The Census and the Prisoner

[Lemur]

Here's a bit of a head-scratcher: What to do about prisoners? As it stands, the census counts their warm bodies as population of the township/county/state where they are incarcerated. This is problematic (http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_census_and_the_cell_block):


The bureau tallies incarcerated persons as residents of the prison town rather than as residents of their home communities, where they will typically return within 34 months. This policy is as old as the census, but extraordinary growth in the prison population over the last few decades -- coupled with modern uses of the data to apportion political power at all levels of government -- now spells big problems [...]

In Illinois, 60 percent of incarcerated persons are from Cook County, yet 99 percent of them are counted as residents elsewhere in the state. In New York, several upstate Senate districts would not meet minimum population requirements without the "constituents" imported into prison cells there. The strongest advocates for harsh sentencing laws in New York have included some of the state senators elected from these very districts.

So we have a classic case of perverse incentives, at least on the part of the townships/counties performing the incarceration duties. Maryland appears to be the only state attempting to change the status quo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/14/AR2010041404600.html?hpid=newswell):


Maryland will become the first state in the country to redraw districts by counting prisoners in their home towns instead of their cells, a change that is expected to help Baltimore avoid losing political power.

Now, since we're talking about criminals, nobody is behaving with altruism. The politicans who benefit from increased rural population are fighting to keep the count at the prisons, and the politicos who want to shift the count to the prisoners' home addresses are just trying to increase the population of their home base. There are no angels in this movie.

That said, is there an equitable solution to this? What would be the fairest way to apply an incarcerated person's residence?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Weren't we all talking about whether prisoners should be able to vote in a recent thread?

[Lemur]

Yup, and reading a few articles on this subject, it appears that only Maine and Vermont allow them to exercise their franchise. Certainly it seems unfair to have, say, three thousand souls added to your district while not allowing them any input into said district. It can create some extremely weird situations, as per the first article I linked:


In 2008, a resident of Anamosa, Iowa, was elected to the City Council with exactly two votes. Not a two-vote margin -- two votes total. He wasn't a candidate, but his wife and a neighbor wrote him in.

The problem in Anamosa wasn't voter apathy -- it was a lack of voters. Because the census counted more than 1,300 people in the Anamosa State Penitentiary as residents of a 1,400-person election ward, the ward really contained only 58 residents. The city's three other wards each had 25 times as many real residents as the ward with the prison, giving the few residents who lived near the prison 25 times as much influence in government as anyone else in the city.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, it seems like a neat solution. Senators promoting long prison terms to keep in office? Let the prisoners vote. Takes care of the votes that are worth 25 times as much too.

I don't remember the arguments against it though. Something about "if you aren't fit to participate in society you aren't fit to vote" perhaps.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is the gist of the "should not vote" position, Kojio-san.

Seems to me that if you aren't going to let them vote, they shouldn't be counted for voting purposes. Can't think it would be that difficult to add an "incarcerated" category and leave it at that.

[ajaxfetish]

it appears that only Maine and Vermont allow them to exercise their franchise.
Vermont is starting to sound more and more like the haven of liberty in America. Allowing prisoners to vote, one of three states to allow concealed carry without a permit, the only state so far to legislate gay marriage. Maybe we all need to start eating more real maple syrup.

Ajax

[Hosakawa Tito]

I used to be of a mind that loss of voting rights should be included in the loss of freedom, of movement, of choice, for those who are incarcerated. However, over time and direct observation/experiences with the clientele, I come to change my mind on this. While people are in prison they need to be encouraged to feel that they are still a part of society. They need to believe that they still have a place in society once they have, "paid their dues." If we want prison to be effective in reducing re-offending then it is important that we create conditions and attitudes inside whereby prisoners can at least develop a desire to be responsible citizens upon release. For every incorrigible/unrehabital "Charles Manson" type, there are hundreds more that can be. Considering the recidivism rates of the current system it can't hurt to try it. Hell, make it a condition of parole.

Pass that syrup, Ajax.

[Louis VI the Fat]

That is the gist of the "should not vote" position, Kojio-san.

Seems to me that if you aren't going to let them vote, they shouldn't be counted for voting purposes. Can't think it would be that difficult to add an "incarcerated" category and leave it at that.Can't the incarcerated get the same status that oversees troops have, or something? I would assume that these latter count as population and vote in the constituency of their last palce of permanent residence in the US, even though they may spend months, even years abroad.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Can't the incarcerated get the same status that oversees troops have, or something? I would assume that these latter count as population and vote in the constituency of their last palce of permanent residence in the US, even though they may spend months, even years abroad.

Wouldn't even have to change categories really, just add "currently incarcerated" to the list of those who can apply for an absentee ballot.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Wouldn't even have to change categories really, just add "currently incarcerated" to the list of those who can apply for an absentee ballot.Where are troops stationed overseas counted as residents?

Or, for that matter, where are troops stationed within the US counted as residents?


Meh, this thread really shows what little I understand of federalism. How does the US federal system work anyway? Does one always vote in the state of residence, or does one sorta keep a 'nationality' of one state? Does one have to apply for 'nationalisation' if one moves to another state? Can a Californian residing in Texas vote for Californian senators, or only Texans? Are there requirements of lenght of residence before a Californian-born resident of Texas can vote for Texans?

[Hosakawa Tito]

Residency voting requirements by state. (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html)

Voting Rights Wiki. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States)

One votes and is registered to do so in their state of residence. States requirements vary but there's a Federal law prohibiting unreasonable length of duration of the residency requirement, 30 days, I believe.

[PanzerJaeger]

Don't let them vote and don't count them for redistricting purposes.

[Lemur]

Don't let them vote and don't count them for redistricting purposes.
I don't understand the second half of that. Do you mean: (a) don't count them at all or (b) count them as residing in their home state/county? Obviously you don't mean the status quo, which tallies prisoners as part of the county/district where they are incarcerated.

[PanzerJaeger]

I don't understand the second half of that. Do you mean: (a) don't count them at all or (b) count them as residing in their home state/county? Obviously you don't mean the status quo, which tallies prisoners as part of the county/district where they are incarcerated.

Don't count them at all for redistricting purposes, in the current county or the one they will (supposedly) return to after prison.

[Lemur]

Don't count them at all for redistricting purposes, in the current county or the one they will (supposedly) return to after prison.
I think you'd actually run into some constituional problems there. Section 2, to be exact. Even if you classify prisoners as "other persons," as phrased in the constitution, you'd still need to count them and quantify them as three-fifths of a human being.

No, unless we are to be dropped into a legal and constitutional quagmire, we need to count them and apportion them in some manner. Wiping them off the game board, while appealing in its simplicity, is not a realistic option.

[KukriKhan]

Where are troops stationed overseas counted as residents?

Or, for that matter, where are troops stationed within the US counted as residents?


Meh, this thread really shows what little I understand of federalism. How does the US federal system work anyway? Does one always vote in the state of residence, or does one sorta keep a 'nationality' of one state? Does one have to apply for 'nationalisation' if one moves to another state? Can a Californian residing in Texas vote for Californian senators, or only Texans? Are there requirements of lenght of residence before a Californian-born resident of Texas can vote for Texans?

US military personnel have a designated "Home Of Record" (HOR), which starts being the address in which they resided on the day they first took the Oath of Office/Oath of Enlistment - and can only be changed when a new oath is taken (i.e. re-enlistment). They get ballots mailed to them from the appropriate official of that HOR, and vote by mail, from wherever in the world they are stationed. I started my military time out of Detroit, Michigan, and got ballots in the mail everytime they had an election for 16 years, even though I was half-way 'round the world, and decided early to never return there. It was quite odd, after a decade or so, to be voting on local issues and officials, with very little information on either available to me (this was pre-internet, stone-age days).

Hosakawa Tito got the residency thingee answered above.

[PanzerJaeger]

I think you'd actually run into some constituional problems there. Section 2, to be exact. Even if you classify prisoners as "other persons," as phrased in the constitution, you'd still need to count them and quantify them as three-fifths of a human being.

No, unless we are to be dropped into a legal and constitutional quagmire, we need to count them and apportion them in some manner. Wiping them off the game board, while appealing in its simplicity, is not a realistic option.

I was operating under the assumption that certain constitutional provisions are suspended for prisoners. For example, there isn't the right to bear arms in prison. However, I must claim ignorance as to how all of that is legally decided.

If the prisoners must be counted for redistricting purposes, then the current situation is a necessary evil, as trying to guess where prisoners might go after their sentence is over would create a quagmire of its own.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does one always vote in the state of residence, or does one sorta keep a 'nationality' of one state? Does one have to apply for 'nationalisation' if one moves to another state? Can a Californian residing in Texas vote for Californian senators, or only Texans? Are there requirements of lenght of residence before a Californian-born resident of Texas can vote for Texans?

Others have cleared up the residency etc. points, so I will not repeat same. The real goal is that you can vote in only one place and only for the candidates on the ballot for various offices in that locale. This vote may be made in person or by absentee ballot, but not by proxy. Most of our military folk, as was noted, have a state of (permanent) residence and vote in the district of their last residence in that state. They also can keep their state vehicle licenses from that state etc. and are usually subject to taxation by that state and not by their current (temporary) residence.

Philosophically, we began not as a single political entity but as several sovereign states with a federal government for a few macro issues and for overseas representation. Obviously, we have drifted pretty far from that stock model.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Massive federacies are cool. Thanks Hosa, Kukri and Seamus.

[woad&fangs]

The census is a joke. I know that I filled out a census form for my residence at college and my parents also listed me on their census form. I am a double person :devil: . Also, I'm upset that the census form didn't ask me questions like how many chickens I owned. The whole form seemed to be too short to make it worthwhile.

[The Stranger]

i guess this problem is inherent to the american system of democracy?

[Husar]

The census is a joke. I know that I filled out a census form for my residence at college and my parents also listed me on their census form. I am a double person :devil: . Also, I'm upset that the census form didn't ask me questions like how many chickens I owned. The whole form seemed to be too short to make it worthwhile.

So it's possible that the US actually has not 300 but only 200 million inhabitants?

I think Hosa had a valid point, let them vote wherever they are registered, those politicians of the prison counties will probably want them out of their ballots then because how many of them are going to vote for a guy promoting harsher laws? :laugh4:

And it's not like everyone in there is completely crazy, the ones who are can't vote anyway I guess, but that's for a doctor to decide.