ScratchMonkey

If we switch to direct voting (instead of representation) and require super-majorities (say, 75-90%), then the presence of even violent felons in the voting population should have no effect on what gets approved. Only measures with almost unanimous backing will pass. Nothing else belongs under the domain of an institution with a monopoly on violent compulsion.

Tarenth

Alright I think there's a bit of nomenclature misunderstanding here.

All felons are criminals, but not all criminals are felons.

A felon is a criminal who has been convicted of a felony. Saying all felons should have their voting rights revoked but not people convicted of misdemeanors goes without saying because someone convicted of a misdemeanor isn't a felon anyways.

There are two reasons why felons are not given the right to vote traditionally.

1) The jailed being jailors rule. Obviously a criminal will have a bias towards his favor concerning laws and the criminal justice system. If enough criminals voted on an issue in their favor they could sway the system in their favor. Ergo, the jailed would be the jailors or incharge of the system in charge of them.

2) Society Isolation. In theory someone who has been incarcerated away from society at large would not have enough understanding of the issues in society to vote in an intelligent manner on them. Therefore due to them being held away and in ignorance they do not have the capacity to make an intelligent decision.

On another unrelated tangant note. Grammar and Reading Comprehension can be mutually exclusive. At its extreme case you get something like this and in a practical sense we see it in IM language or text talk. You do not need to have perfect grammatical english in order to be understood or to have your meaning understood. Reading comprehension comes part from understanding what is being said and part by understanding how its being said. Sticking strikly to convention in a nonconventional conversation may be grammatically correct, but will result in utter failure in reading comprehension. To put it short: You know what he said, and you know that he knows what he said. Stop nitpicking.

(Yes I wanted to use that link. I find that particular comic entry hilarious and saddly true)


Back to the original topic, I'd trade in my right to vote for enough cash equal to my vote which was already sold to lobbyists. Several million would do it.

At the federal level, because we are a republic democracy and not a straight democracy, I vote for the people who make my vote and those votes are made based on contributions from lobby groups. Its also why at that level Republican and Democrat make no difference because both sides are bought out the same.

Democrat in office? He'll be bought out and he'll vote on bill A.
Don't like the democrat and replace him with a Republican? He'll STILL be bought out to vote on bill A.

The two party system is part of the problem, but its not the only problem.


Oh! And by the way. The right to vote is not given to citizens in the Constitution. The institution of the election is proscribed and left to the states and local legislatures to define how voting should be accomplished and who should vote. Those regulations were later expanded (as I'm sure everyone with basic history has learned) through several struggles and introduction of amendments later which define what cannot be the restrictions against voting, but not who may or should vote.

If you wanted to be a traditionalist only male white land owners are allowed to vote. Later expanded to male white, then male, then all.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

MDFubar

You are absolutely correct, Federal regulations on voting did not appear until after the Civil War:

Shortly after the end of the Civil War Congress enacted the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, which allowed former Confederate States to be readmitted to the Union if they adopted new state constitutions that permitted universal male suffrage. The 14th Amendment, which conferred citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, was ratified in 1868.

In 1870 the 15th Amendment was ratified, which provided specifically that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. This superseded state laws that had directly prohibited black voting. Congress then enacted the Enforcement Act of 1870, which contained criminal penalties for interference with the right to vote, and the Force Act of 1871, which provided for federal election oversight.



Thankx for pointing that out Tarenth.

__________________

xTYBALTx

The jailed become jailers? What? If there are enough people in prison to decide a whole regions' politics just by voting, then we are putting so many people in jail that damnit, they deserve to vote! Because obviously the rest of us don't know how to run a country.

Society isolation leads to "unqualified" voters because they don't have sufficient grasp of the goings-on outside of their little prison? Dude, have you actually talked to a voter recently? Let me paraphrase the wise words of Winston Churchill: "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." Or, if you prefer, check out this excerpt from Bryan Caplan's book, "The Myth of the Rational Voter."

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

leejo

It's not $1.05?

Tarenth

Unless you're voting to keep every single law we have on the books every few years then it goes without saying that some of the laws we have are old. Very old. As in 'passed down through time' old. How else could you explain the law against carrying a concealed weapon over 6 feet in length in New York?

A law is written. A law is passed. A law goes in the books until someone removes or changes it later. That's how laws are made and that's where most of our laws come from.

Unless someone can give me exactly when the law against criminals convicted of a felony was put to the books I'd have to assume its a hold over adoption from English law. That sounds about right since they used Penal colonies like Australia where the number of felons greatly outnumbered the number or nonfelons.

Now way back in the past you had small communities who knew what the laws were and the punishments for them. Why? Because they all directly affected you in some way since they were all criminal law and not social laws. You knew it was illegal to poach on the king's land, steal from someone, or commit murder. The legal system we had as we know it did not exsist. When you were locked up you were literally clapped in irons and thrown into a cell somewhere. You were completely isolated without the TV, books, radio, newspapers, computer access, or other sources of information prisoners today enjoy. You remained relatively ignorant on the issues of the community so having a vote on community issues would be rather pointless.

Once a law is on the books it takes a VERY convincing arguement to have it removed. Okay, so criminals convicted of felonies are not allowed to vote.

Someone give a convincing arguement why convicted felons should have a vote. Something that will sway public opinion in its favor and have judges and lawyers stand up on the bench and in courtrooms shouting "This is wrong! Felons should vote too!"

BTW, when something is 'traditionally' held as true it is not always 'contemporarily' true. Traditionally speaking women are the weaker sex. Contemporarily speaking women have a higher tolerance for pain, build denser muscle mass, and live longer than men. On the flip side, just because it is true doesn't mean it will be held as true over tradition. Traditionally speaking the USA is a devout christian country. The USA provides religious freedom and the seperation between church and state...but the Pledge of Alleigance and Congress both violate that consitutionally by referencing Christianity in having the phrase 'under god' and a sanctioned congressional chaplain. Realistically we should do away with all christian references to have a true seperation between church and state and avoid the exclusion of nonChristian parties, however our Christian tradition prevents it.

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.

MDFubar

The seperation between church and state does not appear in the constitution. The first ammendment is often referred to in this argument, but it is intednded to say that our government will not put one religion as the official religion of this country.

Jefferson wrote, "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Basically stating the we should make no law that states one religionis better than the other. Although there is no law that says Christianity is the official U.S. religion, it does appear to be the sentiment. References to god in official government documents where made by the people who drafted them and what they beilieved in, not once does it mention who's god, or which god. The assumption is that it is and always will be the Christian god.

Remember that it was the Puritans that came here in the 1600's to avoid religious persecution, or the inability to freely practice thier beliefs.

Not once in our Constitution does it say that we can not have religion in our schools, government, or anywhere else.........simply that we will not endorse one religion as the official religion of our government.

As for the argument on Felons voting, I would have to agree with Tarenth and Cing.......they chose to live outside of the rules governing this society and therefore have given up the right to decide which path it will take.

Go to the extreme, think that there are more rapists in jail than any other criminal. Now think that they support someone that feels rape is not such a bad crime. They vote for that person, who has enough backing on other issues with the common public to get elected. Next, rape becomes a misdemeanor like smoking pot and all rapists are hereby pardoned and released.

Yes, Very extreme. Just trying to go as far out as I can to make the point.

__________________

leejo

I wonder what about our society people think would improve by getting more of the convicted felon vote's impact. If only convicted felons had their way (x) would be better. Facile Bush-bashing, aka blatant political expediency, aside, is there any issue about which you really wish more convicted felons influenced the national debate? Other than weed of course. I just don't recall this ever being an issue until recently.

Anyone who truly believes that convicted felons should vote has not, I submit, spent much time with convicted felons.

Santa

I dont think people that are currently in jail should have the right to vote. After all, you have lost every other right for good reason.

But when you are released, youve paid your debt to society. You're probably paying taxes, and if you're young enough you could be eligible for a draft if there were one. These people should definitely have the right to vote.

Its not really a matter of how theyre going to vote at all though. Thats a pretty dangerous line of reasoning.

leejo

Their "debt to society" includes forfeiting their right to vote. That's the law in many states. Unless someone finds a violation of the full faith and credit clause in there, that's their debt and they will continue to pay it until they die. Them's the rules.

The "how they'd vote" line of reasoning is precisely what brought this debate to the fore. Does anyone think the group who don't expect or want the convicted felon vote suddenly decided to start talking about this? Does anyone believe that the people pushing this aren't looking for votes?

Skylark

I would sell my vote, then have some rights orginization sue for me to get my vote back and keep the money. :-D

And I agree - in jail = no vote.

I suppose they could always assist in elections helping the candidate of their choice, but no vote.

__________________

xTYBALTx

Well I'm not running for office just yet, leejo!

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

MDFubar

Remember, there was legislation proposed to also give the right to vote to Non-Citizen, Illegal Immigrants. So just how far do you think some politician are willing to go to get a vote?
I have run for office, although only County Council, and it was a very eye-opening experience. Voter turn-out is the biggest problem, followed closely by voter education. To give an example, when people where asked why they chose my opponent(I obviously lost-another story), the primary answer was that they where familiar with her and did not knwo enough about me. Nothing else seemed to matter.
Food for thought.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

I'd be fine with having the vote restricted to taxpayers. And perhaps weighted based on the amount of taxes paid. That would instantly solve the no-felon issue. Let the people who pay the bills make the rules. Just like at home.

Tarenth

That would also exclude Illegal immigrants since they don't pay taxes. Its one of those sticky points people tend to gloss over sometimes. Illegal immigrants are bad not because they are in the country illegally, but because they have access to tax paid services without paying taxes. This in turn reduces the amount your tax dollars can do because more is going out than there are people putting in.

That's a digression though.

Another digression would be that statisically I believe most people serving jail time are in for drug related crimes such as possession. I know that the 3 strikes rule threw a lot of drug users in jail for California because if you have possession 3 times you're locked away and the key gets thrown away.

Yet another digression would be that a 'taught religion' is also an 'official religion' in that it is being taught to the exclusion of others. That's why having no set relgion is generally taken to mean having no religion expressed towards others above any other in public settings. An example of this would be that people don't really object to having Christian religious figures, doctrine, or ideas shown and taught in schools. However suggest exposing them to something like Islam or Buddism and they cry out in arms over religious freedom and not wanting to expose children to other religions. Buddist being bombarded with Christianity? A okay! Christian being shown buddism? OMG! Its the devil's work!

I digress then I digress, and knowing I digress I go ahead and digress some more. ^_^

__________________
My sanity is not in question...
It was a confirmed casualty some time ago.