head is about to explode. women's suffrage was about men forcing politics on women? where'd that come from?

and, it's not often i see Mormons lumped with socialists and Wobblies.

And yet the fallacy there is obvious: If you don't want to vote, don't. Problem solved.

It's the same principle as the abortion debate: Certainly it's ugly and ethically dubious. So if you think it's a sin don't do it. Others may have a different view, or different needs. Mind your own business.

Personally I believe that only taxpayers should be allowed to vote - show your W-2 at the polling station. Obviously that allows women, Martians, hyper-intelligent shades of the color blue, whatever.

And, conveniently, keeps all those horrible unemployed people from voting! Hurrah!
MTE. Because as we know, unemployed people don't have opinions on politics or use services that depend on who is in government.
Do students in the US pay taxes? I'm a (UK) student and do not pay income tax but I cherish my right to vote.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Some students pay taxes, some taxpayers are students. It depends on their income and how it is derived.

If you're thinking of the stereotypical “Joe College” living in a dorm and subsisting on the parents' money, well, think of the Officer Training Corps. Cadets therein are not considered officers, but they will be eventually, at which time they will assume the responsibilities and privileges thereof. Just so, in this system John Dorm, studying for his degree, doesn't vote and doesn't expect to, but he knows he will after he graduates. (Whether his expensive education was wasted or not - even burger-flippers are employed, and thus eligible.)

i know i'll probably get some backlash for this, but you can't really lump abortion with the stated voting fallacy. if so, how do you draw a line on what should be a law? whose arbitrary rules of ethics dictates what should and shouldn't be illegal? to take it to its logical conclusion, we shouldn't have any laws at all - we should just not do bad things if we think they are bad, and let other people decide for themselves if they think they are bad.

since we're giving our ideal voting rights, i personally think there should be one vote per "household," a "household" being a non-dependant citizen, his or her spouse (if existant) and dependant children (if existant).

Well, you see the problem there immediately: Marry, and you lose your right to vote. Or do you? And which of the two keeps it? How is that determined?

It IS an interesting idea - if you see the household as a polity, its members can be polled to produce that vote. If Dad is for candidate Joyboy but Mom, Jr and Sis are for candidate Kindness, Kindness gets that household's vote.

Wow, talk about domestic strife… That could be a really destructive system!

What if I have a different political viewpoint to my spouse? Why is it so awful to have more than one vote per household?
Was about to comment on the Mormon thing - however, iirc, Jews replaced them in similar pamphlets in the UK, Jews being a smaller minority here.
I'd honestly be curious to see how many of these ads basically got re-used while changing only a word here or there.

Replace 'women's sufferage' with 'coloured rights' (or however they would have worded it back then, I'm not sure?) or in current politics with 'gay rights' and I'll bet they all wind up being identical!

More than a little depressing when you think about it... =\
This is exactly what I was thinking! The arguments never really change. Kind of like the arguments against integration of blacks in the armed forces in the late '40s matching almost word-for-word those against gays serving in the military.
I'd beg to differ there. Today, there are just under 14 million Mormons (officially registered by the church) total. In 1915, there were still fewer than 500,000 Mormons, world-wide (very nearly all of them in the United States). Just over 466,200, actually. That's less than the entire population of Wyoming, as it stands now. At the same time, in 1900, there were approximately 1.5 million Jews in just the United States (as of the 2000 census, there are around 4.9 million). For further comparison, the total population of the US according to the 1910 census as was 92,228,496. As of the 2010 census, it is now 308,745,538.

This answer is probably not as simple, but also more obscure, as well as laying in the history of women's suffrage in the US. Utah Territory gave women the right to vote in 1870 (a year after Wyoming Territory). Unlike Nevada, with a far smaller population, which became a state only three years (1864) after first being organized as a territory (1861), statehood was constantly delayed, mainly due to Mormonism and Polygamy. Utah Territory was organized in 1850, but didn't become a state until 1896, 46 years after becoming a territory and a further six years after officially abandoning polygamy, legally, constitutionally, and in the LDS church.

In the meantime, women in Utah Territory lost the right to vote (at all) under the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887, which bans polygamy and also heavily targets Utah and punitively, the Mormons. Women in Wyoming Territory continued to vote, as polygamy was already banned under state law, though, like nearly all surrounding states and territories in the region, Mormons were usually not allowed to vote, anyways, as there were Mormon Test Oaths in place a a requirement to registering. As I recall, Idaho's is still on the books, but no longer enforced.

Anyways, Wyoming became a state in 1890, thus becoming the first state in the union to allow women to vote. The Mormon church doctrinally ended polygamy with the issuance of "Official Declaration #1" in 1890 (there are two official declarations, the other, dating from 1978, lets blacks join the church, as the federal government was threatening to take away their cherished tax-free non-profit status for discrimination. Both are found at the end of "The Pearl of Great Price", a 4th volume of the Mormon bible). The Utah Territory legislature banned the practice in 1888, to bring the territorial constitution into line with federal requirements, but did not give back the right to vote to women until 1895.

Either way, regardless of numbers, Mormons were connected to polygamy, which was viewed as immoral, illegal, and not conducive to fair elections (men could dictate to their wives how to vote and ostensibly punish any wife who did not), and were very much the more easy, obvious and common target for Americans than Jews were with the issue of women's suffrage. Mind you, if that list is accurate, and someone would have put a fourth group in favor, it would probably have been the Jews.
The whole situation reminds me a lot of how European countries get approved (or not) for EU member statehood, it's fascinating.
Wow...I didn't realise that politics was something one needed protection from.

Although, I would love to be protected from Sarah Palin.
all she does is attack people, spread lies and then makes situations about HER....she needs to stay in alaska...she couldn't even finish her term as governor....

vanity fair had a good article about her a few months back, did you read it?
"MEN shall FORCE the burden of politics on ALL WOMEN." Well, I have to admit that I feel pretty much screwed by politicians in general, but I never equated voting to being raped, but, yeah, the metaphor works. Come to think of it, it should be illegal for men to vote, too.

Also, according to this screed, Socialists and Mormons were in cahoots on something. Does Glenn Beck know about this?

Oh, and my inner 12-year-old wants to make sure you notice the extra space in the third line from the bottom: ASS OCIATION.
The typical preteen giggling at "naughty" words is usually roll-of-the-eyes worthy and facepalm worthy.

However, this one, I WILL giggle at.