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often cite the Constitution's original voting requirements as proof of their argument that what was written then is no longer applicable today.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

Robert Heinlein had a concept of 'citizens'. Which was that only those who had served in the military be allowed to vote or run for office. There are times lately when I feel that might not be that bad an idea. It would, of course, mean that pretty much every youth, male and female, would be expected to serve at least two years in the military service. Again, perhaps not a bad idea. It seems to work for Israel and Switzerland. And I think if one had to EARN the right to vote, they might be more cautious of who and what they vote for. I know it makes me seem a bit radical, but look at it this way. I will not be voting this year because there is NO ONE I want to vote for and no one who I feel represents the best interests of this country or myself, or frankly even has a clue what those best interests are.

If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, then that makes me a burning truck filled with TNT hurtling through a rocket fuel depot.

I agree that the Founding Fathers were absolutely correct in believing that only landowners should vote.I can't see a return to that wise policy however. Would not a reasonable requirement to vote be that one is a taxpayer,as in Federal Income Tax? How do we go about achieving such a reform when the number of people paying taxes is close to,if not already,eclipsed by the number of people who do not,who as of now,have the right to vote,and thus would vote down any such reform?

You forget the principals upon which this country was founded.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

It wasn't the intent of the Founding Fathers to exclude all citizens from voting.  There was no mass education system, no mass communication system, the printing presses were hand cranked and only a limited number of books and newspapers could be produced.  Transportation was limited to horses and foot, so it would have been impossible for everyone to vote at that period in time.

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Note that they say "Right of the People," not, "Right of the Landowners," or "Right of the Corporations."  Stop distorting the principals for your own greed, bigotry, and power lust.

This is the truth and we are in grave Constitutional danger with the Patriot Act, the Home Land Security Act, FISA, and the Bail Out Acts, all of which were bad responses to crisis that became an excuse to enfringe upon that sacred and inviolate notion and premise that the most important time to not abandon your principals, and what makes you great and gives you power is in a time of crisis.

To now have yet another Administration take office under the guise of being liberal but wanting to not just perpetuate these supposed temporary measures but add to their weight and impinging severity is intollerable.

America must reverse this course at all cost in order for there to continue to be an 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!


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


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

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.

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


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?

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 ...