No, we've already seen that contrary to what you pretend, they could vote provided they weren't called to active duty. In other words, if you were called (or pressed) into active service, you lost your right to vote for the duration of that service despite retaining French citizenship.
Nope, If they were called or pressed into active service, they could vote provided they asked a leave (and get it) for the voting Sunday so they could freely go to the polling station where they were regularly registered, as it is explicitly stated in the organic law. The mean time of a leave, in peace time, is one week-end per week, so that isn't very hard to get the opportunity to go to vote. In war time, there is obviously less opportunities of leave. In 1916, one soldier in active service had a right of seven days of leave each four months, granted that his units wasn't doing an offensive, that is not much and not something that one would waste just for voting, but... wars stay the exception. Especially in your 1921 example.
I fail to understand how nominally allowing all men the right to vote but then having the right to register to vote be based on subjective criteria like property, taxation or "literacy" (US) is any different to nominally allowing all men the right to vote provided they meet certain property-owning criteria. (UK)
At last! I asked you what were registration requirements and you -up to know- didn't cared to give them... So I consistently engaged the point that registration, in itself, isn't something that goes against universal suffrage... If the registration requirement explicitly and exclusively required property or taxation, it was a tax-based voting, and if it needed literacy, it was a capacity based voting.
Might you give me legal examples of such registration requirement please?
You have consistently failed to engage this point, except only by resorting to the empty sophistry of statements like: "well prisoners, minors and animals can't vote, so clearly no state has universal suffrage."
Funny to read that from someone who argued that there was no universal suffrage because movable goods were not allowed to vote
. What is the status of a non-human animal, mind you? Yes, a movable good (I've never stated that animals can't vote, as one animal,
homo sapiens, can vote in most representative regimes, granted it respect other criteria). The example of slaves is exactly the example of animals. If there is "empty sophistry", I fear it happened as soon as your first reaction.
In fact there is no sophistry, there is only an arbitrary -and quite irrational, IMHO- try, by you, to make objects "inside" and others "outside" what is considered good to be part of the people. Exactly what had been done, in previous times of representatives regimes. Exactly what we still do it now in our current representatives regimes.
Not understanding that citizenship is, by definition, a concept that include some and exclude others, is not understanding what is citizenship.
[by the way, Prisoners can vote in some states (like France, albeit a significant number of them are forbidden to vote in the United Kingdom as far as I know [the UK condemnation for that by the European Court of Human Rights is well know]).
Minor can't vote in all representatives regimes I've heard of.]
If "The people" can be defined to exclude those who actually live in the country, then it ceases to have meaning: At that point you might just as well claim that any absolute monarchy was a democracy, they just had a very limited definition of "The Peoplle".
Then "universal suffrage" according to your definition (I disagree with) didn't exist, never existed, and will probably not exist for the next thousand years at last, if not never.
