If I had to guess, I’d say that as Konkvistador is against democracy and voting in general, he wants voting rights to be denied to everyone, and as such, starting with 51% of the population is a good step in that direction.
starting with 51% of the population is a good step in that direction
Sure, but the process would likely have hysteresis depending on which group you remove first, and “women” doesn’t seem like the best possible choice to me—even “people without a university degree” would likely be better IMO.
Maybe it is because of our instincts that scream at us that every woman is precious (for long-term survival of the tribe), but the males are expendable. Taking the votes away from the expendable males could perhaps get popular support even today, if done properly. The difficult part in dismantling democracy are the votes of women.
(Disclaimer: I am not advocating dismantling democracy by this comment; just describing the technical problems.)
If you stop thinking of democracy as sacred and start seeing letting various groups vote as a utility calculation, one starts looking at questions like how various groups vote, how politicians attempt to appeal to them, and what effect this has on the way the country winds up being governed.
It’s not just a question of whether they vary, it’s whether they vary in a way that systematically correlates with better (or worse) decisions. Also there are Campbell’s law considerations.
I chose those examples in particular because in the United States the movement behind prohibition, making prostitution illegal and expanding the franchise to women was basically one and the same.
I disapprove of voting obviously. I chose it as the example because in the US the same movements argued for making these three things, among others, as they are in the first place.
What’s your issue with women’s voting rights?
If I had to guess, I’d say that as Konkvistador is against democracy and voting in general, he wants voting rights to be denied to everyone, and as such, starting with 51% of the population is a good step in that direction.
Am I correct, or is there something more?
Sure, but the process would likely have hysteresis depending on which group you remove first, and “women” doesn’t seem like the best possible choice to me—even “people without a university degree” would likely be better IMO.
Maybe it is because of our instincts that scream at us that every woman is precious (for long-term survival of the tribe), but the males are expendable. Taking the votes away from the expendable males could perhaps get popular support even today, if done properly. The difficult part in dismantling democracy are the votes of women.
(Disclaimer: I am not advocating dismantling democracy by this comment; just describing the technical problems.)
If you stop thinking of democracy as sacred and start seeing letting various groups vote as a utility calculation, one starts looking at questions like how various groups vote, how politicians attempt to appeal to them, and what effect this has on the way the country winds up being governed.
Don’t forget to consider what sorts of political expression are available to those who are not allowed the vote.
Sure, but I’d guess voting patterns vary much more with age, education, and income than with gender.
It’s not just a question of whether they vary, it’s whether they vary in a way that systematically correlates with better (or worse) decisions. Also there are Campbell’s law considerations.
I think my point still stands.
Well, education is subject to Campbell’s law, but I suspect Konkvistador wouldn’t object to raising the voting age, or imposing income requirements.
Another strike against utilitarianism! One person’s modus ponens is another person’s modus tollens.
I chose those examples in particular because in the United States the movement behind prohibition, making prostitution illegal and expanding the franchise to women was basically one and the same.
I disapprove of voting obviously. I chose it as the example because in the US the same movements argued for making these three things, among others, as they are in the first place.