Arguments against universal suffrage

[Safe-Keeper]

1. Voting has traditionally been a male-only affair (‘One man, one vote’, not ‘One human, one vote’). This goes back for thousands of years, and voting rights have never been changed.
2. The Bible says nothing about women voting.
3. If women are allowed to vote, it’ll redefine voting, and textbooks and dictionaries will have to be rewritten.
4. If we change marriage to allow women to vote, activists will start pushing for the right of children and animals to vote, too, or for people to vote for multiple candidates.
5. Children of female voters will be bullied on the playground, because kids care immensely about whether or not their peers’ parents vote.
6. Women aren’t as educated as men, and can therefore not be trusted to vote for candidates that’ll lead our country to greatness. However, drunkards, the mentally challenged, foreigners convicted of terrorism and the ignorant need to be allowed to vote, though, because traditionally they have always been allowed to. Unless they’re women. Then they’ll vote for someone bad.
7. Female voting is gross, and not natural!
8. The institution of democracy is being ruined by universal suffrage. It's gone from being a rock-solid foundation of democracy to being a stupid thing you can make use of if you want to. Look at the PATRIOT ACT! It'd never have happened if women didn't vote!

</mildly satirical OP. See tags for hints.>

 

[Gevaudan]

#4 is one of those arguments that always struck me as particularly silly. Did you see the thing on TV about the guy who tried to marry his Mustang? He listed the name of the bride's father as Henry Ford, her date of birth as Detroit, and her blood type as 10w-20. Hah!

 

[fls]

1. Voting has traditionally been a male-only affair (‘One man, one vote’, not ‘One human, one vote’). This goes back for thousands of years, and voting rights have never been changed.

1. 
   
   You forgot to exclude blacks and other sub-humans (please be consistent).
   
   

   [*]The Bible says nothing about women voting.

   
   I'll bet it doesn't say anything about dark-skinned people voting, either.
   
   

   [*]If women are allowed to vote, it’ll redefine voting, and textbooks and dictionaries will have to be rewritten.

   
   They could be replaced as they fall apart (books don't last forever).
   
   

   [*]If we change marriage to allow women to vote, activists will start pushing for the right of children and animals to vote, too, or for people to vote for multiple candidates.

   
   We could always vote to change marriage, then.
   
   

   [*]Children of female voters will be bullied on the playground, because kids care immensely about whether or not their peers’ parents vote.

   
   We could distract them with the "Heather has two mommies" thing.
   
   

   [*]Women aren’t as educated as men, and can therefore not be trusted to vote for candidates that’ll lead our country to greatness. However, drunkards, the mentally challenged, foreigners convicted of terrorism and the ignorant need to be allowed to vote, though, because traditionally they have always been allowed to. Unless they’re women. Then they’ll vote for someone bad.

   
   Drunkards, the mentally challenged, foreigners convicted of terrorism and the ignorant are at least capable of choosing someone of the right sex to marry.
   
   

   [*]Female voting is gross, and not natural!

   
   It's no coincidence that Election Day is that time of the month.
   
   

   [*]The institution of democracy is being ruined by universal suffrage. It's gone from being a rock-solid foundation of democracy to being a stupid thing you can make use of if you want to. Look at the PATRIOT ACT! It'd never have happened if women didn't vote!

   
   Careful. That one's likely to be persuasive.
   
   Linda

 

[Safe-Keeper]

#4 is one of those arguments that always struck me as particularly silly.

Me too. Slippery slopes are weird.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Doublepost.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

You forgot to exclude blacks and other sub-humans (please be consistent).

Not at all. I parody the anti-gay marriage crowd, which often forgets that marriage has changed repeatedly over the years (just like voting rights).

They could be replaced as they fall apart (books don't last forever).

Don't tell me, tell the people who actually use this as an anti-gay marriage argument.

 

[Rufo]

If we change marriage to allow women to vote, activists will start pushing for the right of children and animals to vote, too, or for people to vote for multiple candidates.

To be completely fair, I have actually seen people debate for children to vote based exactly on the argument that "we treat children today as we treated women before, and in the future people will look back at us as we look back at those who didn't allow women to vote." Ironically, I usually counter with the a very similar comparison as the one you have made - "we treat pedophiles today as we treated homosexuals before, so in the future will people look back at us as we look back at those who didn't allow homosexuality?" Just because we have condemned things incorrectly in the past doesn't mean we're condemning things incorrectly now.

I fear the day when I'll use this argument and find out the other person considers homosexuals on par with pedophiles...

 

[fls]

Not at all. I parody the anti-gay marriage crowd, which often forgets that marriage has changed repeatedly over the years (just like voting rights).

The way I look at it, there's no point in discriminating when it comes to bigotry.

Don't tell me, tell the people who actually use this as an anti-gay marriage argument.

I didn't intend it as a sensible argument! I was picturing a scenario whereby you get to vote depending upon whether or not you've recently replaced your worn out dictionary, or whether the school was due for new textbooks. If you thought some school boards consider science textbooks controversial for including the Theory of Evolution Through Natural Selection, just wait until these hit the shelves!

Linda

 

[Rolfe]

(‘One man, one vote’, not ‘One human, one vote’). This goes back for thousands of years, ....

Which is why the language used may be regarded by some (not me) as a little out of date. "Man" is the word for the entire species homo sapiens as well as for adult male members of that species. A defect in the language no doubt, but there you go. "Human" is an adjective, so your suggested alternative would at the very least have to be "One human being, one vote".

Or, in the words of some texts on usage, "the male embraces the female".

An alien was walking down the street when he saw two men coming towards him, one male and one female.

This is entirely correct English.

Rolfe.

 

[Rufo]

Which is why the language used may be regarded by some (not me) as a little out of date. "Man" is the word for the entire species homo sapiens as well as for adult male members of that species. A defect in the language no doubt, but there you go. "Human" is an adjective, so your suggested alternative would at the very least have to be "One human being, one vote".

Or, in the words of some texts on usage, "the male embraces the female".

An alien was walking down the street when he saw two men coming towards him, one male and one female.

This is entirely correct English.

Rolfe.

You are right about the word "man" meaning both male homo sapiens and homo sapiens in general, but I'm not so sure that "human" is an adjective only. Wiktionary and dictionary.com both have it listed as a noun as well, used as a synonym of "human being". So although I suppose the adjective is its traditional use, it appears that the word "human" alone is widely accepted to be a noun as well.

 

[Rolfe]

Widely accepted, and in that sense, as language moves on, maybe so. But the basic grammar of the word is adjectival. Why otherwise use the phrase "human being" in the first place?

Rolfe.

 

[Polaris]

I'd say the last few US Presidents and most of its Congressmen and Senators are good arguments against universal suffrage.

Oh, you're parodying anti-gay activists.

Moving along...