This was the dominant form of voting in most democracies until about 100 years ago. E.g. in the UK, only men who owned property could vote (can't let the common man vote!). This didn't always produce a good democracy.
Alexis de Tocqueville: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
This is the one crucial defence of a restricted franchise - if the only people voting are the ones paying, they are much more resistant to this kind of corruption.
Really? I think the British Empire was a high point in world history (for both the British and their colonies). So I don't see how your point is supported.
That said, I think a constitutional republic is the right solution, not democracy.
hahahaha - for who ? Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire.
Seriously, yes, there were some side benefits eventually for the colonies but the cost was great and continues in many parts of the world. I resent that ignorant statement.
Look how many conflicts today have their roots in the decisions and actions of the British Empire
Specifically, how they broke things up when they left. In general, wherever they left, things fell apart somewhat. I have talked to several people who believe their country took a turn for the worse when the British left.
The standard operating procedure of the British Empire was "divide and conquer". In order to rule a minority was usually put in a privileged position. It should be no surprise to anyone that when the British left things often become a mess as the minority tries to hold onto power and those previously excluded fight to gain power.
But I would guarantee you that in every single case, the standard of living of the people improved substantially in the medium and long term under British rule.
The standard of living might have improved for the descendants of those that survived but what about those who had to undergo generations of subjugation or slavery or worse? What about those wiped out? In other words at what cost was this long term improvement gained?
Are the Aborigines or US native indians actually better off?
For me the benefits of British rule are very mixed and to argue that the conquered are better off ignores the costs borne in the past. Additionally, we cannot say how things might have been if people had been allowed to develop naturally and trade under normal circumstances.
This was also how the Romans did it, and a thousand years later, everyone agrees that the Roman legacy was a net good. Same is true, and will be said, of the British empire.
Our judgement of the Roman / british legacy is subject to
"Survivor Bias". If you can't see the cost paid by those who did not survive then things will look much better !
Most U.S. states adopted this form of voting power near when the U.S. was founded. Some states even allowed freed slaves that were property owners to vote.
