You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #7: Not that we're digressing or anything... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Places » Canada Donate to DU
tuvor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-26-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Not that we're digressing or anything...
(after all, my intent was only to point out that the USA democracy was quite limited at the time--other democracies of the time notwithstanding. Maybe I did a poor job; wouldn't be the first time, I'm afraid.)

...but aaaanyway, according to Wikipedia:

Women's suffrage was granted by the Corsican Republic of 1755 whose Constitution stipulated a national representative assembly elected by all inhabitants over the age of 25, both women (if unmarried or widowed) and men.


(BTW, not to be disagreeable, but while looking up the answer to your question, I also discovered that there in fact were some democratic institutions for at least some "Canadian colonists" way back in the day):

Aside from the election of syndics in mid-17th century New France, early elections in Canada were based on the practice and the presuppositions of 18th-century Britain. In the period of early English settlement, it was taken for granted that good government required legislative institutions comparable to the mother country's. At the same time, the ability to vote was not seen as something that should be universally available. It was restricted, and properly so, first to loyal British subjects and, among them, to substantial men of property.

Thus, British governors and their masters in London actively encouraged the creation of legislative assemblies where they believed conditions would allow, even to the point of granting the vote to people who would not have qualified for the franchise in England. On the other hand, the franchise was constantly under scrutiny to make sure that the wrong type of people did not acquire it. If they did, it was sometimes taken away from them.

For example, in Prince Edward Island, the governor of 1773 allowed a representative assembly to be formed, once enough Protestant Scots had arrived to counterbalance the earlier Acadian (French) settlers. His first thought was to restrict the franchise to freeholders, in line with English practice at home. However, almost all settlers were tenants or even squatters at this point, so out of necessity all Protestants were allowed to vote. For the eighteenth century this was a very wide franchise and it did not last. As the colony slowly grew, property qualifications were brought in. In 1787, Protestant tenants in the three towns on the Island lost their vote, and in 1806 and 1830, progressively more restrictive property qualifications were enacted.

http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/histdem/canvote.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Places » Canada Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC