How Do You See Voting?

[Cow Poke]

Hush, child! Your elders are talking...

All I see is you and Rogue and Sparko and Zym.....

[carpedm9587]

I think with felons, the idea is that the person has shown that he does not wish to be part of our civilized society so he should not have the means to influence it. Some states will reinstate the right to vote after so many years or after the sentence is complete.

I have mixed feelings about this. First, if this IS done, then I see no reason why the right to vote should not be returned as soon as the sentence completed. If the inmate is paroled, maybe an argument could be made that it should be at the end of the parole period.

But I am not clear on why someone in jail should lose this specific right, and not all others. They remain citizens. They retain the right to legal representation. They retain the right to own property and goods and protections against unlawful search and seizure. Indeed, in our current system, they gain the right to be fed, clothed, and housed on the public dime (which I have always wondered about). So removing the right to vote seems a bit selective.

But, as I said, I have mixed feelings about it and have not delved into it enough to have a well-formed opinion.

[carpedm9587]

All I see is you and Rogue and Sparko and Zym.....

I rest my case

[Sparko]

I have mixed feelings about this. First, if this IS done, then I see no reason why the right to vote should not be returned as soon as the sentence completed. If the inmate is paroled, maybe an argument could be made that it should be at the end of the parole period.

But I am not clear on why someone in jail should lose this specific right, and not all others. They remain citizens. They retain the right to legal representation. They retain the right to own property and goods and protections against unlawful search and seizure. Indeed, in our current system, they gain the right to be fed, clothed, and housed on the public dime (which I have always wondered about). So removing the right to vote seems a bit selective.

But, as I said, I have mixed feelings about it and have not delved into it enough to have a well-formed opinion.

they lose other rights too, like the right to freedom

But also: the right to carry or own firearms, the right to travel abroad, serve on a jury, employment in certain fields, and others.

[carpedm9587]

they lose other rights too, like the right to freedom

But also: the right to carry or own firearms, the right to travel abroad, serve on a jury, employment in certain fields, and others.

True enough. Like I said - mixed feeling about whether or not voting should be on this list. Most other restrictions are about society protecting itself (loss of freedom, guns, jobs near children, etc.). It's not clear how "loss of voting" protects the society/community. Jury duty is a responsibility, not a right. Travel abroad is limited by other countries, AFAICT, not the U.S.

[Sparko]

True enough. Like I said - mixed feeling about whether or not voting should be on this list. Most other restrictions are about society protecting itself (loss of freedom, guns, jobs near children, etc.). It's not clear how "loss of voting" protects the society/community. Jury duty is a responsibility, not a right. Travel abroad is limited by other countries, AFAICT, not the U.S.

Do you want known criminals being able to influence policies with their votes when they already showed such a lack of caring about that society when they committed their crimes? It is also about society protecting itself. Although I think if a convicted felon can stay clean for several years after he is released he should be able to at least apply for reinstatement of his voting privileges. Some states do. It is all state-by-state how they handle it.

[carpedm9587]

Do you want known criminals being able to influence policies with their votes when they already showed such a lack of caring about that society when they committed their crimes? It is also about society protecting itself. Although I think if a convicted felon can stay clean for several years after he is released he should be able to at least apply for reinstatement of his voting privileges. Some states do. It is all state-by-state how they handle it.

First of all, it's not always a given that a felon lacks care for society. Some do, and some are in jail because of the way the system works. We have a huge number of people in jail for personal use/possession of drugs, for instance, due to the "war on drugs." Seeing all felons as "of a single type" does not appear, to me, to be a just accounting. More importantly, we're not talking about illegal political policies, as far as I know. We're talking about the difference between Politician X and Politician Y, who are jockeying their positions to get the most votes. Voting is not an opportunity for further illegality. So (again) I do not see how revoking this privilege "protects" society. If society needs to be "protected" from political ideas by denying specific individuals the vote - it seems to me a short step to targeting other groups that need to be denied the vote to "protect" society.

[Sparko]

First of all, it's not always a given that a felon lacks care for society. Some do, and some are in jail because of the way the system works. We have a huge number of people in jail for personal use/possession of drugs, for instance, due to the "war on drugs." Seeing all felons as "of a single type" does not appear, to me, to be a just accounting. More importantly, we're not talking about illegal political policies, as far as I know. We're talking about the difference between Politician X and Politician Y, who are jockeying their positions to get the most votes. Voting is not an opportunity for further illegality. So (again) I do not see how revoking this privilege "protects" society. If society needs to be "protected" from political ideas by denying specific individuals the vote - it seems to me a short step to targeting other groups that need to be denied the vote to "protect" society.

um, breaking the law to an extent that it is a felony IS showing you don't respect the law or society. They are CRIMINALS. If they don't agree with the law, then they could have lobbied to change it using, guess what? Their vote. Instead they chose to break the law.

[carpedm9587]

um, breaking the law to an extent that it is a felony IS showing you don't respect the law or society. They are CRIMINALS. If they don't agree with the law, then they could have lobbied to change it using, guess what? Their vote. Instead they chose to break the law.

All of that is true. It is still not clear to me that this merits "loss of voting." I had mixed feelings when we started this, but the more I look at it, and consider the issue, the more I think this should NOT be on the lift of lost rights/privileges. I believe the lost rights/privileges should be directly related to protecting society from the law breaker. I don't see how this accomplishes that.

[Sparko]

All of that is true. It is still not clear to me that this merits "loss of voting." I had mixed feelings when we started this, but the more I look at it, and consider the issue, the more I think this should NOT be on the lift of lost rights/privileges. I believe the lost rights/privileges should be directly related to protecting society from the law breaker. I don't see how this accomplishes that.

Well, you can always vote to change it.

[Sparko]

"If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't claim the right to make the law for everyone else."
Roger Clegg, president of the conservative advocacy group Center for Equal Opportunity.

[carpedm9587]

Well, you can always vote to change it.

I think it is already changed here in Vermont, though I'm not 100% sure. I'm not sure if a federal law could be passed about this; it might be seen as a states-rights thing.

[carpedm9587]

"If you aren't willing to follow the law, you can't claim the right to make the law for everyone else."
Roger Clegg, president of the conservative advocacy group Center for Equal Opportunity.

The problem, of course, is that "voting" is not "making the law." It is electing people who make the law. We have a representative democracy, remember? It is doubtful that elected officials would be working very hard to appease their "criminal constituents," and I don't see them having a lot of sway on K-Street.

[Cow Poke]

The problem, of course, is that "voting" is not "making the law." It is electing people who make the law. We have a representative democracy, remember? It is doubtful that elected officials would be working very hard to appease their "criminal constituents," and I don't see them having a lot of sway on K-Street.

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.

[Sparko]

I think it is already changed here in Vermont, though I'm not 100% sure. I'm not sure if a federal law could be passed about this; it might be seen as a states-rights thing.

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.