On Jul 4, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Bruce Metcalf wrote:
The logic offered in support of this rule is that when America's founders wrote "All men..." they meant only white, male, free, adult, landowners.
The direct involvement of individual voters in Federal politics is largely a 20th century creation, hence why Federal law was silent on voting rights for much of US history. There was also wide variation in State voting requirements, though in general "white, male, adult, landowners" were typically (but not always) included in that group.
For example, women and non-whites had voting rights in New Jersey since the founding of the country. However, they were required to own property.
But 200 years ago, ownership of land was the one stable form of wealth, and it also offered some promise that the land owner would be sticking around and not jaunting off to the next province if the prospects there looked better.
Landownership probably was intended as a negative feedback mechanism, making it difficult for voters to avoid the consequences of their votes, and was also a proxy for minimal competence as an adult. In the much more liquid markets of today I think such a rule would be far less useful, though the basic idea of a proper incentive structure for voting wisely may have some merit.
J. Andrew Rogers
