Voting Rights Under a More Centralized System (U.S.)

In a discussion about the merits of a strong central government vs. a decentralized government, I brought up the fact that voting rights for women was something that started at the state level (Wyoming) and spread to the point that prior to the passage of the 19th Amendment, women could vote in most of the US (the East Coast and the South being the exceptions).

Hendryk responded with "sucks to be a woman in one of the other states."

My response--which I can't remember if I posted it or not--was that Hendryk was making the perfect the enemy of the good and half a loaf was better than none. A more centralized voting system could deny women the frachise everywhere.

So, how might the voting system in the US look if the Feds controlled eligibility from the beginning or soon afterward instead of the states?

1. My knowledge of the property-requirement period is rather patchy, so I don't know if property qualifications would fade as they did in OTL or not under a more centralized system.

2. I think the disenfranchisement of blacks in the South would not happen, if the Feds controlled elections.

3. Women probably would NOT get the vote until much later. When Wyoming petitioned for statehood, women could vote, but the Feds wanted that abolished. Wyoming said they'd rather stay out of the Union 100 years than come in without the ladies.

At this point, the centralized government probably would prevent women from voting. IIRC Susan B. Anthony tried to use the 14th Amendment to vote and lost her Supreme Court case.
 
Well, there are a number of consequences that could mitigate or even overwhelm the trend towards later acceptance of women's voting rights.

A centralized voting system, determined at the federal level, would have fundamentally altered the US spoils system, greatly weakening the local and state party bosses, and making the parties over all more centralist.

This provides fertile ground for mass-based parties, particularly parties that serve as the political arm of trade union movements. Without the decentralized spoils system, mass-based labor parties would lead towards a quicker trend towards women getting the vote.

In all, i think it's impossible to tell the exact result, because there are multiple factors that act in different directions on this trend. Not to mention the other butterflies it would cause.
 
How do you know mass-labor parties would help women get the vote earlier?

A lot of the old-style unionists, Gompers and all, had surprisingly reactionary views in some fields (race, for example), plus I think some unions didn't like women working because they could be used more cheaply than male workers.

Economically populist as the working-class and working-class parties might be, they could also be VERY socially conservative.

(Note the "hard-hat riots" in NYC where a bunch of hippies got the crap beat out of them)

And how would voter eligibility being determined by the federal government and not the state government (as well as, I assume, federal oversight of the electoral process) affect the spoils system? IIRC that had more to do with the civil service, not elections.
 
Because they have a direct interest in getting women the right to vote. It increases the party's voting power, and unites it's electorate.

Creating federal control of elections centralizes power on the federal level. State party bosses and the spoils system (at least as we know it OTL) depended on control of the electoral system on the state level. That's how they fielded their candidates for office. State party bosses would get party member's jobs at the various level of government. In return, they'd kick back part of their salaries to the party. Moving it to the federal level undercuts that base of power, making the national parties much stronger. You would probably see a trend where the national parties determined which candidates would run.
 
Top