But the folks back then generally thought that that demographic of people knew best for the country.
Yes, generally they did.
Ok, now to the property part. What constitutes enough property? Does a cramped single-room flat count as property? What about folks who live in the Projects? What about apprentices who live in the same dwelling as their masters? How are you going to generate a cut-off of whether they are able to vote or not, without discriminating against a certain demographic?
Property is described as owning land. Simple enough. If you live on someone else property that clearly doesn't quality. Part of the point is to cut out certain groups. Aka, the person that doesn't want to work so he votes for the guy that wants to extend unemployment benefits forever. The entire point is you put cut offs. You don't want people that are asking for benefit that is only done for their self interest, that they don't have to pay for. That is the entire point. Anyone can qualify in any group, but most likely, yes, the poor guy, won't be able to vote until he is no longer poor.
Also, it is not a great measurement tool. Folks who own property would usually have a fairly homogeneous life story/experience. If they are the only people who are able to vote, then they will vote for their best interest. Don't kid yourself about that. Thus, it would be very improbable that their voting will be best for the country.
All kinds of people from all kind of backgrounds own land. The way they got there is all different, but generally they do similar things to get there and that way they got there is the reason they are best fit to vote.
If you restrict someone from voting for self benefit or just for some cause, what is left? I say nothing, expect for ****s and giggles. What's your take?
People are supposed to vote for what is best for the country, not what is best for themselves. That is the entire premise behind it. If you vote right everyone's life get better, because you aren't voting for the benefit of yourself, but for everyone.
Also, so states' rights were at fault here?
The federal government changed everything.
That sounds really totalitarian and dictatorial. What ever happened to the personal freedoms from the government
It was set up like this from the beginning. Its about protecting the rights, and liberty of the citizens.
(who would be the only group who would enact these restrictions you talk about by the way) intrusion?
The fed, which wouldn't do it anyway, but there the ones to do it.
Also again, what makes the "responsible, fully affected, and life experience" cutoff?
The people that aren't trying all that hard, get everything under someones else wallet are most likely not driven and most likely don't own a house are not responsible. These are exactly the kind of people this is supposed to cut off. Responsible means responsible people in society.
Fully affected is usually people that have to pay taxes, own property, have a job, and are generally integrated into society and are productive citizens. The rules would take this into account and again that is why property is a good measuring tool.
Life experience is self explanatory. Life experience is measured in your accomplishments in this case, which I wouldn't imagine anything else could measure it.
You might of noticed they are basically the same. That is on purpose. The entire point is that these people would be best fit to vote because every thing that happens affects them and they would go into it knowing what the world is about.
How are you going to do this without it being discriminatory?
The rules are going to be set. If you don't qualify you don't qualify. Everyone will be treated equal in that way.