If Evangelical women are not allowed to vote . . .

(and maybe eligible teenage guys still living at home)

but all other women (and teenage guys) are still allowed because they haven't had their enfranchisement as citizens suppressed,

might that not tip some balances in beneficial ways, just because of the numbers involved?

I wonder if the Patriarchalists have thought this through.

However, as an American, it would be incorrect for me to support such disenfranchisement. Let everyone eligible vote, and let come what may.

That's how it goes in a representative democracy: if the greater portion of the voting populace consists of hateful, uninformed, vicious, stupid bigots, then our federal government should reflect that, and anyone who hates America is still free to leave.

However, this is where the fourth and fifth and whatever additional "estates" come in, isn't it?

@Arkturos said

However, as an American, it would be incorrect for me to support such disenfranchisement. Let everyone eligible vote, and let come what may.

That's how it goes in a representative democracy: if the greater portion of the voting populace consists of hateful, uninformed, vicious, stupid bigots, then our federal government should reflect that, and anyone who hates America ...[text shortened]...

However, this is where the fourth and fifth and whatever additional "estates" come in, isn't it?

@moonbus said
"...come what may..." is the reason there is a Constitution, a BoR, and an a-political judiciary, to prevent certain kinds of legislation from becoming law, or to strike such laws down even if a majority votes for them.

For example, if a majority of the electorate voted to re-introduce slavery and lynching, this would be struck down by the courts.

@Suzianne said
At least we can hope so.

What we do not need is a government convinced it can get away with it.

And we are not far from that.