See, and here I thought that a democracy meant that everyone would get a vote!
So who gets to determine what counts as "some effort"? Is putting voter registration behind a Rube Goldberg machine enough, or should we go for an IQ test? How about sitting in a room for 72 consecutive hours before being able to cast your vote? Should we perhaps "grandfather in" people who have already proven to be trustworthy as well?
Voting is a fundamental human right. If politicians can make rules deciding who gets to vote, then those politicians will disenfranchise people voting for their opponents. The only solution is to make sure everyone can vote - including the "undesirables" like dumb people and prisoners.
Obvious example: you spelled "ought" wrong, this means that according to my arbitrary rules passed by a democratically-elected government you are not smart enough to vote. And no, you can't change the rules: you'd first have to elect a different government, which you can't do because you can't vote.
The federalist papers make it pretty clear the intention was not that everyone should vote. The idea of active citizens being the ones who vote is everywhere in Republicanism, whether you look at the early French Republic and their restrictions on the national guard, to constitutionalism in England, or the early American Republic. In Athens, not everyone got a vote. In Rome not everyone got a vote. In cities across Europe following the Magdeburg charter, not everyone got a vote. The original limitation of propertied people in the constitution was the correct move in hindsight. The issue with suffrage for those that are not active and giving a positive impact to the country is exactly what you see happening today, politicians pandering to certain voter groups with hand outs instead of sticking to principles.
> The federalist papers make it pretty clear the intention was not that everyone should vote.
If we're citing that sort of thing, I'm gonna go ahead and quote the Declaration of Independence, which should be at least as instructive as to intent.
The Federalist Papers are, after all, advocacy efforts (opeds, even) by three people, not policy decisions agreed upon and ratified by the states.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
"All men" and "the governed" seem like they could easily have said "landowners" if that were genuinely the intent.
(Nor should we necessarily be permanently bound to the opinions of people who predate germ theory.)
