How Do You See Voting?

[carpedm9587]

Local politicians know that votes often come down to a difference of a handful, even a dozen or less. One of our county judges won last election by TWO votes. Many politicians will pander to anybody who might get them "over the line". It is not unusual at all for a local politician to see that as a stepping stone to a statewide or national office.

So your suggesting that a local politician might pander to criminals in jail to gain a seat? Somehow, it seems to me, that would quickly become a means of attacking them politically.

[carpedm9587]

well the 14th Amendment part 2 gives the implicit right to disenfranchise someone for rebellion or crimes but it is up to the state to determine for what crimes and if and how long.

So that answers that - a federal law about it would probably be struct down, meaning states have to do this independently. My guess is, if I did the research (and I don't have time), so-called "red states" likely tend to restrict voting by this population, and so-called "blue states" likely tend to permit voting by this population.

[One Bad Pig]

So your suggesting that a local politician might pander to criminals in jail to gain a seat

Did you forget to finish the sentence? A verb should come next.

[carpedm9587]

Did you forget to finish the sentence? A verb should come next.

How dare you try to out-Nazi a bonafide grammar Nazi!

[Celebrian]

The problem in Oregon is that voters do get to pass laws via measures. In fact, a previous measure had to do with sentencing for criminals. So you could potentially have a murderer voting to reduce his sentence if he could vote. That makes it a lot more messy.

[Cow Poke]

So your suggesting that a local politician might pander to criminals in jail to gain a seat?

As a block, not individually. If "prisoners" were allowed to vote, it's pretty reasonable to assume that a "tough on crime" candidate would not benefit so much as an "inclusive" candidate would.

Somehow, it seems to me, that would quickly become a means of attacking them politically.

If somebody is already known as "soft on crime", that's already a point of attack.

[KingsGambit]

Somebody I know posed this thought recently (and I'm paraphrasing):

"My citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. I have no right to interfere in the kingdoms on earth for that reason, and that means no voting."

That sounds pious, but I don't think it logically follows. (Although you could make an argument based on 2 Timothy 2:4).

It made me think, but I wasn't ultimately convinced to give up voting. I kind of have a hard time envisioning Jesus voting though. Others may disagree, but that's just me.

[Sparko]

Somebody I know posed this thought recently (and I'm paraphrasing):

"My citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. I have no right to interfere in the kingdoms on earth for that reason, and that means no voting."

That sounds pious, but I don't think it logically follows. (Although you could make an argument based on 2 Timothy 2:4).

It made me think, but I wasn't ultimately convinced to give up voting. I kind of have a hard time envisioning Jesus voting though. Others may disagree, but that's just me.

My thought is that as Christians we are supposed to be an influence for Good in the world, to represent God's Kingdom and values and promote them. In most free countries that would include using voting to promote those values.