Talk:Universal suffrage/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is something different.... Reserving seats for communal groups isn't particularly uncommon, and it's different from denying the right to vote.

Most societies today no longer maintain such provisions, but a few still do. For example, Fiji reserves a certain number of seats in its Parliament for each of its main ethnic groups; these provisions were adopted in order to discriminate against Indians in favour of ethnic Fijians. Pakistan reserves certain seats in parliament for voting by "frontier" tribes.

Does the term universal suffrage also include equal right to stand as a candidate in general elections? 130.232.129.242 15:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The article read: Most so-called "universal" suffrage systems still exclude some potential voters. For example, many jurisdictions deny the vote to various categories of convicted criminals or the mentally ill, and almost all jurisdictions deny the vote to non-citizen residents and citizens under the age of 18..

This is weasly, and possibly US-centric. I cannot find any souce claiming that most democracies have any exclusion within their universal suffrage. According to Human Rights Watch [1], it is very few, and only USA, Finland and New Zealand restrict convict's right to vote after the conclusion of their prison sentence. The USA is alone in barring voting for life.

I'm changing 'most' and 'many' here to 'some', until someone can provide some evidence that the majority of nations with universal suffrage restrict it in some way.

"right to vote, to all adults, without distinction as to race, sex, belief or social status."

According to the definition given, it can still be considered that the country is granting universal suffrage if some prisoners are not allowed to vote. If you need to mention that some countries don't grant full uni. suff. because they don't allow prisoners to vote, the definition would need to be changed. AFAIK, in the aforementioned countries people aren't sent to prison according to their race, sex, belief or social status (with the possible exception of some cases in USA/Guantanamo(etc.); and if murdering people for the sake of it isn't considered a 'belief').--85.49.225.8 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

NOTE the specific crime specified in the HRW link, 'Finland and New Zealand ..restrict the vote for several years after completion of sentence, but only in the case of persons convicted of buying or selling votes or of corrupt practices'.

Who was it who couldn't vote in Switzwerland until 1990? --Jfruh 18:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

women Septentrionalis 20:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Throughout the country? Or just in certain cantons? --Jfruh 21:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This site (click on history) says throughout the country, but the date is 1971. Hmmm Septentrionalis 21:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

• Women's suffrage was introduced, by (male) referendum, for federal elections in 1971, but for cantonal elections, the last canton to introduce women's suffrage had to do so by supreme court order in 1990. I' ve updated the page accordingly. Sandstein 21:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Germany -- 1918, Hungary -- 1918, Poland -- 1919" Hmm, this is odd. These countries, along with many others, denied some groups not only the voting right, but the citizenship and even the right to live. Please correct me if I am wrong, but from this line one can deduce that Germany, Hungary and Poland were shining lights of democracy since 1918-19. See Nuremberg Laws. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The social democrats were in power in Germany after the First World War. As in other European countries they have been the most venomous in order to get universal suffrage passed in the parliaments.

Intangible

12:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In light of Nuremberg Laws of 1935, it is totally wrong to imply any continuity since 1918. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to revert at least part of your changes, since most countries that were occupied by the Nazis have seen no elections during that time.

Intangible

01:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do blind-revert. Instead, why not have a couple of words on this important period. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Finland was not occupied by the Nazis, never having been at war with them; please don't clutter this page with nonsense error. Septentrionalis 06:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This edit had the wrong dates or history for Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and the Netherlands; and IIRC the Baltic States. It further makes the implicit claim that the Jews of Austria and Poland had full and effective suffrage in 1937, which seems doubtful. Septentrionalis 06:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Please improve it by fixing the dates instead of blindly reverting. As it stands now, the article is worse, because it implies that the suffrage was trouble-free since 1918. Also, even with your comment, I can't explain your reverts of Germany and Austria. Can you? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Not simply a matter of dates, although the errors there made it preferable to start over from scratch. Hungary, Finland and Romania were all allies of the Reich. Septentrionalis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced guesswork is not an asset to Wikipedia. Humus's first edit also stumbled across several serious questions, which would require sourced research before making any detailed edits.

• Did the Nazis purport to change Dutch law, for example, or did they simply ignore it?
• Did the Dutch Government-in-exile assent to this change? (Surely not.) If not, is it NPOV to consider it a change in the law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands?
• Is it rational to imply a change in Austrian law, when Austria ceased to exist in 1936? Similar, more complex, questions apply to Poland and Czechoslovakia.
• The network of authorities in Occupied Europe was also quite complex. German legislation did not automatically apply in all of them. The extent to which the Nazis obeyed their own laws is another question, requiring real citations of real sources.
• Lastly, is it meaningful to speak of denial of suffrage under regimes which did not hold elections? Septentrionalis 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I doubt that all voters in British overseas territories were granted the right to vote in 1928. For example, were all the people in India allowed to vote? (If someone who knows more about this could answer). For some reason, I'm just under the suspicion that not all of the few hundred million people were, in fact, allowed to vote in UK elections, even though in theory they were British, right? --85.49.225.8 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The dominions and colonies were never part of the United Kingdom and so did not have representation in the UK Parliament, although people born there were British. Since there was no member of Parliament for Nairobi, a Kenyan and an Englishman in Nairobi would both equally not be able to vote in any UK election, as postal voting was only introduced in the 1980s (voters in the armed services were allowed to much earlier). However, a Kenyan/Australian resident in London would be able to elect the local MP, as they can still do to this day. Andrew Yong 12:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

1918 Act

Although the 1918 Act is now mainly remembered as giving women the vote, it was also the first acceptance of Universal Suffrage for men in the UK. It abolished the property and household qualifications which had, until then, disenfrachised a large part of the male working-class population. Estimates of the proportion of men eligible to vote prior to 1918 vary from only 60% to as low as 40%. This effectively barred socialist political parties from representation. (This parallels the use of poll-tax and other "social status" devices to restrict African-American representation in the US.)

The popular suffragist movement in the early 20th century in the UK was therefore for "votes for (working-class) men" as well as for "votes for women". The imposition of a lower age limit of 30 years on women in the 1918 Act was a compromise, which saved "face" for the UK Establishment by them not having to introduce full Univ. Suff. in one fell swoop. Accepting this compromise was a major point of contention between the main suffrage movement and the much smaller minority suffragette movement led by the Pankhursts. Full Universal Suffrage was then granted 10 years later in the Act of 1928.

So the UK experience is that property and social restrictions are at least as important as restrictions on the grounds of race or religion or sex as bars to Univ. Suff.

[User:Geoffrey Watson --220.237.74.218 13:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]

Northern Ireland

Does anyone know more about the Northern Ireland question. It's listed here as achieving universal suffrage in 1968. I know that the protestant controlled government in Belfast and the local councils practised discrimination against Catholics and altered boundaries of constituencies to create protestant majorities, but does this count as lacking universal suffrage? I also know that extra votes were given to commercial companies, with the implicit purpose of giving the wealthier protestants more votes. But does this mean there wasnt universal suffrage? Using the electoral system to discriminate against a particular group isn't the same as not giving them the vote, is it?

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Maybe we could change it to "discriminatory practises continued in Northern Ireland until 1968, despite universal suffrage".

seanjw 217.196.239.189 15:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In the United States, for example, suffrage for residents of the nation's capital, Washington, DC, is severely circumscribed.

What does this mean? If it means the complaint that the Disctrict of Columbia is not equally represented in Congress, it is true, but off-topic. If it means some restriction on voting in Washington, it needs much more detail. Septentrionalis 23:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I tossed in the EU example today. It is currently unique, as far as I know, as Austrians, for example, are considered both Austrian and EU citizens. I hope I didn't confuse matters terribly, but thought it was important enough to include. 158.197.192.235 22:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is the chronology set according to women's suffrage, not universal suffrage when the article is about the latter? ie. If Canada didn't allow

Universal Suffrage is a process, not a product

I'd go a step further in claiming that none of the listed systems have universal suffrage yet. I can not think of a single country in which first graders are allowed to vote. We can only speak about what percentage of the total number of residents of a region are allowed to vote in the local system. Truly universal suffrage is not reached until that quotient is 100%. (We could complicate matters further by saying that, in a US-occupied Iraq, if the US considered itself to have universal suffrage, Iraqis should be able to vote in US elections, as the hegemonic superpower exercises suzerainty over them; of course, try convincing someone in Des Moines that the people their government is shooting down should have a say in their system).

As such, I suppose some kind of table would be more appropriate: countries down the side, criteria across the top (gender, racial, non-land-holder equality, age 21+, age 18+, age 16+, age 0+, citizenship status, etc.) and where the column and row meet, the date when that group was granted suffrage. An additional column could be entered next to the country names showing the total suffrage quotient.

Of course, that takes work. samwaltz 23:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The chronological entry for New Zealand as granting universal suffrage in 1993 is completely wrong. Adult males were granted the vote irrespective of property qualifications in 1879 and women in 1893. Therefore, depending on how this chronological list defines universal suffrage, New Zealand was the first country in the world to grant universal suffrage to adult men and women in 1893. If anyone else can let me know of another country that predates NZ in this I would be most grateful. [email protected]

New Zealand did indeed extend equal franchise to women in 1893, irrespective of property ownership, as men had achieved in 1879. However, the article states that there were inequalities with Maori franchise. Of this, I do not know. But if there were regulatory restrictions on the Maori right to vote, this would mean South Australia (at the time of equal legal status to NZ) was the first polity to grant universal suffrage. --

Cyberjunkie

15:16, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "inequalities in the Maori franchise" presumably means the existence of separate Maori seats in Parliament, elected from a separate Maori roll. Initially the Maori franchise had a property qualification but I think this was removed in 1879. As to South Australia, were Aborigenes able to vote in SA before the federation? Lisiate 02:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Federation had no implications on the eligibility of voters in the States. Aboriginal men first gained the right to vote along with other men in the 1860'sIndigenous women followed in 1894 with other women. However, there is a school-of-thought that says they had the right to vote not because it was given to them, but because they were not specifically excluded from it. I'd dispute that.--

(Moz) I think he means 1960's, 100 years later (see Indigenous Australians). It does not sound plausible that at a time when hunting permits for black people were issued by the government and the stolen generations policy was in place that the government would also let aborigines vote. Why would non-citizens be granted a vote? From talking to black people in Australia it seems extremely unlikely that the vote, if technically available, was widely taken up. A number have mentioned to me their pleasure when after 1968 they first voted. See for example http://www.answers.com/topic/human-rights-in-australia

(Moz) As far as the "limited" franchise available to Maori men in NZ in the 1860s, this was on the same basis as it was available to non-Maori - they had to own property. The separate Maori seats have always had their own Maori electoral roll and the choice of which to sign on to was the individual voters. So I argue that it is not a limitation of the franchise.

Reading the above, it seems although this talk took place a couple of years ago that no one has yet forwarded a citation, or counter-argument, to support the inclusion of the claim about 'certain inequalities' existing, and that the phrase itself seems far too ambiguous anyway. Considering the importance of this to the article as a whole, since without this so far unsupported claim, the evidence presented would point to New Zealand being the first to introduce universal suffrage, then it should be removed and the article fixed to reflect this, or some citation provided.Number36 01:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

there are a few problems with this page.

South Australia was not a state in 1894. It was a self-governing British colony and more-or-less a sovereign nation. It did not become a 'state' until it joined the Australian Federation of 1901. So this needs to be corrected.

New Zealand is unequivocally the first nation in the world to grant universal suffrage and the arguments raised against this are spurious. Maori had the vote before all white males in NZ. Apallingly, as far as I recall, Australia did not give the vote to Aborigines until 1962 at Federal level and 1965 in Queensland. (see Galligan Citizens without rights)

194.170.173.14 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well since no one has put anything forward to counter the above points, I've gone ahead and changed it, removed this; There is some debate with regard to which nation first installed complete democratic suffrage. New Zealand, Finland, France, Norway and several other countries can lay claim the title of first country with complete democratic suffrage (with the caveat of certain restrictions, etc.). Since there doesn't actually appear to be any debate, and if there is it should have its own section or at least have it outlined what the debate is somewhere on the page. And changed the New Zealand entry to reflect that it was the first nation to grant universal suffrage, I didn't remove the references to women being able to stand for parliament, though since suffrage relates to being able to vote, rather than be voted for, it's not directly related, I can see that it is a related issue. Number36 00:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any references or few references in this page; should it be tag for no references Sodaplayer ^{talk contributions ^_^} 23:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

When the Fourth Republic started, Algeria was in fact part of the Republic, although not everyone was granted the right to vote. Shouldn't this be explained/added?Evilbu 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Was Algeria & other territories granted it the same way/time or was it when they got independent or later on? Also it was during the Provisional Government of the French Republic, not during the 4th Republic era. That-Vela-Fella 21:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Algeria, unlike most French colonies, was an integral part of the 4th, and I believe the 3rd, Republic; but citizenship, and the franchise, was only granted to assimilés, who were the European settlers and an extreme minority of the Arabs. I'm not sure this is different in practice from the other European empires, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

We need a source for the vote "of all inhabitants" in Liege in 1792; it would be nice if it explicitly mentioned women, since it would be odd for the French occupation to permit women to vote when France did not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A source would be good to have, since after looking for awhile on it, I was unable to find one. All I could gather was that during it's

Revolution Liégeoise & just prior to it's occupation by France, it's short-lived government at the time granted it in 1792? That-Vela-Fella (talk

) 04:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Claims to have established universal male suffrage are off topic for the list presently appearing in this article. For this reason, I have not included the Pennsylvania constitution of 1776. (and, IIRC, Electoral Hesse). Septentrionalis 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason, NJ should not be listed as having universal suffrage, since there was a property requirement. However, I will leave it alone for the time being b/c of the disclaimer that the property requirement may not have been enforced (I have no idea whether this is true). --Jsorens 16:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Much of the evidence on the actual exercise of female suffrage consists of charges and countercharges of electoral misconduct about this. Septentrionalis 20:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are such claims off-topic? There are basically three components of the movement from old-style restricted suffrage to modern universal suffrage: 1) dropping property requirements; 2) dropping gender requirements; and 3) dropping racial requirements. The article currently has very little information on when and where #1 was first done, despite it seeming perfectly on topic. --Delirium 10:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Suggestion by Me --

I think the list should be in order of universal suffrage as in, when the vote was extended to all social classes, to all men, since there is a separate page on women's suffrage that can have this order on it. But it's useful to have a chronology of universal (male) suffrage as well. It's just as important, if not more. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.137.101 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur, the fact that this page is lacking any information on the introduction of universal male suffrage is unacceptable. Especially since Universal Male Suffrage redirects here. Causantin (talk) 12:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Editing policy states: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information." So let's improve on the disputed text. For example we could replace it by something more substantiated like so:

Only citizens can vote. Citizens are either born in Israel or the settlements or are immigrated Jews.^[1] So non-Jews East of the West Bank barrier cannot vote. Israeli citizens in the same area can vote.

[Above proposal was by talk] —Preceding comment was added at 07:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The right to vote is tied to citizenship in almost every country in the world. So what is special about that non-Israelis are not allowed to vote in Israel? Novidmarana (talk) 05:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying it's special or unjustified. I am substantiating information that was n the article. Your revertions goes against Wikipedia:Editing policy. Please improve the statements instead, for example by adding a competing perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winetype (talk • contribs) 07:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "competing perspective", but just misleading. Only citizens can vote. That's the way it is in almost all countries. Mostly, citizens living abroad can vote too. The state of Israel does not include the West Bank, so the Palestinians can't and shouldn't vote for Israeli election. They vote for the PLA elections. okedem (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement currently in the article is ludicriously wrong, it is not even worth commenting on this statement. To make the facts clear: Universal suffrage means that all citizens have the right to vote, regardless of race, sex etc. etc. Hence according to this definition used in this article there is universal suffrage in Israel. And residents living in Israel are not denied citizenship either. The occupied territories are not part of Israel, and hence their residents vote in the PLA elections, and not Israeli elections. The only exception is East Jerusalem, but in fact residents of East Jerusalem have the right to apply for Israel citizenship and have thus the right to vote. Even if they refuse Israeli citizenship they have the right to vote in municipal elections. Novidmarana (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The above comments by Novidmarana are simply false. See the bottom of this talk page for more details. One of the false statements is "residents living in Israel are not denied citizenship" This statement is patently false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.143.41 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While we discuss the point, one should not suppress the information (as per the Editing policy). Here is an attempt at an NPOV wording:

Only citizens can vote. The right to vote is tied to citizenship as in most countries. In the case of Israel the citizens are either born in Israel or are immigrated Jews or of Jewish descent^[2]. So non-Jews in the West Bank or East Jerusalem cannot vote. Israeli citizens in the same area can vote.

The above would replace the disputed wording ("many people living in the area are denied full citizenship", etc.) What do you think? Springwalk (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree as this statement is still factually wrong. The West Bank is not part of Israel, and as I said above non-Jewish residents of East Jerusalem can apply for Israeli citizenship (and will get the Israeli citizenship as long as they swear allegiance to Israel and renounce all other citizenships, hardly different from most citizenship laws in other countries). And even if they refuse and keep whatever citizenship they have, they can still vote in municipal elections. Novidmarana (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

However, there are Jewish people living in the West Bank who can vote in Israeli elections. To say that the West Bank is not part of Israel is misleading. The Israeli armed forces controls the West Bank. They control the airspace, including all electronic communication. They control all the roadways, including those roads that may only be used by Jews. They control all of the water supply, etc. etc. So what does it mean to say that the West Bank is not part of Israel, when some of its residents are allowed to vote in Israeli elections and another segment of the population is not allowed to vote? Another important question - What does it mean to say that some residents (for example in East Jerusalem) have their own citizenship? What citizenship - Palestinian?! OK, what does it mean to have citizenship in a country that does not have any territory, sovereignty, etc.? 128.59.143.41 (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. Here is a new text proposal:

Only citizens can vote. The right to vote is tied to citizenship as in most countries. In the case of Israel the citizens can reside in Israel or outside of it. They can notably reside in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Non Israeli citizens in the same areas are not allowed to vote.

You may note that the above version avoids the detail of the municipal elections. Springwalk (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the comment in Israel section, since Wikipedia:Editing policy states that "original research" and irrelevant comments can be deleted. In this paragraph this guy just writes mostly his own opinion on the subject, and some of his claims are false. Israeli right to vote are no different then most other democracies, all citizens, regardless of sex, religion, ethnicity and race are allowed to vote. West Bank and Gaza are not annexed by Israel,and residents of this territories are Palestinian citizens, not Israeli, and so vote in their own election. Residents of east Jerusalem have the right to claim Israeli citizenship and vote in election, but many of them claim Palestinian citizenship and don't consider themselves to be Israelis. Whether someone Jew or not has absolutely no influence on the right to vote. For example if Jew from US come to Israel, and stays as resident without asking for citizenship he has no right to vote also. As with other democracies citizens can vote, residents can't. What was false in the paragraph is that being Jew on not Jew has influence on right to vote, and that non-Jew residents of Jerusalem are denied citizenship, also false. If someone wants to write in Israeli section that residents cannot vote, then it should be wrote in sections of other such states. If somebody want to add that Palestinian citizens cannot vote in Israeli election, then he should also add in US and UK section that Iraqi and Afghani citizens cant vote in this states. But please, don't write this Jew, non Jew comments without adding reliable sources,because it simply not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.25.68 (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It is fine for you to state, as you do above, that only citizens can vote. I do not think that anyone would argue this point with you. The point that you fail to address is that whether or not someone is a Jew does affect their ability to get citizenship in Israel. This is well-known public knowledge; it is not original research; it is not debatable. The problem is that there are millions of residents in the region controlled by Israel that do not have a government. Of course, someone will immediately reply that the Palestinians elected Hamas, or that they elected M. Abbas as their president, and that therefore they have a government. But this is merely a puppet government that has no power. It is not a real government with any sovereignty. (Here's where the discussion gets complicated and murky.) The important point remains, and it is not complicated. There are millions of residents that do not have any voice in the government that controls their lives. Until there is some formal agreement between Israel and these people, they are effectively disenfranchised. Any claims to the contrary are merely word games.128.59.143.41 (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

After population registration in 1951 in Israel, every resident, Jewish or not, who where resident before 1948 where granted

citizenship. When east Jerusalem was annexed in 1967 and Golan Heights in 1981, all residents of this areas can register as citizens, Jew or not. All their descendants Jews or not are citizens, so about quarter of Israelis are not Jews. Being a Jew only affect ability to get citizenship only concerning immigrants and not residents,which is according to Law of Return. Similar law exists in many other countries that has diaspora abroad, like Armenia, Greece, Finland, China, Germany, France and many others. But immigration policy has nothing to do with universal suffrage.When Palestinian state will be established, Palestinian diaspora will probably have special immigration laws in Palestine. If some country prefers to give entrance to computer engineer immigrant over lawyer immigrant , for example, it has no meaning to universal suffrage, and it is well-known public knowledge that for non-immigrant, being a Jew or not does not affect their ability to get citizenship in Israel. By the way, non Jew immigrant can obtain Israeli citizenship, just like citizenship of most European states, by naturalization or by marriage to Israeli(Jew or not). Now for your other points(not related to suffrage), Palestinian citizens who live in Gaza and West Bank are subjects of Palestinian Authority. They are not residents of Israel, because Gaza and West Bank are not annexed by Israel as part of it, but are under military occupation. Palestinian Authority do have sovereignty over their citizens,in areas like taxes, education ,foreign policy, laws etc, all except security. They don't pay taxes to Israel and do not live under Israeli laws. If you say that governments of Hamas or M. Abbas as president are puppet governments, then, in my opinion, Hamas is puppet of Iran, and M.Abbas of Arab states that want to get rid of Palestinian refugees, and not puppets of Israel,but that just my opinion and I don't post it on Wikipedia without sources or before discussing it. If everybody would post like that, Wikipedia would be a mess. About formal agreement between Israel and Palestinians,that is Oslo Accords, that recognize Palestinian right of self-government within Gaza and West Bank through the creation of a Palestinian Authority and recognize PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people.Igorb2008 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain why my comments here were simply deleted rather than discussed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.143.41 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Again my comments of 11 Sep 2008 were simply deleted, without any comment and without any discussion. Can someone please revert this for me? 128.59.143.41 (talk) 14:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because this is not an internet forum and not a place for soapboxing. But why I am saying this, your talk page makes abundantly clear that you are not willing to stop introducing your political commentary into Wikipedia articles. Novidmarana (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing! and absurd. This is a discussion page - not an article. I hope an administrator is taking note of the fact that you have willingly admitted that you have deleted my comments without any discussion. Precisely the opposite of what this space is intended to accomplish. At least the user Igorb2008 is trying to have a discussion. I am not introducing political commentary into anything, and especially not the articles, since this is not an article. Please refrain from deleting my comments.

Did you delete them again, Novi? Someone did. I don't understand. If this is a discussion page, why delete the comments without discussing them?

Here is the main point that I apparently must re-iterate: To state without qualification that universal suffrage has been in place in Israel since 1948 is misleading.

Dear user Igorb2008, I completely agree with you that some of the things I have been writing on this page do not belong in an article; however, they do belong as part of the discussion. That is the whole point of having a discussion. Unfortunately some of my comments were simply deleted. I do not have the ability to revert the page, and I did not save a copy of my previous comments. I sense that you are trying to have a serious discussion, but I am afraid that the user Novidmarana is not so congenial. You are correct that part of the issue is military occupation. I am glad that you recognize this. Many of the other people writing here seem to be ignorant of that fact, or at least they chose to ignore it. There are several parts to this discussion. One facet is the region that is under military occupation, where millions of people have been disenfranchised at least since 1967. It is true that this is related to a military occupation, but the practical result is the same.

Another facet of the problem is the so-called "demographic problem." This euphemistic expression is part of the open dialogue in Israel. It is easily verifiable, even without searching for anything in Hebrew. Even Pres. G.W. Bush used the expression in a public interview, when he was defending the Israeli gov't. (Can you imagine if he had referred to the demographic problem of the Hispanic immigrants in New York City!?) The "demographic problem" is directly related to universal suffrage, because Israel is currently denying citizenship to non-Jewish residents who live within Israel. The law passed in 2003 denies an Arab who lives in Israel the right to marry an Arab from the West Bank, but there is more to it than that. It also denies citizenship to anyone married to an Arab Israeli citizenship, even if this marriage took place before 2003. Furthermore, there are reports of deportations of the wives and children of Israeli citizens back to the West Bank, despite the fact that the wives had been living in Israel for many years. Other children born in Israel to parents of Arab Israeli citizens have been denied citizenship. This is especially a problem in Jerusalem.

I recognize that all of this does not belong in the article on universal suffrage. My point is that there needs to be some mention of the issue in the article itself. I welcome your suggestions as to what that should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.143.41 (talk) 04:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Universal suffrage means that every adult citizen, without distinction as to race, sex, belief, intelligence, or economic or social status can vote, and that every native resident(not immigrant) are not denied citizenship. As all Israeli citizens can vote, and all non-immigrant residents given citizenship, without distinctions, by Israeli nationality law, that you can see

here: http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/israellaws/fulltext/nationalitylaw.htm. So Israel qualifies as a state with universal suffrage just as any other democratic states on the list. There are no laws that deny citizenship to non-Jewish residents who live within Israel. All children born to Israeli citizens, are given citizenship automatically at birth, without distinction to ethnicity or belief, and as citizens they cannot be deported, even if one of their parents not citizen. Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law does not deny anyone right marry anybody from West Bank, it places age restrictions for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits to spouses of Israeli citizens, such that spouses who are inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are ineligible. It does not denies citizenship to anyone married to an Arab Israeli citizenship, there are no law that distinct between spouses of Arabs Israelis and Jewish Israelis. They all granted citizenship by Israeli nationality law. And Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law does not work for marriages that took place before 2003.

Your comments about citizenship and marriage laws are false and misleading ,fact you can easily see if you read the laws. Denial of citizenship to children of citizens, denial of citizenship to non-immigrant resident, denial of right to marry and deportation of citizens or their children are all just as unlawful in Israel as in other countries. If such violations happened as you claim, then victims would certainly challenge this in court and it would be publicized. Can your find such publication? What was the court decision, and if victims claims are rejected, according to which law then?

Your criticism of occupation and Israeli immigration policies has nothing to do with universal suffrage, and shouldn't be mentioned in this article. If however there are reliable neutral sources that criticize occupation and Israeli immigration policies as you do, and you feel that this criticism is misrepresented in the related articles, than of course you can work to improve them. Igorb2008 (talk) 08:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Igorb2008, for sincerely addressing my comments and attempting to have a dialogue, rather than simply ignoring what I am saying or deleting my comments. I am sure that you honestly believe what you are saying, and I wish that it was so simple. I am sure that there are cases in the courts regarding citizenship as you mention. I will try to find some examples and post them here. I have personally talked with people whose Arab parents have Israeli citizenship, who were born in Israel, and who continue to be denied citizenship. (I realize that this is personal information that is not verifiable and does not belong in a Wikipedia article.) Additionally, there are many similar cases when the people involved do not have the money to hire a lawyer.

I am sure that you are aware of the so-called "demographic problem" in Israel. As you say, most of the laws and/or actions related to the "demographic problem" do not technically belong in an article about suffrage. But due to the ongoing conflict, or as you term it military occupation, there are millions of people who are effectively disenfranchised. All I am suggesting for the article is that something about this problem should be mentioned. -- even if it is reference to this discussion page or a footnote.

The law passed 31 July 2003 prohibits Palestinians from obtaining Israeli citizenship -- or even residency status when they marry an Israeli Arab. If this was sincerely a security issue, then wouldn't you say 5 years is enough? This law has been enforced in various ways. One of the most despicable was the January 2006 deportation of 8 non-Jewish women from Israel back to the West Bank, despite the fact that they were married to Israeli citizens. (This took place in Jaljulya, and it is verifiable.) Technically, this has nothing to do with universal suffrage, but to ignore this sort of tactic in the context of the "demographic problem," which is directly related to the question of universal suffrage is misleading. Suffrage cannot be discussed without a discussion of citizenship, and thus the law of 2003 is directly relevant.128.59.143.41 (talk) 02:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The law of 2003 is part of discussion of granting citizenship to immigrants, not of citizenship of Israeli native inhabitants, and as such irrelevant to universal suffrage. Restriction of immigration, restrictions on family reunification, deportation of immigrants , are not unique to Israel and probably exist in every country on this list. There are no encyclopedias that I know of, that tie this subjects to universal suffrage, and it is also not mentioned in the columns of any other states on this list. Same goes for the issues of military occupation. By the way, the law of 2003 prohibits Palestinians from obtaining Israeli citizenship or residency status, when the marry any Israeli, Arab or not. Spouses of any Israeli citizen ,Jew or not, have the same rights. So if Israeli Arab, marries Egyptian Arab, for example, Egyptian Arab still entitled to Israeli citizenship. I agree with you that law of 2003 is controversial, and should be discontinued when security situation improves, but do you really think that Hamas or other similar organizations are weaker now then 5 years ago? But even if this law is tactic in the context of the "demographic problem," as you interpret it, it still has nothing to do with suffrage. Even if some country doesn't accept immigration at all, as long as all non-immigrant residents given citizenship and all can vote, this country has universal suffrage. And for Israeli non-immigrant residents ,there are no reports for denial of citizenship to non-Jews. If you checkAdalah site, Adalah is NGO for Arab minority rights in Israel, despite all the issues they raise, there is no mention of denial of citizenship to Arab Israelis.

Also,to user Winetype, you comment can be deleted according to Wikipedia:Editing policy because of irrelevancy. Probably every country on the list has immigrants, that have residents rights without citizenship rights, not just Israel. This has nothing to do with universal suffrage. Igorb2008 (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary the Wikipedia:Editing policy states "preserve a comment to inform later editors".Winebloom (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The comment above states, "The law of 2003 is part of a discussion of granting citizenship to immigrants, not of citizenship of Israeli native inhabitants..." Again, I wish it was so simple. I personally know someone who was born in Jerusalem to Arab parents who both have Israeli citizenship. That person continues to be denied Israeli citizenship. (I realize that such anecdotal information does not belong in a Wikipedia article, which is why I am putting it in a talk page.) How is it possible that someone born in Israel to parents who have citizenship can be denied citizenship? This is directly relevant to a discussion of suffrage in Israel.

It is technically true that Universal suffrage exists in Israel; however, failing to discuss the subject of citizenship in this context is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.59.143.41 (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, as you can clearly see if you read Israeli laws on citizenship, denying citizenship to children of citizens, is undeniably illegal. As far as person you know, can it be that he immigrated to country, that doesn't allow dual-citizenship, and he was required to renounce his Israeli citizenship to emigrate? And if this is not the case, did he appealed to court and what was the court decision? It is technically and practically, no difference between Universal suffrage or citizenship of other countries on the list, and Israel, so subject of citizenship should be discussed for all countries or non at all. Igorb2008 (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1870 is the year when black citizens were enfranchised. It is true that blacks were widely prevented form voting until 1964. But it is also true that the law stipulated that they cold vote. You will note that there are numerous countries on this list where the law stipulates universal suffrage (but they beat you if you happen to be a Roma or a Christian and you have the temerity to try it,) countries where everyone has the legal right to vote (but who cares since its a dictatorship), countries where women have the right to vote (but their husbands fill out the ballots and cast them since heaven forbid a wife should appear in public) and many other examples in which the "right" to vote doesn't amount to much. this article should record what the laws say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The article says: "Finland became independent with the same Universal Suffrage in 1917. However, universal suffrage was only extended to local elections after independence." What does the latter sentence mean? That there were no universal suffrage in the parliamentary elections after independence? It's really hard for me to believe, and I'd like to see citation, if that's what's meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.25.12 (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does this article not mention that "universal" suffrage generally has an age requirement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.129.186 (talk) 01:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In a way it does when it mentions early on about adults & minors, but I did now also add under the See Also section a wikilink to Voting age that should help. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 12:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it should say anything about an age requirement. Saying that universal suffrage and universal adult suffrage are the same thing doesn't really seem very neutral on the issue of youth suffrage, does it?

Demeny voting and the right of children to vote are not really the same thing, are they? Shouldn't we have children's right to vote link to Youth Suffrage, and then write something about demeny voting there?

"Although suffrage has two necessary components, the right to vote and opportunities to vote, the term universal suffrage is associated only with the right to vote and ignores the other aspect, the frequency that an incumbent government consults the electorate." The whole article is based on this premise, yet there is no source for this definition. Tomsv 98 (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've rejigged the milestones table. I removed some non-notable entries (Franceville?). Also removed some entries that are entirely superfluous. The introduction of women's suffrage by degree (like the Iceland entry) is not relevant for this article, which focuses on universality. The only relevat milestones should be the introduction of male suffrage and the introduction of female suffrage,m and if desired a small sentence at the universality milestone about the degrees by which it was introduction.

Deleted the Franceville milestone, never evem recognised as a country) and changed the wording for France's claim. Certainly the Convention election was the first democratic event in Europe resembling male universality, but no other universal exercises of electoral franchise were exercised for 50 years or so.

Re New Zealand's claim to be the first nation to introduce universal suffrage, I changed that to first jurisdiction; NZ was not a nation until 1907, and until then was a corwn colony (or even a part of New South Wales). Also the bizarre claim on the Norway article that it was the first indepdent nation to have the full franchise (including being elected to high office). Considering the Commonwealth of Australia was independent from 1901, it just sounds like a desperate attempt to score some nationalistic notability.

Sw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.162.123 (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Universal suffrage in the Soviet Union? When the government tells you who to vote for? Universal suffrage without democracy? Where's the logic?Campolongo (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment for Spain should be changed to make it coherent with the statement on the USSR. As it was, the right of vote for women was not fully revoked by Franco's regime: women could and did vote in the show referendums that were celebrated in Spain during the dictatorship, in a similar fashion to what happened in the Soviet Union. On the other hand, Spain hold a kind of "elections" during the latter part of Franco's dictatorship on which only men ("heads of family") could vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.253 (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Re section: 'Notable dates for universal suffrage in the world' am unable to sort sortable table columns i.e. by date or country. Have looked at edit code, but can't identify what is wrong.--Observer6 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it now. I looked through it and had found an extra |- and a missing | in another spot.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The dates in the table are unclear as to whether they refer to the date which the country adopted universal male suffrage, or universal suffrage.

For example, the date for Switzerland is 1848 which is when it adopted universal male suffrage. But the date for the United States is currently 1920, which is the date that women were given the vote. To be consistent, the United States should be moved to 1870 when all males were given the vote (at least in theory, there were of course many practical difficulties).

Ultimately, it would be useful to have two separate tables - one for universal male suffrage and one for universal suffrage. But for now I suggest the table reflects the date of universal male suffrage, since this seems to be what most of the dates given refer to.

Unless anyone objects I will move the US and any other countries so that the list reflects universal male suffrage only and will make a note of this immediately prior to the table.

AJ (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The article defines universal suffrage as including "right to vote, without distinction as to social status". Until 1964, in some parts of the US, payment of a poll tax was a pre-condition of the right to vote. -- Naive cynic 20:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is (in law) disenfranchisement of paupers. (Practice differed, as is stated.) This should be noted as a general exception, like felony disenfranchisement, but I suspect it is true of most of the early claims. Septentrionalis 02:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom in 1928 only adults above the age of 21 were allowed to vote. It wasn't until 1969 that it was reduced to 18.

I can't help but think it would be much more accurate to list the US as 1964, with 1920 in brackets, rather than 1920, with 1964 in brackets, as is currently the case. The UK should be listed as 1928, because 1918 only gave the vote to some women, not all. However, to make sense of all this information, it might be nice to create a table, with columns - column 1 would be country name, column 2 the year when universal male suffrage was granted, column 3 universal suffrage regardless of sex, column 4 would represent the lowering of the voting age from 20/21/25 to 18/19, and column 5 would represent the year when the voting age was lowered to 16/17. For some countries, column 3 would be the same as column 2, for some column 5 would be blank, and so on. I'm still not sure how we best fit a nation like the US into this type of table, though I doubt whether any reasonable person can claim that the US had universal suffrage in 1920. -JdSf 22:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems the US was a democracy in 1788 when only 1% of the population could vote for the president and senate was appointed. Then also at other times when their were property restrictions limiting voting to a few. If this is so the same case can be made for every other country in the world, the date they had limited suffrage needs to be included. We could push several European countries back the the middle ages as they were more democratic than the US for most of the US listed dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.216.122.154 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the date of universal suffrage in the USA to 1920, that being the date when women gained the right to vote. Let us recall that it was in 1870, five years after the abolition of slavery, that the constitution was amended to provide that neither federal nor state laws could deny the right to vote because of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude". If the fact that in some areas Blacks were systematically illegally denied the right to vote is to be cited as a reason to say that the USA did not grant universal suffrage until 1962, then the degree of enforcement of legal rights in other countries should be closely scrutinized as well. Michael Hardy 18:31, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Poll taxes were legal in the US under the 24th Amendment was ratified in 1964. If the 1870 amendment had covered all these points adequately, the 24th wouldn't have been necessary. So even in legal and constitutional terms, the US didn't have universal suffrage until the 1960s, let alone in actual practice. -JdSf 22:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim Crow laws didn't appear the day after the 15th amendments passed. What about reconstruction? I mean as long as we're nitpicking. After all, the list has examples that last less than a year even. And what about all the countries that make it hard as hell (if not impossible) for immigrants to get citizenship? That's not reflected in your list I bet. It seems like for some countries people look for every excuse to move them up the list while for others (that shall remain nameless) people look for every excuse to move them down. Just drop the list altogether it's worthless. Or here's a neat idea: give the opinions of actual sources, so it will actually help people's history research. 71.128.205.128 (talk) 13:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Hardy. Poll taxes were somewhat rare and always illegal in the US. The 24th amendment was not needed to make them illegal. The Supreme court found poll taxes unconstitutional in 1966 because they violated the 14th amendment. The intention, and for the most part the effect, of US suffrage in 1920 was that all adults (possibly 21 years old) would be able to vote. The fact that racism in south states led to various forms of illegal but institutionalized disenfranchisement isn't in doubt. But it seems like the US is being held to a higher standard on this list than other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhhays (talk • contribs) 23:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

These edits are inappropriate in the context of the table; the majority of the countries are listing the date of universal (male) sufferage, which was 1870 in the USA. Difficulties in the implementation of the law does not change the fact that it was in place. The first comment addresses the issue regarding male. If it is desirable to make it universal non-male, then all other countries in the table should be set to the same standard. If not, additional tables could be created. --Sam Bingner ^\ talk / 23:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

United States has not achieved universal suffrage as of yet. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Washington DC, Prisoners who lose the right to vote.... What most in the world would understand Universal Suffrage to be is not applied in the U.S. The definition of Universal Suffrage is pretty self-evident and not limited to a narrow reading of the 15th amendment. As long as 1% is barred from voting on the basis that they are not a citizen, and the right to vote would make them a citizen, universality has not been reached. Therefor I move to strike the date for Universal Suffrage for the US from the Table. -- ADompeling 19:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the UK de jure allowed Catholics to vote from 1829. However, Catholics in Northern Ireland were de facto discriminated against in voting until 1972. Here's a good source of this topic.

If, like Mabuska claims, that discrimination isn't worth mentioning here, why were people protesting for "one man one vote" in 1972 in Northern Ireland, and why did so many British MPs join the "Campaign for Democracy in Ulster"? Check out my source to read more about that. Does Mabuska think these people really were full citizens and the reports that they weren't are lies?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are convoluting the issue as always and this only further builds a stronger case for future action against you on several grounds. Your edit at Young Turks even more so. Whilst it makes a nice change to see you take it to talk, you don't reimpose your troublesome edit as well. I also detailed what was wrong with your edit on your talk page. Maybe someday you will look at it and respond. For posterity here is the direct message I left you:

As seems to be the norm your edit is fraught with issues and bias. The wording in the article covers the issue and is more accurate than your changes to it. Catholics where not barred from voting, though in the early years most refused to vote so they wouldn't be seen as legitimising Northern Ireland's creation. Also the issue of property affected Protestants as well. A Catholic could easily own three properties and thus have three votes just like a Protestant could. As I've said before try to edit in an unbiased manner and on top lf that try to actually improve what is already there without going into needless detail when a wikilink exists to provide further indepth details. Also please remember WP:BRD. Mabuska (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Catholics in NI where legally allowed to vote, nothing stopped them from doing so. They elected councillors for councils and MPs for the NI parliament. Gerrymandering is discrimination however it does not affect universal suffrage. In NI gerrymandering lumped an unfairly large number of voters of specific persuasion into as few wards as possible so that councils/parliament could be manipulated to give a majority to a minority - yet that has nothing to do with suffrage as they still got their vote whether they were gerrymandered or not.

"One Man, One Vote" had nothing to do with universal suffrage. If you knew anything which you clearly don't seem to, it was an issue that affected EVERYONE in NI whether they be Protestant of Catholic. "One Man, One Vote" was about ensuring that everybody only had one vote, not the system in use that meant you got a vote for every property you owned. That meant the minority major land/property-owners (Protestant and Catholic) got several votes when poor working class people (Protestant and Catholic), which most of NI was, only got one.

"Campaign for Democracy in Ulster" is simply a name, it doesn't mean that there was no suffrage. That campaign was about ending religious discrimination as exemplified by gerrymandering. They didn't campaign for Catholics to get votes as they had a right to vote and always did. Because of gerrymandering, NI couldn't be called a democracy whilst gerrymandering lasted as the majority in some areas didn't get their weight of voice they rightly were owed. Quite obvious really.

The article mentions the political discrimination problem however rightly points out that Catholics were not banned from voting: "While local government gerrymandering in Northern Ireland directly led to the Troubles[18] the right to vote in the United Kingdom since 1829 has never been based on race or religion". You saying that this statement is wrong and needs irrelevant and highly weasely worded information added in? Mabuska ^(talk) 22:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

"It's true that the UK de jure allowed Catholics to vote from 1829. However, Catholics in Northern Ireland were de facto discriminated against in voting until 1972." - your own opening statement here shows you don't grasp what this article is on about. It is on about universal suffrage, yet your on about discrimination, which already gets mentioned and wikilinked. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies about the revert, I simply did it to get your attention. It's true that Catholics were officially allowed to vote. But it's also true that the electoral system was designed by bigots to prevent as many Catholics as possible from voting, and make the votes of those who could vote worth less. These measures also negatively affected some non-Catholics but they were designed to target Catholics and Catholics were the majority of the victims. In other words, Catholics were only allowed to vote in the same way black people in the USA were allowed to vote.

This article says black people in the USA got the vote in 1965. They officially had the vote before then, but like in Northern Ireland their voting system was designed by bigots to disenfranchise as many black people as possible. Like in Northern Ireland, they were sly enough not to say they were being bigots. There was "literacy tests" and gerrymandering. These measures affected some non-black people but black people were the main victims.

How come the American universal suffrage date is when the last bit of discrimination was finally removed against black voters, while the UK date is many decades before discrimination was removed against Catholic voters? It seems like both the USA and UK were discriminating against minority voters in similar ways and you are treating them differently?--79.97.222.210 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the constant lies. Your revert had nothing to do with getting my attention and neither was your latest attempt to sneak it in. Normal procedure to get ones attention is to leave a talk page messgae, just like the many I have left you.

You are still clueless on to what your on about. "the electoral system was designed by bigots to prevent as many Catholics as possible from voting, and make the votes of those who could vote worth less" - how where as many Catholics as possible prevented from voting? They weren't. The only part of what you say there that makes sense is "make the votes of those who could vote worth less" which the article already mentions by stating gerrymandering.

Also your claims that it was designed by sectarian "bigots" is highly biased and skewed and disregards the fact that Unionists saw nationalists (which where predominantly Catholic) as nothing more than traitors and given the chance would do what they could to discriminate against Unionists. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's impossible for us to debate when you continue to call me a liar and a vandal.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your history of constant reverts disregarding any and all opposition to your problematic and biased edits to articles constitutes vandalism. And yes you have lied to try to give your behaviour a form of acceptability that fools nobody. I can debate with you no problem, yet there are problems preventing anyone from being able to: 1) your constant bias and ignoring of Wikipedia protocols that you have been notified of many times before; 2) your lack of reasonability and communication when your edits are shown to be flawed and wrong, with you always focusing on something else just like above where I showed how your edit was flawed, to which you ignored how it was and went an reinserted it in again anyways without even discussing it and no consensus. Either you learn to work with others or you'll find your edits under constant scrutiny from editors on this site. How many editors have reverted your edits over the past month or two? Quite a few now. Must be something YOUR doing wrong. Mabuska ^(talk) 17:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Just you. Other editors are protecting my additions to the state terrorism article.--79.97.222.210 (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Uhuh yes I am the only editor that has reverted you. I count at least 8 other editors in the last few weeks alone excluding me. [2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9]. I also don't see any "protecting" of your edits. So yes you are your own biggest problem. Regardless article talk pages are not a

WP:FORUM. If you don't want to discuss your troublesome edit and try to get consensus for it or a compromise solution then so be it, don't be surprised when your edit doesn't stick. Mabuska ^(talk)

22:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The latter point in particular, since only men were eligible for military service, meant that Swedish men did not attain suffrage on equal terms with Swedish women until 1924, when this condition was abolished. The last of the other conditions was abolished 1989, when (arguably) true universal suffrage for all individuals of voting age was introduced. See the Swedish Wikipedia pages Rösträtt i Sverige and Kvinnlig rösträtt i Sverige for references.

In short, putting the year 1919 as the introduction of universal suffrage in Sweden is grossly misleading. ErikRM (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I added to the text about Sweden today (several times), in order to highlight the qualifications you mention, and also shed light on the fact that Catholics were forbidden to stand for election until the new law on freedom of religion was introduced in 1951.81.236.219.119 (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit a mistake: I had confused Catholics' right to stand for election and their right to become cabinet ministers. I have corrected this mistake in the text.81.236.219.119 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is odd that Maori men were enfranchised before European men in New Zealand. The link given does not work, at least on my computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.9.162 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

New caption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.9.162 (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Universal male suffrage was established not in 1912, but in 1853 (much earlier in Buenos Aires).^[3] The Saenz Peña law of 1912 only made it secret and obligatory. The first national election in which women could actually vote was in 1952, not 1947.

Source

• Sabato, Hilda (2001). "On Political Citizenship in Nineteenth-Century Latin America". The American Historical Review. 106 (4). Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Historical Association: 1290–1315.
  JSTOR 2692950
  .

It might be a good idea in this article to pay more attention to real (as opposed to nominal) adult suffrage. Ttocserp (talk) 10:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

If Universal suffrage means "right to vote of all adult citizens" then Canada had universal suffrage before 1960. It's just that aboriginal people were not citizens. In Israel, non-Jews in annexed Jerusalem and Syria similarly do not have rights to citizenship today. How can we say Israel has universal suffrage? Citation please. Keith McClary (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The dates for South Korea don't have any sources. According to the book "The Korean War: A History" by Bruce Cumings, "voting [was] restricted to landowners and taxpayers in the larger towns, elders voting for everyone else at the village level". Additionally, South Korea had two military dictators (Syngman Rhee and Park Chung-hee) until 1979, so it is doubtful that free elections existed before that time.

Northern Ireland =

this implies that Catholics were denied a vote in the Northern Ireland Parliament before 1968. This is clearly false, there were Catholic Nationalist members of the Parliament from 1921. 07:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)~~ Noel Ellis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

It's unclear as to whether the years given in the chronological listing are the ones when the countries granted Universal suffrage or when they revoked it. The opening line in the section is causing this confusion.

-- Sundar 04:14, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)

There are still contradictions in the listing as to years and which French government is being referred to. Could someone with solid citations please clear this up? user:Elisevil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisevil (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Currently the section on "Australia" states: "In 1902, the new federal parliament legislated for a white adult franchise and the right of electors to stand for and occupy any office for which they could directly vote. Indigenous people were explicitly excluded."

The Australian Parliament's Research Paper no.17 2001-02, Voters and the Franchise: the Federal Story states (re. the 1902 bill): "As passed by the Parliament, clause 4 read: No aboriginal native of Australia Asia Africa or the Islands of the Pacific except New Zealand shall be entitled to have his name placed on an Electoral Roll unless so entitled under section forty-one of the Constitution."

This was not a blanket exclusion. Section 41 entitles anyone who can vote in State elections to vote in Federal election. So an indigenous person could vote Federally if they could vote in their State, some could, some couldn't.

--Gwat00 (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

The article's title and it's opening words seem to equate the terms "universal suffrage" and "universal franchise." But a few lines farther down it reports "In most countries, universal suffrage (the right to vote but not necessarily the right to be a candidate) followed about a generation after universal adult franchise." The article may need to explain the distinction between "universal suffrage" and "universal adult franchise." Or maybe I'm a doofus and just missed it. Thanks for listening!!! PurpleChez (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

My knowledge of English, and history in the Anglo-Saxon world, might be the problem, but I get confused by the current definition of Universal suffrage.

I would, according to my prior knowledge and understanding, say that Common suffrage is the extension of voting privileges to all adults, without distinction to race, sex, belief or social status.

At the moment it's the race-issue which is stressed, which doesn't fit with my understanding. Sex and social status were at least as critical, as far as I know. But I must admit that this is grounded on my assembled reading on history, mostly in German, to some degree also in Danish, Swedish and French. I can not now point out any written sources to my support.

Maybe Universal suffrage is something else than Common suffrage?

-- Ruhrjung 16:22 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

From memory, Ruhrjung, "common suffrage" and "adult suffrage" mean the same thing. (But I haven't looked it up lately.) Both are normally used as synonyms for "universal suffrage", which is not strictly correct. The term we should use is "adult suffrage", as most (all?) places deny persons of less than a certain age the vote. (As an aside, I was unable to understand the justice in this when I was a child, and remain equally unable to understand it to this day. But there you are: the world is not always as we should like it to be.) Tannin.

I made a minor rewrite. -- Ruhrjung 15:47 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

The third paragraph makes no sense. The first paragraph establishes that Universal Franchise is the same as General or Common Suffrage, but then: "... universal suffrage (...) followed about a generation after universal adult franchise". So it followed about a generation after itself? The following sentence seems to hint that what is meant is women's suffrage, but not at all clearly. --Lasse Hillerøe Petersen (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement ″Aboriginal Australians did not get the right to vote until 1962, because in the early 20th century Australian law did not considered them human″ is false on both counts.

Aboriginals had restricted rights under some of the States' constitutions before Federation and had restricted voting rights under the 1901 Australian Constitution. However, the rights under the Constitution were vague, challenged (from both sides), and were effectively ignored.

Aboriginals have never been considered ″non-human″ in either British or 20th century Australian law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.65.168.133 (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This sentence seems not to have been written by a human either, at least not a literate one. METRANGOLO1 (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the current organisation of the "dates by country" is quite confused & misleading. Male and female dates refer to universal suffrage irrespective of class for people of the dominant ethnic group, and "ethnicity" is for when minorities got the vote.

The first two categories are misleading, because "male" does not necessarily refer to universal male suffrage. But okay, I understand that some countries removed ethnicity restrictions before allowing men to vote irrespective of class, and some after, so it makes sense to keep those categories separate, even if the particular names chosen don't.

So if a country had both restrictions and removes the class one, that means "men got the vote", but if they removed the ethnic one first it doesn't. Pretty arbitrary. The "male" category really means "class".

It seems clear to me that we should switch from dates for the expansion to certain groups to dates for the lifting of restrictions. "Class", "gender", "ethnicity". Or maybe more precisely "wealth", "male", and "majority ethnicity" (or "white"). Any objections? Gharblad (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The columns in the table are already defined at the start of the section, but I agree better labelling of the columns would be beneficial. How about the following clarifications (underlined for discussion):

• Universal There are no distinctions between voters over a certain age in any part of its territories due to gender, literacy, wealth, payment of taxes, social status, religion, race, or ethnicity.
• Male (except minority groups) is for all males over a certain age in the majority ethnic or sectarian group irrespective of literacy, wealth, payment of taxes, or social status.
• Female (except minority groups) is for when all women over a certain age can vote on the same terms as men
• EthnicityMinority groups is for when all eligible voters over a certain age can vote on the same terms as the majority group irrespective of religion, race, or ethnicity. Whizz40 (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Britain allowed women to vote in 1918, but only if they were over 30, whereas back then the age when men could vote was 21. Does this count as universal suffrage or not? - Rich

There were actually additional qualifications for women to vote in the UK between 1918 & 1928 under the Representation of the People Act 1918. However even if those additional qualifications were there I would not count this as universal female suffrage. I believe that suffrage can only be universal if the age qualification is no older than 21 - the age of majority in much of the world until the mid 20th century. Robert Brockway (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The article lists male and female suffrage each from 2006. It then goes on to say:

Limited suffrage for both men and women. A hand-picked 12% of Emirati citizens have the right to vote for half the members of the Federal National Council, an advisory quasi-parliamentary body.[90] The UAE is an authoritarian state.

If that is true then the UAE does not meet the definitions for male and female suffrage given immediately above the table so the entries should have dashes. Robert Brockway (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If the info needs updating to show that there is not full suffrage there then that should be amended. Just remember that does not include all males of different ethnicities. South Africa had male suffrage in 1910 and female suffrage in 1931 but that did not include all males or females as those who were not white couldn't vote until 1994. So make sure that it is not due to ethnic reasons, and if it is purely due to class distinctions then yes it should be changed and the information should be put in the note section along with links to further reading on the subject. --51.7.116.255 (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

When did women gain Universal Suffrage (the ability to have the same rights as men to vote) in Switzerland? Was it when they were granted the right to vote at the federal level, but not the local level, in 1971? Or was it when women went to the supreme court and won the additional right to vote in local elections in 1990? 51.7.116.134 (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd say go with 1990. A bunch of countries had local universal suffrage earlier than national/federal level, but the list only considers the latter. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

If possible we should note both, e.g. 1971 federally, 1990 all elections. If not, I'd say something like 1971 (federal elections only). Loki (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In a lot of countries, this issue is resolved at the national level where there might have been different states or local governments that extended suffrage rights to a minority for a number of years and that right was confirmed throughout the entire country via the national government. Switzerland seems to have been the reverse, where the federal government allowed women the right to vote for federal matters, but women were not extended the right to vote for local canton elections.

Universal Suffrage does not mean national level only, it means being treated the same without distinction in law for all. In this case, between 1971-1990 women would have to either move to another canton or possibly move to another country to have the same rights as men under the law. It is obvious that women were treated differently in law as they did not have the same rights in all parts of the country as they did not have the same right to vote as men until 1990 in Switzerland.

This would be as if in America women could vote for the president & federal congress, but could not vote for the state senate, governor, town mayor, etc.

This is why the UK lists 1928 and not

Equal Franchise Act 1928

that women had equal suffrage rights to men.

It is also why 1965 is listed for ethnicity in America. While America was supposed to have extended equal voting rights to all African Americans in 1870, Jim Crow laws ensured that they lost those rights in some states in the south (but not the north) so they could not actually vote in the entire country until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Same as women in Switzerland from 1971 until 1990. 51.7.116.134 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• RfC tag removed per
  WP:RFCNOT. ––FormalDude talk
  02:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Female suffrage was changed for Switzerland from 1971 to 1990 apparently based on this statement above:"Universal Suffrage does not mean national level only, it means being treated the same without distinction in law for all." If that is true then the entire table needs to be revised. Women did not get the right to vote in the Australian state of Victoria until 1908. Further, women did not get the right to vote in the Australian city of Brisbane until 1924. Should the year for female suffrage for Australia be listed as 1924, assuming that no later dates exist for cities? I'd suggest no Australian expert would agree with a date that late for female suffrage in Australia. Robert Brockway (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The table has said this for many years:

If a person did not have the legal right to vote for their government representatives in parts of a country due to their: wealth, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc... then they did not have full suffrage and the table should reflect that along with the proper note and link to further reading on that fact 🤷‍♂️ --51.7.116.255 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I've always understood the table to refer to suffrage at a national level only. If this isn't the case then the table needs to be fixed and it should be spelled out clearly above the table. I think we should consider a separate article for exclusively national suffrage. I'll wait a few days for further comments before taking any action though. Robert Brockway (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

If people were treated differently due to their group, gender, or ethnicity then they did not have full suffrage. The article does not say that Universal suffrage is obtained when people have partial voting rights under the law but full voting right under the law. If a person was excluded from participating because of one of the factors mentioned then they did not have full voting rights but partial ones, it's important to put that info in the notes but only being treated equally the same under the law throughout the land would count as having full suffrage rights. --51.7.116.255 (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

According to multiple opinions at Talk:One man, one vote#Splitting proposal between One man, one vote and One person, one vote it seems One man, one vote and One person, one vote are same concept. Then it makes senso to merge Universal manhood suffrage into Universal suffrage. HudecEmil (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs

) 06:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The ongoing editing dispute about female suffrage in Switzerland is not very sensible, since there is no doubt about the actual facts — it's simply a matter of definition. Clearly, if universal suffrage means "being allowed to vote to choose your country's government", Swiss women had that right by 1971. But if it means "no discriminatory laws against women voters", that didn't exist until 1990, because there was one canton where women couldn't vote. The list in this Article is inherently ambiguous about which is meant. This can be fixed by a simple footnote.Ttocserp 22:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe that local government doesn't count as government? However you put it, a part of the government limited voting rights to women on the basis of their gender. While voting rights for federal elections were allowed local elections were forbidden on the basis of their gender. That by definition is not Universal Suffrage as ones gender defined the voting rights one got until that distinction was made illegal in 1990. Yes, a footnote does need to be placed there for sure as this is an important distinction, but equality under the law is what Universal Suffrage is about. --51.9.184.124 (talk) 09:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

By definition? Whose definition, yours or the other person's? That's the whole point of this rather juvenile controversy. You can define a word any way you like. Ttocserp 10:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

By definition of the dictionary "Definition of universal suffrage: the right of all adult citizens to vote in an election"[10]. If you were a woman and found that you could vote for national elections, but you were prohibited from voting in local canton elections because of your sex, then you did not have the same right to vote as men. Please look up Wikipedia:Civility as well. --51.9.184.124 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all. (Carroll,Through the Looking-Glass.) Ttocserp 10:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Please look up Wikipedia:Etiquette. --51.9.184.124 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, I'd already put in the footnote. There's nothing to argue about now. Ttocserp 10:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, and while the discussion is going on it makes sense to put it there. I really would like more people involved in this discussion above though as from 1971 to 1990 women were prevented by law from voting in local elections. I still posit that if voting rights were restricted to women on the basis of their gender then it is impossible for them to have full suffrage until 1990. The argument for 1971 seems to be that when women could vote for federal elections across the country they obtained full suffrage. Basically arguing that restrictions against women, prohibiting them from voting in local canton elections, did not count or matter.--51.9.184.124 (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I accept Ttocserp‘s editing as final. I wanted to participate in the discussion but saved my contribution in the wrong place. Here it is:

After the Second World War, when most Western European countries had introduced women‘s suffrage, the pressure on Switzerland to do the same grew steadily. Resistance was strongest in the rural Catholic cantons in which the direct democratic institution of the Landsgemeinde survived into the modern era. Landsgemeinden have their origin in the late Middle Ages. In them, all able-bodied men who can bear arms come together to vote on taxes, war or peace, government etc. Women were excluded because they did not bear arms. The men in the cantons with a Landsgemeinde were afraid that the introduction of women‘s suffrage would spell the end of the institution of the Landsgemeinde. This fear was not without reason. In fact, in the canton of Appenzell Ausserrhoden the place where the Landsgemeinde traditionally took place was too small for double the number of voters. For this reason the Landsgemeinde was abolished after the introduction of women‘s suffrage and people had thenceforth to vote at the ballot box. Ironically, Appenzell Innerrhoden, where men put up the strongest resistance to women‘s vote in spite of the growing pressure of the whole rest of Switzerland, the traditional place of the Landsgemeinde could be enlarged so that now men and women congregate every year in the cantonal Landsgemeinde, a festive occasion to which people are emotionally attached.

The Federal Council of Switzerland was divided about the issue of women‘s suffrage after the Second World War. The Social Democratic Councilors were in favor but the Catholic Conservative Councilors were against. As neither side prevailed, the Federal Council took no action. International pressure mounted constantly. Nevertheless, in a Referendum in 1959 the Swiss men rejected the introduction of women‘s suffrage on the Federal level. However, two cantons where the men had voted for women‘s suffrage (Vaud and Neuchatel) introduced women‘s suffrage on the cantonal level in the same year. Other cantons followed. In another referendum in 1971 a two-thirds majority of the Swiss men voted for the introduction of women‘s suffrage on the Federal level. From that time on all Swiss women, including those living in the canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden as well as a few other cantons that had not yet introduced women‘s suffrage in their canton, could participate in federal elections and referendums. It is this date that must appear in the table under the name of Switzerland. The unusual fact that women‘s suffrage was introduced independently on the federal and on the cantonal level is mentioned in the accompanying text. There it is mentioned that the first canton, Vaud, introduced women‘s suffrage in 1959 and the last canton, Appenzell Innerrhoden, introduced it in 1990 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1711:FA4E:A1:42E:2B43:DA4C:28C2 (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

While I cannot claim to be an expert on Switzerland (other than that I lived 50km from its borders for a year?) I can't help but notice that 51.9.184.124 did not respond at all to any of the actual points made in 2001:1711:FA4E:A1:42E:2B43:DA4C:28C2's lengthy description (thank you!). The question/problem here appears to be that while the table only allows for universal/male/female/ethnicity, Switzerland is in the rather special situation of having allowed female suffrage on the national level before the regional/cantonal level. There is an argument to be made that the political entity Switzerland (i.e. the federal level) achieved universal suffrage in 1971 for males and females, because while the Appenzell Innerrhoden local elections are elections in Switzerland, they are not Swiss federal elections. There is also an argument to be made that universal suffrage means federal and local/regional, and that it should be 1990. That it what should be debated.

While this situation is somewhat special it is not unique; there are comparisons for ethnicity, for example in the case of Australia in the table: while Aboriginal Australians received the federal right to vote in 1962, they did not receive it in all states until 1965, and you will see that the table says... 1967 when there was a referendum on their inclusion in the constitution (but not voting rights? This is unsupported, will correct to at least 1965 while this is being discussed). There could also be an argument for 1981, when citizens in territories and not just states (so the Northern Territory and the ACT) were allowed to vote in referendums - the exclusions of the Northern Territory was partially if not entirely justified on the grounds that 30% of the population is Aboriginal. There could also be an argument for 1984, when compulsory voting enrolment was extended to Aboriginal Australians (instead of voluntary).

Overall, it might be worth having a broader discussion about how to deal with the differences between national and subnational suffrage dates, particularly in the cases where the national came before the sub-national. I would lean on the side of federal dates over state/canton/regional ones, particularly where the non-allowance on the state/cantonal/regional level did not hinder participation on the federal, but have no arguments to support that position beyond that when we talk about "Switzerland" or "Australia" we are speaking about the national (con)federation/commonwealth/organism. Hentheden (talk) 08:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not respond here, as I already made a very long post at Talk:Universal suffrage#Request for comment on Switzerland Universal Suffrage that covered all those points. Hopefully, you can add your response there as well. As for your point about Australia, I am guessing that 1967 was a typo and I think the notes section might need to be updated for clarification. I am unsure if I follow your point about the Northern Territory before 1981. Do you have any sources that might help clarify your points? If everyone could vote on an equal basis before Aboriginals were included in the mandatory voting legislation, that is an interesting difference to note, but might be best kept in the notes section as you have it now. Thank you.--51.9.184.124 (talk) 16:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Well I think we both agree that Appenzell Innerrhoden is indeed a part of Switzerland and it refused women the right to vote in local elections. That said, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment has been made. The facts are stated there and we have made our points clear. 51.9.184.124 (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

The USA and Switzerland are not the same, they have different suffrage laws. As I learned in the wake of the attempted coup d‘etat of the last President, presidential elections in the USA are not organized by the federal authorities. They are supervised and certified by the 50 states. Therefore I presume that a black American in a state that denied black people the right to vote around 1950 was not only not able to vote on state matters, but he or she was also not able to participate in the federal elections for Congress or the presidency. In Switzerland, national elections and Referendums take place according to federal law and are certified by the federal authorities. It did not matter in late 1971 whether a Canton had introduced women‘s suffrage or not, in all Cantons women could and did participate in the national elections because women‘s suffrage had been introduced earlier the same year. I find it unfortunate that a misguided comparison between Switzerland and the USA is used to decide that the appropriate date for this website is 1990. And I strongly disapprove of prematurely closing this discussion page. I hope to hear other people’s opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1711:FA4E:A1:C139:DCF7:D713:9CF7 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don‘t see why the year 1971 for Switzerland should not be covered by the definitions in the Article. The definition of universal suffrage is „There are no distinctions between voters over a certain age in any part of its territory due to gender, literacy, wealth, social status, religion, race, or ethnicity.“ From 1971 on Swiss citizens of either sex, whether or not literate etc. in all parts of the Country were allowed to participate in national elections and referendums. Therefore 1971 is the year in which universal suffrage was introduced in the nation state of Switzerland. The definition for female suffrage is: „When all women over a certain age can vote on the same terms as men.“ From 1971 on women could vote on the same terms as men in the Swiss Confederation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1711:FA4E:A1:C139:DCF7:D713:9CF7 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As you have stated in the past, "As you know yourself, in 1988 women were not allowed to join the Landsgemeinde" and because Appenzell Innerrhoden is not an independent nation-state, but a part of Switzerland itself. That means that a part of Switzerland legally barred women from full and equal suffrage. While national voting rights are indeed mentioned a in the notes as they must be, local voting is important. If people cannot vote in a part of their country because of their gender, that is not universal suffrage. Since this page is about Universal Suffrage 1990 has been set through the consensus of others.--146.90.26.3 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Taxi Arajakate deplores a lack of source analysis. So do I. If she had read the editorial thread, she would have noticed that I tried at one point to adduce evidence from scientific writings and from Wikipedia:

• 09:06, 6 August 2022 diff hist 0‎ Universal suffrage ‎ →‎Dates by country: Corrected a factual error. Women‘s suffrage in the Swiss Confederation was introduced in 1971, not in 1990. See this entry in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland (French version, German and Italian versions also available). https://hls-dhs-dss.ch/fr/articles/010380/2021-01-26/ Tags: RevertedMobile edit Mobile web edit

• 22:00, 26 July 2022 diff hist 0‎ Universal suffrage ‎ →‎Dates by country: Corrected a factual error. I cite from the Wikipedia page „History of Switzerland“: „Women‘s suffrage in Switzerland was introduced by a popular vote in 1971.“ Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit

But this had no effect. My opponent refuses to engage in a proper discussion, to consider my arguments and respond to them. He or she only keeps repeating their mantra "Appenzell Innerrhoden is Switzerland". If people stop listening to each other and reaching out a hand for compromise, that bodes ill for democracy in their home country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1711:FA4E:A1:5CD:E7E7:3F9:6B4B (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

There is no opponent here. Please do not mistake a genuine and evidence-based conclusion (stated above) and an official Wikipedia:Requests for comment where this topic was discussed with multiple editors, as anything but editors being honest to you and not agreeing with what you have concluded. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith with others here. Oh and as I stated above Appenzell Innerrhoden is not an independent nation-state, but a part of Switzerland itself, it is not the country of Switzerland. The Request for Comment has concluded and I wish you the best in everything you do.--146.90.26.3 (talk) 21:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

2001:1711 out of courtesy I checked your source through Google Translate. As far as I see it does not dispute what we all already agree on. It says women received a partial right to vote on one date, and full rights to vote on a different date. Our article defines suffrage as the right to vote "subject only to relatively minor exceptions". As far as I am aware no one has presented any sources clearly or directly disputing this definition and interpretation which would require us to revise the article.

At this point it is no longer a question of debating the issue. Wikipedia is governed by consensus. And much like an election, there has been a debate, a vote, and the issue is considered closed. Everyone is expected to abide by the result, even if the voters screwed up and voted the wrong way. Continuing to argue an issue after consensus is established, citing the same source you cited before, may be considered

disruptive

.

Returning to other productive work is considered preferable unending argument. There are surely other parts of this article that can be improved, or we have 6 million other articles to edit. There is always other important work that needs to be done. Find something else that needs to be fixed. Alsee (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The claim about Afghanistan should be fact-checked: there was no constitution of 1919 but instead of 1923 and it certainly did not institute "equal rights for men and women", see e.g. https://twitter.com/Philip_Redhair/status/1428516147507388416 2001:14BA:500D:8E00:3A2C:4AFF:FEB9:EAA (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

In cases when vast majority received voting rights earlier that absolutely everyone, we have to add those years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.249.44.2 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)