American colonists believed that the security of life and liberty depended on the security of property, which explains in part the property requirement for full political rights, such as voting. If one of the purposes of government was to protect property, it seemed reasonable to many Americans to limit suffrage to those who possessed at least some land. Owning fifty acres of land was a typical property requirement for voting in the colonies. Land was relatively easy to obtain, and so the body of eligible voters in America was proportionally larger than in England. Colonial legislatures accordingly were more broadly representative. Unlike in England, colonial elections usually offered voters a choice of competing candidates for office. Colonial legislators usually served shorter terms than member of Parliament, who faced election only once in seven years. Colonial legislators also were required to live in the districts they represented They were considered to be the voices, or agents, of the people, or their constituents. A constituent is a person represented by an elected official. And so, colonial legislators were responsible for ensuring that the legislature knew about the needs and interests of their constituents. By contrast, in 1776 members of the British Parliament did not have to live in the districts they represented and often had little understand of the needs of their constituents Instead, they were charged to represent the interests of the nation as a whole. What do you think is the best way to explain the American colonists' views of government? Is social contract theory or historical circumstance more important? Why?