ClickBank1
ClickBank1

how was denying the vote to non-home owners justified in Northern Ireland?

In the days when those in Northern Ireland who did not own homes, the vast majority of them Catholics, were denied the vote, how was this justified by the authorities? Presumably there must have been some statement or official answer for this, and/or the issue must have been raised at some point? What kind of things were said?

It’s worth pointing out that the property-based franchise in 20th century Northern Ireland applied to local government (councils) rather than the parliament in Westminster or Stormont. For Stormont, there was adult suffrage, with some additional representation for university and business. Westminster elections in Northern Ireland used the same rules as in the rest of the UK.

It’s all part of the slow evolution of democracy in the UK. The rationale for council elections and local taxation in the first place may have been that those who were taxed (the local taxation was a property tax) elected the body which oversaw the spending of those taxes, or rates. It wasn’t so much that votes were denied to those without property, as that male property owners over a certain age were gradually given the vote.

The rest of the UK moved more quickly than Northern Ireland to universal adult suffrage for local elections. While in national elections women and adults under 21 were gradually given the right to vote, and in the 1940s councils in England abandoned the ratepayer franchise, it was not until the early 70s that local government in NI caught up, and citizens, rather than ratepayers, elected the councils.

Undoubtedly, some must have felt that the disproportionate effect on potential catholic votes was a positive benefit of the limited franchise – but others would have argued against a broader franchise on economic grounds, fearing that "the poor" would simply vote themselves greater benefits, funded by taxing the property and businesses of the more wealthy.

A further justification (if you can call it that) for the status quo at each stage in the process was generally "we’ve never done this new thing you’re suggesting before". Even today, there are lots of things that you wouldn’t do if you were setting up a new society from scratch, but which are there for historical reasons – from 8 types of banknote in the UK, to a partly elected, partly appointed, partly hereditary upper legislature.

In the future, no doubt, this will seem as quaint and old fashioned as top hats and tails, the Beatles, flares, and Eminem.


One Response to “how was denying the vote to non-home owners justified in Northern Ireland?”

  1. notmyopinion says:

    It’s worth pointing out that the property-based franchise in 20th century Northern Ireland applied to local government (councils) rather than the parliament in Westminster or Stormont. For Stormont, there was adult suffrage, with some additional representation for university and business. Westminster elections in Northern Ireland used the same rules as in the rest of the UK.

    It’s all part of the slow evolution of democracy in the UK. The rationale for council elections and local taxation in the first place may have been that those who were taxed (the local taxation was a property tax) elected the body which oversaw the spending of those taxes, or rates. It wasn’t so much that votes were denied to those without property, as that male property owners over a certain age were gradually given the vote.

    The rest of the UK moved more quickly than Northern Ireland to universal adult suffrage for local elections. While in national elections women and adults under 21 were gradually given the right to vote, and in the 1940s councils in England abandoned the ratepayer franchise, it was not until the early 70s that local government in NI caught up, and citizens, rather than ratepayers, elected the councils.

    Undoubtedly, some must have felt that the disproportionate effect on potential catholic votes was a positive benefit of the limited franchise – but others would have argued against a broader franchise on economic grounds, fearing that "the poor" would simply vote themselves greater benefits, funded by taxing the property and businesses of the more wealthy.

    A further justification (if you can call it that) for the status quo at each stage in the process was generally "we’ve never done this new thing you’re suggesting before". Even today, there are lots of things that you wouldn’t do if you were setting up a new society from scratch, but which are there for historical reasons – from 8 types of banknote in the UK, to a partly elected, partly appointed, partly hereditary upper legislature.

    In the future, no doubt, this will seem as quaint and old fashioned as top hats and tails, the Beatles, flares, and Eminem.
    References :
    http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/electoralsystem.htm