the past three years brought these elections about, or you can turn this thread into a referendum on whether you like or dislike George Bush. So far, you've opted for the latter.

[UFP]

joe

I don't like George Bush. Perhaps you should know where I stand before you make arguments based upon your misconceptions. I also don't care for arguments that are reflexively anti-Bush, like some people on this forum.

[Eric II]

"Would you suggest, joe, that the Revolutionary War really accomplished nothing, and it was the suffragettes and Freedom Riders that made this country a democracy?"

Context is everything. Though some European nations had elections of one kind or another, post-Revolutionary America was still as democratic a place as there was in the world at the time. No one can say that about Saudi Arabia today, even if you limit your context to the Arab world.

That said, I doubt that turning Saudi Arabia into a full-blown democracy overnight would end up being a good thing. The winners of such an election would likely make the heads of SCIRI and Dawa look like ACLU secularists by comparison.

[joe]

My point, UFP, is that how one feels about George Bush, or how one feels about how someone feels about George Bush, is irrelevant. I raised substantive points - do you have anything to say about them, other than that they can't be right, because I don't like George Bush?

[UFP]

Speaking to the topic, it would seem that any open, transparent elections, even without universal suffrage, is a good thing is Saudi Arabia. Even if the House of Saud remains in power, if the people get the opportunity to decide on who will make the decisions that affect them locally, that's a good thing. I'm unaware of any modern country that has prospered with limited suffrage, so it can be hoped for that eventually everyone will have the right to vote, although it may require a struggle similar to those in our country's past.

Furthermore, I can't see how anyone could not accept that without the U.S. overthrowing Saddam Hussein and allowing the Iraqis to form their own democracy, along with what we've accomplished in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries wouldn't even be contemplating democratic reforms. If the people in your country can ask "hey, if voting is good enough for them, why not for us?", you can pretty much be assured that your days as a dictator/supreme monarch are numbered. If, however, you believe that these are natural events not predicated upon our actions in Iraq, it seems to me you have the equal burden of proving your case, instead of nitpicking other peoples comments without actually saying anything yourself.

[UFP]

I'm sorry joe, but I can't find a single point you've made in this thread regarding the Saudi elections that could be termed "substantive".

[joe]

'I'm sorry joe, but I can't find a single point you've made in this thread regarding the Saudi elections that could be termed "substantive".' You're not much of a reader, then. Let me make it easy for you.

"The House of Saud arranging for the richest male property owners to vote in municipal elections doesn't exactly line up with the ...the vision of a democratic Iraq will inspire the populations of other countries." Yes? No? Maybe? Doesn't matter?

"These elections were not foisted up the House of Saud in a challenge to their rule, but were implemented by the House of Saud to consolidate their rule..." Hello?

"...there were movements in this direction prior to Bush" Is this thing on?

"the model of the king granting the vote to a tiny elite whose interests align closely with his own doesn't exactly jibe with the admin's stated democratization model" Does it? Is a carefully orchestrated election like this counterproductive, if it serves only to provide a facade of popular approval for the continuation of illiberal, theocratic monarchism?

And I won't bother to repeat my point about the strategic limitation of suffrage, since you apparently found it substantive enough to respond to.

[Matt F]

joe-
"These elections were not foisted up the House of Saud in a challenge to their rule, but were implemented by the House of Saud to consolidate their rule..."

A few posts ago you were citing the sham Iranian elections of a few years ago as sign of democratic progress aborted by the Iraq war.

I don't think UFP's out of line here.

[no opinion]

"The polls are part of a cautious programme of reform introduced by de facto ruler Crown Prince Abdullah, who has faced growing calls for change from domestic activists and Saudi Arabia's main ally, the United States.

Critics say the elections are largely a cosmetic response to reform demands. But diplomats say the vote will at least create a mechanism for Saudis to channel concerns and complaints."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,11599,1410067,00.html

"Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a political scientist and TV talk show host from the United Arab Emirates, cheered what he called "the spring of elections" ? a wave of voting in Iraq, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Egypt.

"If even one Arab is allowed in his own free conscience to go and exercise his right to vote, that's a victory for democracy," he said in a recent interview. But like many Arabs, he doesn't believe that the U.S. has any intention of promoting a true democratic overhaul of the region."
...
"For all their flaws, the Saudi elections have unleashed an unprecedented level of public debate within the kingdom. Even Awajy acknowledged that this was a "very small step in a long, hard path. But we have to walk. We have no alternative."

The excitement was palpable in the last week as a festive chaos of tent meetings, lectures and canvassing overtook Riyadh.

In a land where the public display of images of people's faces is considered a religious taboo, candidates' pictures have been printed on T-shirts and splashed across vast roadside billboards.

In a nation where political gatherings have long been banned, candidates have been holding nightly rallies, debates and lectures under their Bedouin-style tents, which dot vacant lots all over the capital. Discussions range from city services to corruption to poetry ? anything to stimulate debate and attract voters."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-arabvote10feb10,1,954585.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

'"It took a long time to get here but we've broken through a psychological barrier, that we couldn't deal with ballot boxes," said university professor Sulaiman Enezi, who raised his arms in triumph after casting his vote.'
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2005-02-10T161505Z_01_HOL024372_RTRUKOC_0_SAUDI-ELECTIONS.xml

[Xrlq]

I think I clarified my comment: Thug- and theocracies bad; democracies good (or better). The question is how you get from one to the other in a way that lasts for the long haul.

I think the questions a bit broader question than that, namely if you can get from one to the other in a way that lasts for the long haul. If we can, sometimes war is the only option. Elections are better, but for some reason Saddam kept winning them.

[huskermet]

Not being specifically in favor of invading Iraq (on diplomacy and timetable issues, not on anti-war sentiment), I agree with Gillespie.

While not necessarily a primary cause, Iraq has certainly had the effect of turning up the heat on the moderate elements of the Saudi government. To what degree is difficult to assess.

I read a piece recently (I'll try to find the link) basically describing Saudi Arabia as a country with a split personality. One prince (the one next in line for succession) is pro-Western liberalization, the other is pro-Wahabbism. Unfortunately the second prince is in charge of state security. The upshot is that moderates and liberals have to walk a very fine line toward democracy or risk getting thrown in jail, even while having tacit support from one important element of the government.

I believe this may be a prime mover in our schizo foreign relations with Saudi Arabia. There is a very real risk of upsetting the apple cart there in an attempt to get it moving faster in the right direction.

Also, Saudi Arabia, unlike Iraq and Iran, has a real deficiency in "intellectuals" to take up the banner of liberalization. Anyone educated in the West, that actually returns, has money and therefore supports the status quo, or more often, spends a lot of time outside the country and really isn't all that interested (because they can escape). The Saudi "street" on the other hand is poor, ignorant, and over-churched (or mosqued). In other words, the grassroots level from which democracy would gain momentum is the last place from which democracy ACTUALLY WILL gain momentum.

If Bush's big vision turns out to be viable (and the jury is still out on that), Saudi Arabia will be one of the last dominoes to fall, IMO.

[UFP]

"The House of Saud arranging for the richest male property owners to vote in municipal elections doesn't exactly line up with the ...the vision of a democratic Iraq will inspire the populations of other countries." Yes? No? Maybe? Doesn't matter?

I suppose mentioning that Rome wasn't built in a day would be meaningless. I will simply state that I believe that, combined with the democratic changes in Iraq, the more elections, in any Middle Eastern country, the better, because the more people are exposed to democracy, the more they will want. Unless anyone here believes that the "noble savages" or the Middle East need tyrants to keep them in line and steal their natural wealth (i.e. oil) from them.

"These elections were not foisted up the House of Saud in a challenge to their rule, but were implemented by the House of Saud to consolidate their rule..." Hello?

Meaningless, because of the belief I asserted in the previous paragraph.

"...there were movements in this direction prior to Bush" Is this thing on?

Sez you. Proof, please, instead of empty assertions. Were these elections planned during the Clinton adminstration, and just now have finally been implemented, or did the Saudis finally quit giving lip service to elections and realize they better do something to move towards a more democratic Saudi Arabia?

"the model of the king granting the vote to a tiny elite whose interests align closely with his own doesn't exactly jibe with the admin's stated democratization model" Does it? Is a carefully orchestrated election like this counterproductive, if it serves only to provide a facade of popular approval for the continuation of illiberal, theocratic monarchism?

Baby steps, man, baby steps. Blacks and women couldn't vote for many years in this country, but their state of disenfrachisement wasn't permanent, was it? I'll take a sham election, once again, because of my belief that democracy is contagious, and now that the Saudis have cracked open Pandora's box they will be forced to spread voting rights until they are universal in that country.

[joe]

"A few posts ago you were citing the sham Iranian elections of a few years ago as sign of democratic progress aborted by the Iraq war."

Not quite - I cited the protest movement as a sign of democratic progress aborted by the Iraq war. I cited the "sham" elections (which were not always complete shams, but have gotten less free over time) as evidence that movement towards democratic reform could come from indigineous sources. Two different points.

The point I'm raising here is the second one - that just as Iranian elections came out of Iranian politics, so did these Saudi elections come out of Saudi politics. It is a mistake to attribute all signs of progress towards democracy to American foreign policy.

Elections have been happening more and more frequently in the region for some time before the invasion of Iraq. Was the last round of elections in Bahrain inspired by an Iraqi election that hadn't yet happened?

[Eric II]

"One prince (the one next in line for succession) is pro-Western liberalization"

Crown Prince Abdullah. Only a liberal by Saudi standards, though.

"the other is pro-Wahabbism"

Prince Nayef, the Interior Minister. The guy who suggested that a "Zionist plot" was responsible for 9/11. More recently responsible for jailing a number of pro-reform dissidents.

It goes without saying that we don't have a lot of good options in terms of dealing with Saudi Arabia. The Bush Administration evidently believes that their best bet is to quietly nudge the moderates within the House of Saud towards liberalization. Unfortunately, it looks as if America's economic ties with Saudi Arabia and the Bush family's personal ties to the Saudi royal family either blind Bush from recognizing the extent to which Saudi money and ideology has wound up being a force of extremism and instability throughout the world, or paralyze him from applying the kind of pressure that's needed.

[Anon]

I always wondered if we should have given Afganistan a copy of our original constitution, allowing slavery and only allowing property owning males to vote. It would have fit right in with their culture if instead of states we used clans.

[Eric II]

"Not quite - I cited the protest movement as a sign of democratic progress aborted by the Iraq war."

The Iranian reform movement was dead long before Iraq got invaded. I think the real turning point was 1999, with the protests of 2001 and 2003 representing dying gasps. Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations deserve some blame for not effectively engaging the reformers, but the Europeans also deserve blame for not standing up to their opponents.

"I cited the "sham" elections (which were not always complete shams, but have gotten less free over time)"

Even when the elections weren't complete shams, ultimate power still resided with the Council of Guardians. The Iranian Parliament had all the authority of a high school student council.

[joe]

"I will simply state that I believe that, combined with the democratic changes in Iraq, the more elections, in any Middle Eastern country, the better, because the more people are exposed to democracy, the more they will want."

I actually agree with this - people watching other people vote, and especially seeing the people in power change, or at least change their policies, as a result of elections, are likely to inspire further elections. There are a few big IFs there (that the elections will actually be meaningful, that the elected leadership will endorse a liberal democratic ideology, that positive changes will follow elections), but I certainly wouldn't disagree with the broad dynamic. Look what happened in the USSR after the first election to the Congress of People's Deputies.

My point is something else entirely - that I haven't seen anything that leads me to conclude that the elections in Saudi Arabia were motivated by the Sauds responding to American foreign policy, rather than to internal politics.

"Baby steps" is an important concept to keep in mind - our democracy came about through baby steps, a process that continues to this day. But it is also a useful excuse for tyrants - from white supremacistis in the pre-Civil Rights south to the Sauds today - to excuse their efforts to hold back progress.

[joe]

Eric II, what leads you to conclude that the 2001 protests were a movement in decline? By 2003, the protests were much smaller (as Iranians rallied 'round the flag) and the authorities were able to crush them with impunity (as the public tends to allow happen during emergency situations), but didn't some of the security officials responsible for the anti-protester violence in 2001 end up in jail, as a result of popular outrage?

"Even when the elections weren't complete shams, ultimate power still resided with the Council of Guardians. The Iranian Parliament had all the authority of a high school student council." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they had all the authority of the colonial legislatures, which served under royal governors?

[joe]

More relevantly, Eric, wouldn't you say that the Iranian parliament had more power than the people being elected right now in the Saudi elections?

The electorate in Iran was certainly broader than that in Saudi Arabia.

[Ken Shultz]

"My point is something else entirely - that I haven't seen anything that leads me to conclude that the elections in Saudi Arabia were motivated by the Sauds responding to American foreign policy, rather than to internal politics."

Bingo! That's my point too.

I'm trying to imagine the people of Saudi Arabia, suddenly realizing that America was right about Iraq all along, and hang their heads and say, yes, Bush was right, we were wrong--so we must emulate the Bush Administration's efforts in Iraq.

Meanwhile, those who run the House of Saud, in response to Bush's State of the Union address, say to themselves--you know, President Bush is right. We should follow the example the Bush Administration has set for us in Iraq and institute a Democracy.

That's just a fantasy!

[UFP]

joe:

Nick's original statement was :"...but let's also not pretend it isn't a significant change (however small)--or that it likely would have happened absent George W. Bush's foreign policy." You seem to be arguing that these Saudi elections would have happened without GWB's foreign policy, but I'm still not seeing the proof to back up the assertation. Yes, you "haven't seen anything that leads me to conclude that the elections in Saudi Arabia were motivated by the Sauds responding to American foreign policy, rather than to internal politics", but I haven't seen anything that proves the opposite. There's really no point in continuing the debate on this when without actual proof of the reason for the elections we can go on all day about this, so...

You're a nazi.

[linguist]

"It is a mistake to attribute all signs of progress towards democracy to American foreign policy."

Joe, isn't it equally a mistake to argue either of the following?
1) American foreign policy has no effect on the politics of countries in the Middle East or,
2) All negative (anti-democracy, etc., etc.) outcomes can be attributed to American foreign policy

Given three propositions, and no possibility of doing a controlled experiment to eliminate one or more, shouldn't we consider all three equally and look at the evidence rather than dimissing them out of hand?

Or, rather, since none of these all-or-nothing propositions seems to get us anywhere, can't we conclude at some point that it's possible that current US foreign policy will have both good and bad influence on the situation?

Nick's post hasn't, nor has anyone else here, claimed strongly that "this step toward democracy is a direct result of GWB's policy". The claim is that, perhaps we ought to consider that it may be one of many factors, since not even Saudi Arabia exists in a vaccuum.

[joe]

UFP, agreed. With the first part. Though the second thing was funny.

You big statist, you.

linguist, it would indeed be a mistake to make those claims. While broad strokes about foreign policy gets the attention, fine points are much more likely to lead you to something like the truth.

Mr. Gillespie's comment was, "let's also not pretend...that [elections] likely would have happened absent George W. Bush's foreign policy." That looks an awful lot like an assertion that these elections likey would not have happened absent W's foreign policy. My point: "Why is this so obviously a consequence of Bush's foreign policy?" Because he talks a lot about democracy, and the one happened after the other?

[huskermet]

Thanks for the assist Eric II! Still looking for that article.

I don't think there's specifically any head hanging at work, but surely the Saudi government must be looking north and wondering how long the status quo can last without internal revolt or external sanctions (or invasion). As more dominoes fall (or don't), the pressure to reform increases (or decreases).

Like I said, elections in Iraq may not be THE cause, but they certainly help move things forward.

[linguist]

OK, Joe, I see your point. I didn't take Nick's comment as being that absolute.

Just seems to me that throwing a war into the mix in the area will inevitably be an instrument of change. We can argue it will make things better, make things worse, but in any case it has changed the environment.

It did sound initially like you had a knee-jerk reaction that it "couldn't possibly" be due to the US's foreign policy. If that's not what you were saying, then I guess I read you the way you read Nick.

Cheers!

[Eric II]

"Eric II, what leads you to conclude that the 2001 protests were a movement in decline?"

In terms of the popular support, they were smaller and more contained than the 1999 protests. They revolved around the death sentence (subsequently overturned) given to a reformist intellectual, and dissipated soon after it was announced that the death sentence would be reviewed.

"By 2003, the protests were much smaller (as Iranians rallied 'round the flag) and the authorities were able to crush them with impunity (as the public tends to allow happen during emergency situations)"

I don't have any numbers on me, but I'm pretty sure the 2003 protests were larger, and thus the need for more violence to put them down. The Iraq war might have given some inspiration to the protestors, though once it became clear that the regime had the ability and willingness to use violence to put them down, most Iranians decided that it wasn't worth their while.

I consider 1999 to be the turning point since that was the point where the mullahs really began cracking down - shutting down newspapers, assaulting and jailing protestors, assassinating well-known reformists, and so on. Though Khatami and his peers were able to put an end to the assassinations, they weren't willing to do anything more, recognizing that the kind of opposition needed could bring about the downfall of the regime. As their supporters gradually recognized this, the Iranian reform movement steadily lost momentum.

Had more outside support been given to the reformers, and more pressure brought to bear on the hardliners, the situation might have ended differently.

"Wouldn't it be more accurate to say they had all the authority of the colonial legislatures, which served under royal governors?"

That's hard to say. The Council of Guardians may have technically been constrained in creating laws by the Parliament, but it was free to interpret the Iranian constitution so loosely that, de facto, it could do almost anything it wanted. By and large, I don't think the same could be said for the royal governors.

[Ken Shultz]

"I don't think there's specifically any head hanging at work, but surely the Saudi government must be looking north and wondering how long the status quo can last without internal revolt or external sanctions (or invasion). As more dominoes fall (or don't), the pressure to reform increases (or decreases."

I am not the master of Saudi public opinion; however, my understanding is that the reason democracy advocates in Saudi Arabia want democracy is so that they can get rid of the House of Saud. My understanding is that the reason they want to get rid of the House of Saud is because the House of Saud is an ally of the United States of America. My understanding is that one of the biggest reasons they don't want the Kingdom to be allied with the United States of America is because they hate America's foreign policy.

Is my understanding wrong on any of these points?

[SR]

NPR this morning said these were the first Saudi municipal elections "in over 40 years". I honestly don't know if that's correct or not but, assuming it is, that would tend to indicate that there's no guarantee these elections are the beginning of a trend. Let's see how long it takes them to hold the next ones.

[Adam]

700 people running for 7 seats in Riyadh? Reminds me of a recent governor's race in California..

[chthus]

Speaking of Saidis:

'The Defense Minister, Prince Sultan Feted read a poem with the following verse: "Long live security - may its men hold their heads high on every corner. [Bin Laden], whose ideology is sick, who was sent by the Jews, who is the architect of theft, was treacherous and sent us the criminals. This traitor of the nation tried to harm us, but his efforts boomeranged back upon him."'
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=76681

Those jews really do control everything, don't they?

[Matt F]

Ken Shultz:
"the reason democracy advocates in Saudi Arabia want democracy is so that they can get rid of the House of Saud. "

Keep in mind that the Saudi regime is not monolithic, and that these elections could be one faction's attempt to create its own base of support.

If so, more power to them, and if we pass up the chance to identify some of our own tenuous allies because we're too afraid of the "one man, one vote, one time" bugbear, it's to our own discredit.

[huskermet]

Ken:

Agreed on all. As I said, the Saudi masses are not really inclined toward democracy.

I was talking about top down support for reform movements.

[gaius marius]

arranging for the richest male property owners to vote in municipal elections

take out the "male", and this is pretty close to what i'd like to see us go back to. putting power back in the hands of a limited aristocracy is far more sensible than being the subject of the whim of the idiot lemmings.

there's two dozen inbred trailer-park denizens in this country for every masters candidate and businessowner. can we wonder why we reelect a fascist like dubya or a con like tricky dick or slick willie?

[Phil]

Heaven forfend non-property-owners get a voice in the government that controls how they live their lives. All you renters can just go fuck yourselves.

It's OK, though -- as we know from history, noblesse oblige kicks in fairly quickly. Aaaaaaaaany minute now.

[a]

huskermet: "Saudi Arabia, unlike Iraq and Iran, has a real deficiency in "intellectuals" to take up the banner of liberalization."

Why do you think that Iraq or Iran has more "intellectuals" than Saudi Arabia? Do you know anything at all about Saudi? What is your evidence? Not sure what you mean by intellectuals, but if you look at lieracy rates as an indicator (from CIA Factbook):

Saudi Arabia 78.8%.
Iraq 40.4%.
Iran 79.4%.

So Saudi is on par with Iran and far better than Iraq.

Huskermet: "Anyone educated in the West, that actually returns, has money and therefore supports the status quo, or more often, spends a lot of time outside the country and really isn't all that interested (because they can escape)."

Why does this apply to Saudi but not Iraq or Iran? Again, what is you evidence?

Huskermet: "The Saudi "street" on the other hand is poor, ignorant, and over-churched (or mosqued). "

Again, you are dead wrong here. GDP (per capita) figures:

Saudi Arabia $11,800.
Iraq $1,500.
Iran $7,000.

The Saudi street is richer, more educated than the Iraqi street. It is richer and almost equally educated with the Iranian street.

The Saudi "elections" are nothing but a sham and a cosmitic move to take some pressure off of the royal family and its friends in the Bush administration. If the royal family is truely interested in reform, then, why would they jail last year the refomrists who called for constitutional monarchy and judiciary independence (http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=55440&d=2&m=12&y=2004)

The Saudi street is smart enough to see through this, that is why many didn't even bother to register to vote.

[gaius marius]

All you renters can just go fuck yourselves.

utterly.

i feel no need to kowtow to the rousseauians. giving the vote to everyone has yielded a government that functions like an atm and a political dialogue with less intellectual depth than "fear factor".

those who love trailer-park voters can kiss my ass. universal suffrage remains a horrible mistake that is ending representative government here as it has everywhere else its been tried in history.

[Eric II]

"take out the "male", and this is pretty close to what i'd like to see us go back to. putting power back in the hands of a limited aristocracy is far more sensible than being the subject of the whim of the idiot lemmings."

I've long been intrigued by the idea of making voting a little more like driving. Require any citizen seeking to vote to take a short test once every five years, quizzing them on how their local, state, and federal governments function, and on the text of their state and federal constitutions. Answer a decent percentage of the questions (perhaps 2/3 or 3/4) correctly, and you receive a license to vote for the next five years. Make a booklet containing facts from which the questions are drawn freely available at government offices, and over the Internet, so that no one save for the illiterate can claim discrimination.

Whether this would lead to much better governance is hard to say, as plenty of intelligent people have signed off on idiotic things over the years. But it would likely succeed in removing a lot of the populist idiocy that modern-day politics is infused with.

[thoreau]

I wouldn't assume that the Saudi elections have nothing to do with Bush's policies. Then again, I wouldn't assume a connection either. I simply don't know enough.

I think joe is arguing that we should wait before drawing conclusions.

Why is skepticism such a bad thing?

And if we disenfranchised renters, a hell of a lot of wealthy urban denizens would be disenfranchised, since there are places where apartment dwelling is the norm even for the affluent. Meanwhile, a lot of rural dwellers of fairly modest means would have the vote.

Whether that's a good or a bad thing, the point is that franchise based on property wouldn't just be based on income, as some assume.

[gaius marius]

populist idiocy

indeed, mr eric, i think it could. i still prefer a property-requirement, simply because it means that you have a larger stake in the outcome of elections -- the owners have the assets and income which the government takes to operate. a property requirement would have a great limiting effect on the size of government -- i don't think the explosion of governmental size in the west is entirely unrelated to the movement to universal suffrage.

that said, such a gov't is still best when run by lockean principles -- rule by law and separated powers. an aristocratic gov't so divided is checked by the people (who still hold the pitchforks and torches, after all) to ensure that their power does not grow beyond the proscription of law.

none of this is new, of course. it's the system the english fought for in the 17th c and that we subsequently constructed in the 18th.

[Fabius]

Marius,

I recommend a small property qualification (or certification as a federal taxpayer) combined with temporary disenfranchisement of all those who take any money from the federal government between federal elections (including soldiers, federal employees, judges, representatives, senators, the president, welfare recipients, social security recipients, the employees of governement contractors and anyone else sho gets one red cent of federal taxpayer money). The penalty for any kind of federal vote fraud would be permanent exile and confiscation of all property.

I am quite serious about this.

QFMC cos. V

[gaius marius]

the point is that franchise based on property wouldn't just be based on income, as some assume.

agreed, mr thoreau. all the states restricted suffrage to freeholders of some minimum value -- "freehold" being the outright ownership of some real estate without debt against it.

alexander hamilton wrote in the farmer refuted:

If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote? But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.

this was then a society that still sensibly looked askance of indebtedness.

I am quite serious about this.

agreed, mr fabius. receipt of entitlement should be an obvious disqualifier specifically to prevent those who hamilton refers to as "some who are suspected to have no will of their own". putting people who are dipping into the till the chance to determine who guards the till is the quickest path to economic implosion.

[Gary Gunnels]

R.C. Dean, etc.,

I think its more clearly influenced by Qatar's election in April 2003; after all, that election came long before the Iraqi or the Saudi elections. 🙂

Anyway, it would be helpful to know the chronology re: the Saudi elections. When were they first proposed, etc., in other words?

Furthermore, I think you can credit AQ as much as anyone for whatever reforms are happening in the kingdom.

_______________________________________

BTW, the 35-hour week in France is on life-support: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0502100268feb10,1,4678273.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

[thoreau]

If we want to set an example for democratic reform in Saudi Arabia then it is imperative that we invade Togo!

[kwais]

All y'all are comparing the municipal elections to the US, but it might be more like the first elections in England. A little leads to a little more.

Pretty soon the land owners and big buisness guys want a say, and what they say is good for buisness, and then more people want in to the privelidged citizen thing. Then WW1 and suffrage. Or something like that.

[a]

GG:
"it would be helpful to know the chronology re: the Saudi elections. When were they first proposed, etc., in other words?"

The legislation for municipal elections was put forth in 1977 (1397 in Hijri calendar). They just needed a long time to carefully plan for them:-)

From: http://www.alriyadh.gov.sa/election/en-historical-brief.asp

"On 21 / 2/1397H the regulations for villages and municipalities was issued including 49 items. The items from 6 to 27 were about the municipal councils. This rule stated that the municipal authorities are assumed by two departments:
a) The municipal council which assumes the responsibility of decision and supervision.
b) The municipality chairman who assumes the responsibility of executive duties with the assistance of the municipality departments.

The rule stated that the minister of municipal and rural affairs determines by a resolution the number of the municipal council members at each municipality provided that the number should not be less than four and not to exceed fourteen; chairman included. Half members of the council will be elected and the other half to be appointed by the minister of Municipal and Rural Affairs, in regard of their qualifications and skillfulness."

[Phil]

those who love trailer-park voters can kiss my ass

So everyone who doesn't own their own home is an uneducated white-trash rube? Brilliant. I can't wait to see the scads and scads of evidence you've compiled supporting this fascinating thesis.

none of this is new, of course. it's the system the english fought for in the 17th c and that we subsequently constructed in the 18th.

Yes, well, the same system entailed hanging the Jean Valjeans of the world or deporting them for life 8,000 miles away, but those were stupid ideas too.

[Andrew]

RE the LAST round of elections in Iran, I followed on all the English language blogs I could find...also the Persian New Year's Night protests (where the Guardians attempted to supress the pre-Moslem/Zoroastrian custom of lighting bonfires...

A.) I did not detect the slightest hint the Iraq war had dampened the entusiasm of regime critics...or made their situation more problematic. joe has been submitting this myth into the threads for some days now (at least) and I'd love to hear more from him.
I DID hear them complain vociferously about the complacency of the EU.

B.) The goal of regime critics in the last round of parliamentary elections was to BOYCOTT the ballot (since there were NO candidates - even of Katami's stripe - permitted to run, they could possibly want to run for)...which was held down to about 25% of the francise - mostly regime employees, the devout, and elderly people dependent on the state pension.
Is that what joe means by "declining enthusiasm" for reform, attributable to the Iraq war?

Why do joe (and Juan Cole) give the ballot in 1996 - 8 years ago - as if it were a contemporaneous event...and it isn't the most recent round of elections in Iran?

Anti-regime opponents used to shout "Death to the Taliban - in Kabul and in Tehran"
I suppose joe's take could be that the Afghan liberation = GOOD, and helped democracy in Iran, and the Iraqi liberation = BAD, and retarded reform in Iran. I would love to hear him forthrightly say so...and I would guess we won't, as it could be so easily and embarassingly de-bunked.

[Phil]

In fact, the mind boggles at the idea of, say, some friends of mine, one a litigator at DoJ and the other in middle-management at one of the nation's top 5 consulting firms, and who recently purchased a lovely colonial in the half-million dollar range, being considered "traile-park voters" by some dickhead on the Internet simply because they have a mortgage. Yeesh.

Note to self: Nothing gaius marius says is even remotely worthwhile.

[gaius marius]

So everyone who doesn't own their own home is an uneducated white-trash rube?

obviously, mr phil, you've decided you don't have a satisfactory intellectual counterpoint and so misrepresent the argument and insult it.

does it help quell your passion to realize that no one in the united states or britain who did not meet freehold requirements voted until well into the 19th c? we're only talking about restoring some aspects of the constitution that, in retrospect, appear more vital to the proper and enduring operation of representative government than was at first suspected.

seriously -- do you think majoritarianism played no role in elevating the 20th c european dictators? do you imagine that majoritarianism has played no role in undermining the fiscal condition of the united states and in supporting the burgeoning entitlement state?

[Andrew]

I have heard a lot of "quais" rants in the past couple of months, and he trades in the American (pop) custom of dismissing are political leaders as fools and scoundrels - a curiously "jacobin" and populist habit, fully consonant with popular democracy - which is especially pronounced among Libertarians...and especially when they are under 25, literally or emotionally...

....and I think it is all more than a bit silly, really.

Americans, and all citizens of contemporary industrial democracies, have been well served by their political elites - both in absolute terms, and in any comparison you can draw with anything you can actually compare them to. I will take popular democracy any day.

[gaius marius]

who recently purchased a lovely colonial in the half-million dollar range, being considered "traile-park voters" by some dickhead on the Internet simply because they have a mortgage

fwiw, so would i be excluded. freehold limited the franchise to an estimated 5% of the population.

perhaps you can enlighten us, mr phil, on why you are so emotionally opposed to the idea?

[Phil]

does it help quell your passion to realize that no one in the united states or britain who did not meet freehold requirements voted until well into the 19th c?

Yes, I can't tell you how eager I am to return to the halcyon days of the late 18th century.

Because you are so eager to be ruled like a peon by your supposed social betters, don't assume everyone else is as well.

[Phil]

Of course I just realized how this plays into your whole dumb schtick. Being able to decide or to have a role in deciding who gets to make the laws under which you will be required to live is the ultimate in invidiualism, something you can't abide.

[gaius marius]

all citizens of contemporary industrial democracies, have been well served by their political elites

in some cases, mr andrew -- particularly in the anglophone tradition. but one must also remember that universal democracy elevated the nazi party in germany, the fascist party in italy and in any number of smaller democracies.

survivorship bias makes it appear to some that democracy is a tremendously successful form of government -- just look at the united states and britain! right, well, one also must account for the failed democracies that served only to grease the skids into totalitarianism. for every democracy that lasts a hundred years, there are many others who did not last 20. europe, the americas and the third world are littered with failed democracies.

i think that being a "contemporary industrial" nation or a favored colony of one is far more important to what we would call success than being "democratic". indeed, wealthy and happy nations have existed exclusive of democracy for the vast majority of human political history.

[gaius marius]

you didn't answer my question, mr phil.

[Ken Shultz]

...and here I thought I was radical by suggesting that we go back to having our state legislatures choose our Senators!

[thoreau]

gauis-

OK, let's say for the sake of argument that it is better to live in a society ruled by an elite of the best and the brightest. In a truly free market, some sort of wealth-based test (be it income, or property, or whatever) would certainly tend to correlate with intellect and virtue and all that good stuff.

Sure, there would be idiots who inherited their wealth, but even those guys wouldn't be as well off. e.g. What little business success W has enjoyed comes at least indirectly from political connections. In a truly free market, political connections wouldn't be nearly as valuable (though I hasten to add that they would still undoubtedly have some value).

OK, so we've got our truly free market and the wealth distribution is pretty strongly correlated with the talent distribution and we're ruled by the best and the brightest. That's nice.

There's just one little problem, at least from your perspective: You've frequently criticized markets as being another example of hyperindividualism run amok. So I doubt that your ideal society would have a purely market economy.

In that case, entering the upper class would be a much more corrupt matter than in a free market. Would the upper class still comprise the best and the brightest? If so, how? If not, would they really be any better than plain old representative government?

[gaius marius]

Because you are so eager to be ruled like a peon by your supposed social betters, don't assume everyone else is as well.

i'm certain most aren't, specifically because plebiscitarianism is the ultimate in invidiualism, as you say.

but i'm less interested in self-empowerment than in living under a modest, tolerant, well-run and durable form of government.

[thoreau]

Here's a hypothetical model of government to consider:

Suppose that we elected a bicameral legislature divided by economic class. The lower 50% (as measured by income, net worth, or some similar number) elects one chamber of the legislature, and the upper 50% elects the other chamber. Both chambers have equal powers in all matters of government.

(Assume that there's still a Bill of Rights and enumerated powers and whatnot, and the function of this legislature is only to act within those constraints. And leave aside the issue of how each half of the population elects its chamber, and just assume that, one way or another, each chamber is fairly representative of its half of the population.)

Every citizen would still have an equal say in government. Redistribution would still be possible (if it only harmed a minority of the upper half) but more difficult (you'd have to redistribute from 24% instead of from 49%).

What people here think?

Also, those who wish to could generalize this model to tricameral or even larger legislatures. Tricameral might coincide nicely with the common division of society into the "lower class", "middle class", and "upper class."

[Twba]

I think Thoreau is onto something. How about everyone gets one vote for House member. For Senate, each person gets one vote for each dollar he/she paid in federal income tax the previous year?

[Gary Gunnels]

Andrew,

A.) I did not detect the slightest hint the Iraq war had dampened the entusiasm of regime critics...or made their situation more problematic. ... I DID hear them complain vociferously about the complacency of the EU.

Well, let's note that your observations don't come from a truly representative sample. Second, I don't see why the U.S. invasion would have any impact either way; its the height of arrogance (of both you and joe) to assume that Iranians are marching in lock-step to U.S. actions. Third, many of the blogs, etc. I've seen have praised the E.U. for trying to work with the regime and for general level of trade that has come into being between E.U. countries and Iran (e.g., new factories, etc.).

[thoreau]

twba, if votes were based on taxes paid then the Dems would start supporting "tax cuts for the rich" while the GOP might suddenly find themselves squeamish about it. And the Dems would suddenly be willing to contemplate a tax increase for the poor while the GOP would oppose it.

That would get bizarre.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

If you want to imagine a government ruled by a plutocracy one need look no further than ante-bellum states like South Carolina. Rule by a plutocracy would generally lead to revolution, since abuses by the plutocrats would invariably follow their rise to power.

[UFP]

in some cases, mr andrew -- particularly in the anglophone tradition. but one must also remember that universal democracy elevated the nazi party in germany, the fascist party in italy and in any number of smaller democracies.

Double Godwin! How is this thread still alive?

[thoreau]

So, in the end, your critique is that those who pay the bills should call the shots. You certainly have a point there, but you obfuscate it with all your talk of individualism.

Remind me again why it is that you clash with Gilbert Martin so frequently, when he has repeatedly said something similar on the topic of suffrage?

[gaius marius]

Rule by a plutocracy would generally lead to revolution, since abuses by the plutocrats would invariably follow their rise to power.

abuses follow any party's rise to power, mr gunnels. the people are abusing theirs throughout the united states right now in the form of medicare expansions and tax relief.

the salient point of lockean politics is the division of power within the ruling class, such that rule by law is enforcable at the highest level. whether that ruling class is aristocratic or plutocratic or oligarchic is less important.

the most dangerous condition to lockean division turns out in fact to be democracy. the hoi polloi are unopposable, once empowered. inevitably, they must end up being duped into handing their power over willingly -- usually, for entirely human reasons, a charismatic dictator.

[kwais]

Andrew,
Claims that Mr Marius (mr marious) is a libertarian, which I do not see. He comes across as a comunitarian. He expresses that the masses are too stupid and for the betterment of all need to be directed and controlled. He also came out in favor of a federally forced social security program if I remember correctly.

He also says that Mr Marius's first name is Qaius, and I and others read it as Gaius. It is hard for me to tell which because of the computer screen having the line through the bottom of the letter. I had alway thought that Gaius Marius, was a joking way of saying 'Gay Marriage"

[gaius marius]

your critique is that those who pay the bills should call the shots

that's quite ancillary to the point, mr thoreau -- "those who foot the bill are more reliably responsible in the use of money" is to the core of what i'm saying.

moreover, democracy, in encouraging individualism, has a way of running roughshod over law and institution that i find wholly undesirable and indulgent.

why it is that you clash with Gilbert Martin so frequently

lol -- because he's little use for divided powers, rule of law or traditional morality.

[kwais]

Fabius,
Right on dude. If you recieve federal dollars you should not be allowed to vote. I say that as someone who lives on federal dollars. But I see it as a conflict of interest. I have voted in every election since I was of voting age and I like voting and I feel like a true patriot when I vote. But I would be willing to give it up for more honest rules.

Thoreau,
Your system of deviding representation by income is interesting, but it requires disclosure of income, which I think is a violation of privacy and freedom.

Gary Gunnels,
For Christ sake quit smoking EU pole every time you get on a thread.

[UFP]

Kwais:

Interesting. Considering that a lot of rich, intelligent people receive federal dollars, that disenfranchises the entire military, Congress and staff, White House and staff, anyone working in a cabinet department, college students, farmers, people who drive on interstate highways, research scientists, and a host of others. Am I reading your intentions correctly?

[gaius marius]

I had alway thought that Gaius Marius, was a joking way of saying 'Gay Marriage

a freudian moment, mr kwais? 🙂

marius was a populist politician, the first multiple-term consul of rome, builder of the roman professional army and avowed enemy of the senate. his machinations accelerated the end of the roman republic by plebiscitarianism, and died after marching on rome with an army in a failed attempt to end it, having massacred droves of his optimate political opponents. caesar was his nephew, and modeled himself after marius -- with devastating effect.

it's a name i chose in honor of fdr, actually, in an ironic fit.

Am I reading your intentions correctly?

i don't know about his, mr ufp, but you're reading mine just fine.

[kwais]

UFP, am I wrong? It would prevent people from voting to give themselves payraises with other peoples money. Or to increase government programs that they benefit from with other peoples money.

It would seem a very libertarian thing to me.

I am half thinking that the military would be exempt from that rule and allowed to vote, because it would be unlikely that the military vote to use the publics money, because that would involve them going to war. But that may be the bias of my background.

[UFP]

Thank you, gaius. I still can't believe that anyone would seriously say that anyone who uses an interstate highway shouldn't be allowed to vote, but at least I know for sure where your coming from.

[kwais]

UFP,
I don't think that interstate highways should be funded with federal dollars.

[UFP]

Kwais:

Neither do I, but the fact is that they are, so anyone using them can be considered to be "receiving federal dollars". I can agree with the basic premise that people shouldn't be allowed to vote themselves benefits from other people's money, but there is one hell of a big system entrenched that needs to be changed before we start deciding who can and can't vote.

[thoreau]

kwais-

I wasn't putting forward this proposal so much because I want it (I agree, disclosure of income is a problem), but rather to offer an alternative to the proposal of property requirements and see what the resulting buzz might be.

[kwais]

"a freudian moment, mr kwais?"

No I think I saw your name first on some gay rights thread. But it might have been on a different thread, and I was reading a gay rights thread also. And I thought that your name was a joking psuedonym of Gary Gunnels or someone else. I think it was because your name on a post came right after a post from a strong christian dude.

I suppose I could go back and post a link to the earlier thread. But I don't know how to do that. I don't even know how to make italics on a post. And also, because that is a lot of work to look back through all the past posts to see what someone said a long time ago.

I don't even go back through the old threads to find the links to pictures of hot libertarian chicks that people were posting a while back.

But what I typed earlier still wasn't a Freudian slip.

[Andrew]

GG

To be completely fair - I had considered, and should have, made a longer post - there was a real specific issue current with the actual election...which was that the EU was contemplating lifting sanctions against the regime (in part, I take it, for compliance on some of the nuclear stuff).

This dominated discussion in the blogs...swamping any reference to the US. NO ONE complained about Iraq...that was my point.

I have no idea what has since happened with EU sanctions...though I suspect they are still in place.

[Andrew]

gaius

"survivor bias" has its uses. What is the survival rate for benign despotisms, aristocratic republics and 18th century democracies?

A good point - bliss it was to live in Hong Kong...until the PRC marched in. Taiwan endures. A largely disarmed S Korea endures...but the world will not stand up for Singapore (or Tibet). Either India or China could swallow Nepal tomorrow...thanks to their feckless monarch.

And anyone could cite an example of a police state, a temporary anarchy or a theocracy run by a divinely appointed prophet, ran smoothly as long as it ran smoothly (a tautology, no?)

But apart from 18th century England and America (an extension) how many examples can you cite? And how tough was it to make ANY social model look good in 18th century England? Hate to say it, but if Charles the First had passed off an Absolute Monarchy that lasted a couple of generations THAT would have been your Golden Age.

I still prefer ANY 20th century PM, to ANY 18th or 19th century PM (it likely didn't SEEM so wonderful to live under Peel, or any of those assholes...and there were plenty of non-entities).

Same with ANY 20th century Administration, compared to ANY 19th century one - even the Wonderful Mr. Lincoln probably stank, up close...we give him credit for being better, much better, than you can reasonably have expected.

[Eric II]

"A good point - bliss it was to live in Hong Kong...until the PRC marched in."

Hong Kong is still a pretty good place to live, if you talk to some of those who live there.

"A largely disarmed S Korea endures"

South Korea is anything but disarmed; their defense budget is over $15 billion. Not to mention that they have a universal military service requirement for men.

"but the world will not stand up for Singapore"

Who the hell's messing with Singapore? And for the record, the country maintains military alliances with the US, Australia, and India, among others.

"Either India or China could swallow Nepal tomorrow"

If either tried, they'd be in for one hell of a guerrilla war, abetted in full by the non-invading party.

"And anyone could cite an example of a police state, a temporary anarchy or a theocracy run by a divinely appointed prophet, ran smoothly as long as it ran smoothly (a tautology, no?)"

Though I disagree with gaius marius on what an ideal form of government would be like, I don't think he's recommending the creation of any of those things.

[Andrew]

Eric II

Are you another Gary Gunnels knock-off? You format the same way he does, and you share his all but inimitable knack for missing the point.

If you come back with "why don't you make a substantive response" whining, I'll KNOW you're GG!

[thoreau]

Andrew-

Eric's formatting may be similar, but he lacks Gary's attitude.

Now, if Eric turns out to be a huge Francophile then I'll see your point! 😉

[Eric II]

"Are you another Gary Gunnels knock-off? You format the same way he does, and you share his all but inimitable knack for missing the point."

LOL. Given my prior remarks on this issue, that accusation's just too ironic.

I didn't miss your point, btw. You just made so many factual errors in the process of making it that I felt the errors warranted a response.

But to address your main point: I think you've confused corelation with causation. The reasons why the representative governments of the 19th century were generally less pleasant than those of today have a lot to do with the historical customs and prejudices - racism, sexism, homophobia, sexual puritanism, class bigotry, a limited respect for intellectual freedom - that carried on into that time, rather than the type of government per se. Many of those customs and prejudices are unlikely to return - or at least return to the same degree - regardless of what changes take place to our form of government from this point on.

And just to be clear: I don't support restricting the vote to property owners. But I do think it would be a good idea to enact some reforms that would curtail the propensity of our system to fall sway to populist mayhem. A voting test is one idea. Another might be to repeal the 17th Amendment. A third might be to move Election Day up to the first Tuesday following April 15.

[Andrew]

Fair enough EricII...I will retract the insult of supposing you to be GG!

Presumably the point of changing the basis of representation would be to get different political outcomes...and that just isn't going to fly, assuming that current majorities prefer current outcomes to the alternatives which would be made more probable...why should the voters due to be disenfranchised - who presumably were interested enough to vote (else what's the problem?) be about to say "save us from ourselves"? And even if you could assemble a smaller consensus to disenfranchise some, how could you do so, in the language of justice?

And really, what is all that wrong with the status quo, anyway?

[gaius marius]

I still can't believe that anyone would seriously say that anyone who uses an interstate highway shouldn't be allowed to vote

fwiw, mr ufp, i think that's the extreme case. governments will build beneficial public works. people should use them. what i mean is people who receive pensions and insurance -- direct monetary outlays -- from the treasury. of course, where the line would be drawn is not for me to say.