The Case for Limiting the Franchise

“No taxation without representation”: that is the slogan on which the American Revolution was fought. And I think to most of us it makes intuitive sense. It is simple justice: if I am paying for the government, I have a right to a say in it, in how my money is spent. But it implies an interesting corollary that seems generally to be missed: no representation without taxation. If you are not paying taxes, it is unjust that you have a say in how other people’s money is being spent. 

This used to be generally accepted wisdom, so the franchise was limited by property requirements. Or one earned the right to vote by serving in the military: that too was having skin in the game.

There is an obvious danger, with universal adult suffrage, that those who are not contributing can over time band together and vote themselves more and more benefits and free money, knowing it is all coming out of someone else’s pockets. There is a famous quote from Alexander Tytler in the 18th century: 

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”

Tytler is not the first to notice this. That would probably be Ibn Khalud, who pointed out this cycle in the 14th century. Over time, as Ibn Khaldun observed, governments grow until they strangle the productive economy, and the society collapses.

It would seem that Western Europe and North America are well into this cycle. We are at least at “From abundance to selfishness.”

So all this is an argument, radical as it may sound to unfamiliar ears, yet obvious to our ancestors, to limit the franchise. Full democracy is a dead end. Among those who realized this, notably, were the American founding fathers, who carefully placed checks and balances on full democracy.  

Nobody who earns their living from government should really have a vote. They have an immediate conflict of interest. This means civil servants should not vote—they could not back in the 19th century. That would include teachers, say, and most medical professionals. And of course politicians. Less critically, but by the same logic, no one receiving welfare, disability, a student grant or a government pension should vote. Nor the executives of any corporation receiving government funding.

This would preserve a social safety net, but give some incentive, if mostly psychological, to climb out of dependence if you can.