David Frum: What If the Allies Had Lost World War One?

[Berkut]

A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.

The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.

After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.

The size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate

That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

[Eddie Teach]

Tim and Frum are about on the same level.  Though that's probably an insult to Tim.

I don't always agree with him, but I always like David Frum.

I don't always agree with him, but I usually like Tim.

[Admiral Yi]

A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.

The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.

After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.

The size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate

That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

I disagree.  A property qualification that allows 60% to vote makes it a democracy IMO.

[Norgy]

A quick google search makes it pretty clear, at least in my opinion, that saying that pre-war UK was not quite a true democracy is a pretty fair argument.

The 1918 Representation of the People Act extended voting rights to nearly all men, and most women. Prior to that, only 60% of men and no women were allowed to vote. The male restrictions were based on property, meaning that basically the wealthy got to vote and the young and poor did not. More to the point, most of the men coming back from the war would NOT be allowed to vote in the upcoming and overdue election, absent the Act.

After passage of the act, you saw near universal enfranchisement of men, and most women.

The size of the electorate tripled from the 7.7 million who had been entitled to vote in 1912 to 21.4 million by the end of 1918. Women now accounted for about 43% of the electorate

That seems like a very defensible point to say "This is when the UK really became a democracy".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_of_the_People_Act_1918

The only two countries that had women voting prior to WWI were Finland and Norway, I think.
Not that it matters much. However, WWI did wonders for womens' rights in several countries. It also did a lot for poetry. Without it, a beauty like "The Wasteland" would not have been written.

[Norgy]

I disagree.  A property qualification that allows 60% to vote makes it a democracy IMO.

How is that a democracy?
A property qualification is usually there for the exact opposite reason of allowing democratic rule.

[Warspite]

It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.

But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.

After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.

[Admiral Yi]

How is that a democracy?
A property qualification is usually there for the exact opposite reason of allowing democratic rule.

If you accept that logic then it seems to me age requirements mean no country is democratic.

[crazy canuck]

It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.

But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.

After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.

Agreed.

[Gups]

The US had male only suffrage in 1917 didn't it? And de facto restrictions on suffrage of black males.

It doesn't seem radically more of a democracy in 1917 than the UK was.

[Valmy]

Yep. It is not an all or nothing type thing.

[Berkut]

It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.

But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.

After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.

Agreed.

I don't disagree, but I also don't disagree with the notion that pre-1918 it is fair to say that the UK was not much of a democracy. Both fall into the range of reasonable arguments.

[Berkut]

The US had male only suffrage in 1917 didn't it? And de facto restrictions on suffrage of black males.

It doesn't seem radically more of a democracy in 1917 than the UK was.

Radically? Probably not - but there was a pretty fundamental difference between largely universal voting rights that in a practical sense meant only the wealthy could vote, and hence only their interests would be represented, and on where even though sufferage is far from universal, it still allowed for the bulk of the citizen classes to vote, hence forcing politicians to cater to their views.

Again, the point here is that Frum's position is not ridiculous if you take it in the context he is making it - the 1918 Act made a HUGE difference in the maeup of the voting population in the UK. Tripling the number of voters is not a difference in just scale, but in kind.

[Warspite]

It's not a ridiculous statement by any means but I do feel it commits the sin of anachronistically using a modern nuance .

[crazy canuck]

It is defensible to say that the UK is more democratic today than in 1914.

But I am not sure it is correct to say the UK wasn't a democracy in 1914.

After all, while the franchise was deficient by today's standards, on the other hand Parliament - and the elected lower house - was truly where power lay. Democracy is not just about having a vote, it's also about what happens after that vote is cast.

Agreed.

I don't disagree, but I also don't disagree with the notion that pre-1918 it is fair to say that the UK was not much of a democracy. Both fall into the range of reasonable arguments.

But as far as pre-1918 democracies go it was one of the best.  Which is very different from the point Frum is trying to make. 

[The Brain]

Calling a country where a minority of adults have a vote a democracy isn't necessarily wrong in some particular context, but it's not obviously correct and it is a bit misleading.