Who should be allowed to vote

Eligibility to voteJames Kent objections on universal suffrage
Universal suffrage refers to a situation of where most the population has the liberty to vote, but the low class, minors, and subjects are deprived of their democratic right to vote. James Kent was against raising the property threshold for those who were eligible to vote. He opposed the motion tabled to increase the property value for voters. He argued that even African-Americans had the right to elect leaders of their choice. However, he concludes by saying that there be different rights as there are social classes. He continued to indicate that representation is according to the individual contribution of every citizen. In addition to this, James Kent argued that it was not constitutionally right for a low wage citizen to get the same representation as one who plays a bigger role in nation building.
James Kent on the future of New York
James Kent sought to create a unified judicial system for New York. Through his collaboration with journalists, all his verdicts and rulings were published for use as references by other judges and legal practitioners. The scaling of New York regarding growth is a force to reckon with in the coming days and therefore the laws passed today are crucial in the future. James describes New York as the imminent future of American growth and prosperity. Despite the universal suffrage, the city is destined for strategic and economic growth as it’s an important milestone for the days to come.

The American society just like in Europe, are farmers and landowners who constitutionally have no suffrage rights. In both systems, there is discrimination against social classes. The elite has rights and liberties to whatever they want while the subjects remain oppressed. Problems faced by the minority groups in both countries are similar, and it has taken a great deal of time to achieve electoral freedom.
David Buel asserts that there are no provisions in the British constitution requiring land ownership as a barrier to deter poor citizens from voting. In that case, he argues that land tenure should not be interfered with by subdivision or land fragmentation.
PART B
James Kent description of the vast majority is in every way true. He describes the rich as oppressive to the poor and the less fortunate desiring the riches of the wealthy. The system looks down upon the minority groups depriving them of their rights and privileges.
The major omission noted in the convection on electoral reforms are Black Americans discriminated against. Being the major group of interest, these should not have been overlooked in the discussions on the suffrage rights. Lack of inclusion of this group has seen them continue to oppressed and their say in the choice of leaders taken away.
In the modern day, both of these leaders would embrace the voting requirements as it encompasses all their recommendations and description of the ultimate electoral
Daniel J Buell points out that property ownership should not be put under the government radar and be used as criteria to determine eligibility to take part in democratic processes. This argument is most suitable in tackling the universal suffrage. Using England as a main point of reference, Daniel asserts that land does not lose its value when it’s considered as a tool for choosing those eligible to take part in democratic practices.