Why The Founding Fathers Only Wanted Qualified People To Vote?

From the beginning of our great country, there has been an ongoing debate: how should judges (the Supreme Court in particular) interpret the Constitution? That is, should it be interpreted as a “living” document (the liberal view), or should it be interpreted according to the framer's original intent (the conservative view)?

The Cliff Notes version of the supporting arguments to both positions is as follows. The “living” Constitution theory says that, although the Constitution was created in accordance with the societal norms of that time, society has changed and so, therefore, must the thinking in the Constitution. Consequently, judges must make commensurate changes, ones that will address modern society. On the other hand, the “original intent” group argues that the Constitution has an already-available amendment procedure to accomplish such societal changes, and it is adequate for any needed updates. They also argue that interpreting the Constitution as a “living” document turns the law into a moving target, located wherever the individual whims of justices may take it from time to time. They strongly believe that if true justice for all is to be achieved, the law itself must be addressed, not a judicial interpretation of it.

In the middle of this ongoing and intense debate, however, there is one important point – perhaps the most important point – that is ignored: the assumption that the Constitution was written based on the varying norms of society is simply not correct. Instead, the Constitution was written based on the unchanging condition of human nature. Society changes, but human nature does not, making that great document as valid today as it was the day it was written. Consequently, the original intent of the framers is the only thing we can look to, for guidance. So what do we find?

Liberals often cite the Constitution's original voting requirements as proof of their argument that what was written then is no longer applicable today. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, only male land owners were permitted to vote; women were entirely prohibited. Liberals, therefore, say that although that may have been acceptable in society when the Constitution was written, it is unacceptable today.

The process proscribed within the Constitution allowed the document to be amended, and without the help of any judicial interpretation. The founding fathers believed, as I do, that the long term welfare of our nation is best served by an informed, invested electorate. Thus, I question the assumption that the original intent fails at all – not only for these reasons, but due to the fact that women were not allowed to vote then because they were not regarded as well enough educated or informed, and that only property owners were thought to have enough of an investment in the long term welfare of the state to qualify as voters.


This was the framer’s original intent – they believed that such a requirement to qualify to vote was not unreasonable. Would we not be better off today if that principle were applied? It might have been better if the Constitution were more clear, stating outright that only informed citizens with a vested interest are allowed to vote, but clearly, the idea as it was manifested at the time of the writing is a sound one. If anyone today is regarded as well-informed, and non-land owners as vested, let them vote. But preserve the integrity of the system and erect a bar over which people must climb before voting. We will all be better off.

Instead, it has been determined that anyone should be able to vote, even though too many voters have no earthly  idea what policy or party serves them best. National research demonstrates that more people know who Paula Abdul is than who know the three branches of government. This extension of voting rights to anyone and everyone has led to a huge bloc of people voting on emotion and only for their immediate gratification, as opposed to what best serves the country and even themselves in the long run. These voters are like the farmers who eat the seed corn and are therefore unable to plant in the spring.

The popular idea today is that the more people who vote, the stronger our democracy will become, helping everyone to feel he has a role in decision making. But more important for political stability is the economic welfare of the country. Hitler earned just 2% of the vote in the election before the Depression, but with economic hard times as a catalyst, he won outright. Can you think of any modern-day similar situation? Long term economic welfare would be much better served in a system that filtered qualified voters – those with at least a rudimentary knowledge of how our government works. This is not a new or radical idea – we require that vehicle drivers be licensed by passing tests before we allow them behind the wheel. Since the very welfare and viability of our country is at stake, especially our national security, should we tolerate anything less?

Some may say this is unfair, that everyone should vote, but is the system as it is set up today fair? Under our everyone-can-vote current system, one group can vote themselves another group’s private property, something certainly unfair and unlikely to occur if only property owners were voting. In the short run, expropriating private property may benefit a few, but in the long run it is ruinous for everyone.


The constitutional restrictions on voting (as they were written) should have been replaced, not eliminated. I won't speculate on what criteria should be applied, but real standards need to be set.

Our founding fathers were brilliant. They took the selfishness in human nature and, through capitalism and private property, harnessed it so as to do the greatest public good for the greatest number of people. We should listen closely to everything they said. After all, this experiment we call the United States of America has produced the greatest country in the history of mankind.

Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

12 Answers

Order by
Oldest to Newest
Newest to Oldest

Why The Founding Fathers Only Wanted Qualified People To Vote?

Because they new there would be candidates like Obama.


"ONE NATION or GOD"?????? Make up your mind America!!!

What should be the qualifications to vote?

1.  Loyalty.  One should pledge allegiance before voting.  We have every rational right to demand that voters will place the interests of their people above their own interests.  Indictment for a felony crime that has not been cleared by a court of law would place one's loyalty in question, but that must also preclude barratry from political opponents.  Under ONE indictment, the accused may vote and run for office.  On conviction, the penalty is automatically doubled to prevent abuse such as we have seen under Obama.

2.  Stability.  Owing land or a business would show the necessary good judgment to vote wisely.  Working for others over a year would also prove stability.

3.  National service.  Military service, community volunteering, or other service to the American people should be mandatory. 

4.  Good character.  One felony conviction ends voting rights for ten years.  A "Life" conviction (regardless of early release) ends voting rights permanently.  Also, persons who have been committed to a mental institution for over a year would lose voting rights for six years.  Committals under sixteen weeks would be disregarded as invalid mental health complaints.

5.  Naturalization under existing INS protocol would qualify the immigrant to vote in the next election after four years residency.

6.  Maturity.  Revoke the voting rights of persons under 21, except those on current active duty or who have been discharged earlier from the military under honorable conditions.

7.  Education.  Voters must be High School graduates or pass a GED.



To be born free is a gift. To live free is a privilege. To die free is our duty.

I am certain that our forefathers not only deliberately limited who could vote in the Federal elections but that those who did would take it as a responsibility and privelage and do their level best to study and consider long and hard who to cast their vote for.

It truly is reprehensible and frightening when people decide to cast their vote for supperficial reasons and are not well informed about the candidates, current events, major issues like economics, foreign policy, domestic policy, the constitution and basic fundamental and rudementary U.S. History.

A vote becomes a dangerous thing then as there is nothing more deadly than an ignorant friend. Someone with worthwhile and good intentions could in fact be hurting themselves and the nation by casting a vote on superficial grounds or simply because of some Special Interest that doesn't accomodate the general population as a whole or make up for a candidates potential other drawbacks.

Arguably being the President of the United States is the world's most important job.The decisions he often makes do not just effect the country and us the citizens but the entire world. With a checkbook to the most ample and generous treasury in the world, funded by our tax dollars, and a breif case at his side at all times with the codes to launch a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying the entire planet several times over, he bears a responsibility no other human being on the planet does.

During times of war and crisis Presidents must also be able to make sometimes very difficult and unpopular decisions as they stand privy to a range of information and factors not always known to the general public. It's not a popularity contest or a beauty paegant. The President of the United States often has the hardest, most stressful and thankless job on the planet. It's important he be a person of resolute charachter capable of making difficult balancing decisions and not hostage to the general will of the people in these regards or eager simply to do what's popular even though it might be damaging to the economy, civil liberties, foreign policy or certain special interest groups.

The wealth of media and multi media we enjoy as a society today is great. It makes a poor substitute for indepth study and knowledge of candidates since the issues and the importance of singular statements often go well beyond the one to three minute segments media and news networks present for the sake of brevity and expedience. Responsible and conciencious voters should always follow up on their own initiative and time to independently research the broader context and ramifications of candidates statements when presented in such short and often out of context mediums.

The Internet is a great tool, with a wealth of articles and essays and histories and other pertinent resources as well as discussion groups and blogs. Argueing and debating issues is great but argueing and debating in such a way that a person doesn't know all the facts regarding the issue or candidate and dispells the opportunity to learn more about them through debate but simply wants to win their argument at any and all cost is not what debate is really about. It's about a free flowing exchange of ideas and information meant to dispell falsehoods and misconceptions and learn other facts regarding the issues or the candidates so come election day a person can make a decision that is good for them and good for the country. Citizens should take pride and work dilligently towards knowing every relative and pertinent issue and Candidate inside and out and have a very clear understanding of why one candidate really differs from the other and would make the best choice for running the country on the widest range of key issues based on realistic standards and feasibilities.

This was an exciting and important election. A record number of citizens participated doing both their constitutional duty and taking advantage of one of their fundamental and most significant rights. Many of these people were young adults who had never voted before and special interest groups and minority segments of the population who had never voted before. It was fantastic to see so many Americans take a responsible decision to participate in our system where every vote counts.

Every vote does count too, and many citizens optioned to use their right to vote for the candidate of their choice based on the criteria of their choice.

Tragically many exit polls conducted on the day of the election involving interviews with a wide variety of voters showed an alarming trend that many voters were unaware of many major issues and matters regarding a wide and important range of criteria for making the best choice in picking someone truly the best qualified to handle this illustrious and all important job of President of the United States.

Every vote does count and ultimately whether we voted for that person who won or not, whether a number of people who did vote for the winner based on narrow parramiters and a poor overall grasp of the events and candidates or voted for the winner based on some affiliation of party, sex, sexuality, religion or race while overlooking all other important matters and issues, we all still...are ruled by that President.

If he fails we all fail and suffer for that. That is why your individual vote that does count and does make a difference can make a difference for the better or the worst and it should always be viewed as being that important and citizens should spare no effort not only for themselves but their fellow citizen that they can say based on every important issue and fact and knowing them inside and out, that their vote was a wise vote.

Hopefully citizens won't find out the hard way how costly a mistake that can be.







You are AWESOME!!!1Beer Frau

"ONE NATION or GOD"?????? Make up your mind America!!!

Awe thank you Jennifer! You are pretty terrific yourself. Cool I hope you are having a wonderful Thanks Giving today.


If you are eligible to serve the country you should be eligible to vote.  Of course, if a disability or age prohibits you from serving, you should be allowed to vote if you are of age, not a felon and be of sound mind.  The ideas behind the Constitution should be followed but you need to realize that times do change and along with it certain ideals.

There's no eraser on the tip of your tongue.

I agree, times change, but morals and values do not. 


"ONE NATION or GOD"?????? Make up your mind America!!!

When you start wanting to change the constitution, because the ideals are out of date you in esscense say that the ideals(which by the way are fundamental to America) are out of date. I cannot disagree with you more. The founding ideals of freedom, unrepressed rights to practice your religion without opression, and freedom of speech will never or should never be changed because they no longer in vogue?Once you open that door you will never close it and those who woould want to dismantle what America stands for will succeed! If you want to be European, the union is looking for a few million good men and women!


Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: Today is Election Day. VOTE STRAIGHT ...


Asked: where are you.. new york congressman,1950 era ...

where are you.. new york congressman,1950 era, always out of country, reelected over and over. could never be found for duty

Asked: Condo elections

should number of votes be announced at condo elections? Would not doing so be wrong?

Be The First To Answer

Other people asked questions on various topics, and are still waiting for answer. Would be great if you can take a sec and answer them

Ask a Question... We'll forward it to people who know

More Questions

Can felony people vote

Persons who have had a felony conviction may petition to have their voting rights restored three years after they were released from parole or probation. That is a Superior Court issue, and generally needs an attorney to prepare the papers and assure that all the tests for restoration have been ...

Where do hyde park residents go to vote on nov 4th

I'm not too sure of the building but its near the corner of hydepark ave and river street. If not? go to the police station on hyde park ave. and ask them.

How many Republicans in Congress voted for the Health Care Law?

PPACA passed the Senate with 58 Democrats and 2 independents voting for, 39 Republicans against. It passed the House with 219 Democrats voting for, 34 Democrats and 178 Republicans voting against.

U.S. Army Reserve Center : DARP-PSA-EAW My Father ...

There's a web site that explains the process. http://www.archives.gov/veterans/replace-medals.html If the veteran is alive, you will need a signed authorization form. Otherwise, to be considered next-of-kin of an Army veteran, a surviving spouse, or eldest child, or eldest grandchild can apply ...