Democracy means rule by the people – but who do we mean by ‘the people’?  Today, the underlying idea is that all can cast a vote, based on ideas of universal suffrage.  But, this view has only been the norm in the western democracies since the 1920s.

In earlier times, the right to equal treatment, and thus the right to vote, was granted by decision makers to those deemed to be of equal status to themselves, rather than to all people.  It has always been hard for those seeking it to be given the vote because the decision would be made by those who already have it and may not wish to see their influence diluted.  For instance, in all countries where women won the equal right to vote they immediately made up over half of all eligible voters.

Arguments for extending the franchise have largely been based on ideas of equal rights – the claim that there is no relevant difference between those who can vote and those who should be allowed to vote.  There are two core strands to the arguments.  One is that those who are not currently enfranchised have an equal ability as those who can vote to participate in self governance, to make an informed decision and to understand the election issues.  More recently, arguments have emphasised an equal right under universal civil and political rights.

Universal suffrage now exists across the developed democracies and in many of the developing democracies.  However, nowhere is it the case that everyone who lives in the country has the right to vote.  Countries differ in the details of who can and can’t vote, but there are some common categories of exclusion from the universal franchise.

One set of common arguments for exclusion echoes historic arguments about extension of the franchise, where the core concern relates to acceptance of an entire category of people as having the capacity to participate as informed voters.  The other common arguments relate to whether people really have a connection to society, and whether they have a stake in the country and therefore should have a voice in decision making.

Common grounds for exclusion from the franchise

Age

Voting at 18 (as in NZ) has been the norm across democracies since the 1970s. Before that the norm was 21.  There is currently debate in several countries about lowering the voting age to 16, or younger.

Arguments relate to the age at which people have a stake in society (often linked to paying taxes or serving in the armed forces); the age at which they are deemed to be ‘adult’ in other laws (such as criminal responsibility, drinking, or sex), and the age at which they are thought able to understand political issues.

Intellectual disability or mental illness

Most democracies have some restrictions related to intellectual disability or mental illness but the details vary a great deal, particularly about how those to be excluded are identified.  For instance, one common exclusion is those who are long-term residents in institutions for the mentally ill.

Arguments centre around the person’s ability to make an informed decision.

In NZ, having an intellectual disability or mental illness is not a barrier to enroling or voting, unless you have been a compulsory patient in a hospital or secure facility for longer than three years.

Citizenship

Citizens, along with permanent residents who have been in New Zealand for a year, are required to enrol.   Prior to 1977 only British subjects and New Zealand citizens could vote, because New Zealand citizenship did not exist before 1949, as New Zealand-born were British subjects.

The common argument used to restrict the vote to citizens is that only those who have committed themselves to the country should have a say in how it is run.  Being born in a country or taking citizenship in an adopted country are seen as indicators of a connection to the society and therefore a right to be part of the decision-making process.  In countries such as Switzerland, where it is hard for migrants to gain citizenship, large sections of the population cannot vote.  As more people move between countries to live and work the links between citizenship, residency and having an interest in the politics of a country are changing.  These changes are likely to lead to new debates about whether non-citizen residents should be included in the franchise.

Residence

Countries vary greatly on this matter.  Most countries only allow those who are normally resident in the country to vote (along with those who are overseas in the service of the government).  In New Zealand, a citizen who is out of the country at the time of the election can vote from overseas if they have been in the country some time in the past three years (one year for a permanent resident).

Arguments relate to the extent to which people have a stake in the country, and are often related to who is paying taxes.  A few countries have special, separate electorates for citizens who live in another country.  For instance, there is an MP in the Italian parliament who represents Italians living in Australia.

Incarceration or criminal conviction

In New Zealand, the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 disqualifies people sentenced to a term of imprisonment after the Act's commencement from enrolling or voting.

Before the Act came into force on 16 December 2010 only prisoners who were sentenced to life imprisonment, preventative detention or a term of imprisonment of 3 years or more were disqualified from enrolling or voting.  As a consequence those prisoners who were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of less than three years on or before 16 December 2010 are still eligible to enrol and vote.

Other prisoners, such as prisoners on remand, are eligible to enrol and vote.    

Historic grounds for exclusion from the franchise

Historically, the two greatest grounds for exclusion from the franchise were gender and ethnicity.  Women and ethnic minorities, in particular indigenous peoples and slaves, were commonly excluded from voting.  Reasons given for these exclusions tended to mix the two core arguments of capacity (to participate) and connection (to society).

Gender

One hundred years ago, few women in the world were allowed to vote.  New Zealand was the first country in the world (in 1893) to extend the franchise to women for national elections.  Elsewhere, women won the vote at widely different times, although in many western democracies it was in the first quarter of the twentieth century.  Switzerland was the last European country to give women the vote, in 1971.

Arguments against giving women the vote related to ideas that they had little stake in society because they rarely owned land or paid taxes.  There were also some suggestions that women were not capable of making an informed decision or understanding the complexities of politics.

Ethnicity

In the past, many countries have had restrictions based on ethnicity, usually because certain groups were not allowed to be citizens.  For instance, aboriginals in Australia have only been counted as citizens since 1967.  In the USA, many blacks in the South were effectively kept from enrolment and voting by the use of measures such as a literacy test.  Such treatment was outlawed in the 1965 Equal Votes Act.

Māori were effectively excluded from New Zealand's first elections because voters had to own land and Māori owned land under communal title.  In 1867 the franchise was extended to Māori males over the age of 21 (the same as for British subjects but without the property requirement).  Māori votes were all cast for four Māori electorates.  The secret ballot was extended to the Māori electorates 47 years after it was introduced in the general electorates.   When the franchise was extended to women in 1893 it applied to general and Māori electorates.  Registration was made compulsory for Māori 32 years after it was made compulsory for non-Māori.   In 1975 Māori were first given the option of choosing to be on the Māori roll or the general roll.   In 1993 the rules relating to the number of electorates was changed so the fixed number of four Māori electorates went and all Māori and general electorates are drawn to have similar electoral populations.