The Few Notes on Universal Suffrage Morality[Несколько Заметок О Моральности Всеобщей Избирательной Привилегии]

The Universal Suffrage introduction and subsequent rising of welfare state (nanny state) make the institution vulnerable to critics from the point of view of economists. Universal suffrage caused chronic budget deficit and increasing public debt burden during peacetime. Universal Suffrage defense is usually based on the following two claims: Universal Suffrage is an integral and basic component of real Rule of Law Democracy and Universal Suffrage has clear moral advantages compared with census limited participation. Our analysis shows the moral foundation of Universal Suffrage is even less solid than economic. Undeserved privilege is encouraging more and more people to drop their responsibilities for themselves and for their families, while securing their “right” to decide the country’s fate on the Day of Elections. New irresponsible and budget dependent voters create new opportunities for the bureaucrats seeking discretion power and additional funding for theirs bureaus. We stress reasonable doubt about Long Run compatibility of Universal Suffrage with constitutional foundations of Democracy (like property rights, free speech and more). Supporters of the Welfare state require that their power to rig elections be secured for the sake of fighting Discrimination. The same people often require that votes of their opponents be ignored (i. e. effectively denying opponents’ “right to vote”). As a result, one could observe now pretty broad consensus on the necessity to introduce (to restore) qualifications for voting.