Democratic Party Boosted in WA; Jailed Felons can Vote

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have read this several times and I can't connect the two arguments, because like you said, voting on driving laws is not participating in driving. In fact, that was the argument I made, so you basically pulled this out of your ass for no reason. What I am saying is, people who have been imprisoned are imprisoned because they have done a harm to society that is so egregious that they are not allowed to participate in society, and deciding who is president is a HUGE part of participating in society at large, which you agree with. But just because you can't randomly copy and paste parts of an argument onto another, totally irrelevant argument does not make the original argument invalid, it just means you can't understand how to construct an argument. And I see no support for your argument that we put people in jail so they don't repeat a crime. If that is the case, why do we release them, and why do we use the terminology of "paying their debt to society?"

Also, deductive arguments suck. I don't know why you would ever use one.

You used what I felt was a faulty deductive argument, although you didn't state it explicitly:

they are unfit to participate in society, part of which involves making group decisions, as in the case of voting. Therefore, they should not be allowed to vote.

so I copied it to the driving argument, which I assumed you would disagree with.

I feel that rights should not be taken away without good reason. That is the premise of my argument. Mostly in this thread we have claims with no reasoning. I tried to think of a reason myself, but the best I can see is 1) taking away the right as part of the punishment, and 2) they are not fit to make voting decisions by nature of being criminals.

1) I disagree with because I don't see how it is a deterrent to crime, and don't see how it prevents crime. That should be the purpose of prison. We punish not to take pleasure in the suffering of others but to provide the kind of society we would like to live in. I base my claim for the superiority of the latter on human psychology, but that is a more technical discussion (and open for debate of course).

2) would logically lead one to support IQ and knowledge/morality testing before allowing someone to vote. Perhaps there would be room to work on that, and one could claim that we should have such testing if it were practical, and that disallowing prisoners is a practical measure. But I don't think felons are particularly incapable of making rational voting decisions, there isn't any evidence to support that as far as I know.

There may be more reasons of course, perhaps EMFM has one, he didn't state it however.

And I see no support for your argument that we put people in jail so they don't repeat a crime. If that is the case, why do we release them, and why do we use the terminology of "paying their debt to society?"

Well, that would be a claim not an argument. My argument for that claim would be that we don't want people to repeat a crime and that putting someone in prison prevents them from committing crime. We release them because they are supposed to have learned their lesson, the system doesn't work that well.

What terminology we use is inconsequential. We often use terminology that is inaccurate. In any case, I am talking about "should's" in addition to "do's".

-edit-

Apologies for rambling a bit. Anyway, I'd just like to clarify that I make tons of opinion only, unreasoned statements. I don't object to them per se, but they don't really work as arguments. I'm not particularly staking a claim here either, just pointing out what I feel is a scarcity of reasons. Often it is hard to find reasons to back up our moral intuitions, but that doesn't mean they are incorrect.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As an argument for prisoners being allowed to vote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010703849.html

The Justice Department reported Thursday that 12 percent of incarcerated juveniles, or more than 3,200 young people, had been raped or sexually abused in the past year by fellow inmates or prison staff, quantifying for the first time a problem that has long troubled lawmakers and human rights advocates.

The report comes as those advocates say that the Obama administration is moving too slowly on reforms that would reduce rape in U.S. prisons and as corrections officials are pressing Justice to overhaul reform proposals it is reviewing.

Four former commissioners on a blue-ribbon prison rape panel that spent years studying the issue say they fear that authorities are deferring to concerns by corrections officials that reforms would cost too much, while not focusing enough on prison safety and the effects of abuse on inmates.

The study by the department's Bureau of Justice Statistics reported a "very high rate of staff sexual misconduct" against juvenile inmates. It cited two facilities in Virginia and one in Maryland, among others.

"These figures are appalling," said Pat Nolan, president of Justice Fellowship, a group that advocates for prison reform. "We stripped a prisoner of their ability to defend themselves. They can't control where they go; they can't control whether the shower has a light bulb in it."

Perhaps if votes were at stake, some things would have been improved?

[HoreTore]

I believe that Rabbit would agree that the best situation would be to take that sheriff, throw him in prison, and then take away his voting right.

Prisoners should lose their voting rights for the duration of their prison term. I am open to debate on allowing paroled individuals to vote, but I can't agree to letting criminals vote on the direction they want the country to go in - early release for themselves being one option, which is a big reason they do like to vote Democrat.

But it's still a-ok for everyone else to vote for every petty thing that will serve ourselves, right?

[Beskar]

I am actually mixed opinions about this. especially when you start looking at Britain where there isn't a bias of "democrats = less time, republicans = more prison". Then again, as it is pointed out, that the prison population would vote along traditional/stereotypical lines anyway, so the ones who would most likely vote republican would still vote that way (if they even use their right to vote).

I doubt there would be politicians trying to persuade the prisoner votes, due to the public backlash anyway.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Typically, jailed felons or those who have been paroled aren't really the civic minded voting type.

[TinCow]

I checked out the stats on this. Surprisingly, US states are all over the place on this issue. 2 states (Maine and Vermont) allow all felons to vote, even while they're in prison. 13 states (Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah) and DC allow all felons to vote once they've been released from prison. 5 states allow all felons to vote once they're no longer on parole. 18 states allow all felons to vote once released and no longer on parole or probation. Only 12 states will permanently prevent a felon from voting, and even then there are some exceptions based on the crime committed. Cite.

Looking at the states involved, there are certainly some broad trends where 'blue' states tend to allow more voting rights for felons than 'red' states, but there's a lot of states that are not where you'd expect them to be. An interesting situation, to be sure.

[KukriKhan]

I wonder how many felons voted before they commited their crime. I'm guessing that number would be low. And then compare that number to how many ex-cons vote post-incarceration - which I'm guessing would be a higher number. If that's true, can we say that imprisonment leads to better civic participation?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Politically:

Traditionally Democrat polities (Blue states) have a greater tendency to allow prisoners to vote and/or regain the suffrage because there is political pressure to do so.

Most of our typical racial "minority" components (Black, Hispanic, Native American/Amerind) tend to vote for Democrats, with Blacks typically voting at 85%+ for Dem candidates. NON-INCARCERATED members of these communities -- many almost perpetually angry over discrimination, including what they perceive to be a discriminatory incarceration likelihood* -- exert pressure on elected officials to make changes they view as favorable or fair to them. This is good old-fashioned constituency politics. So when the Rev. Jackson stops by your office and suggests that you vote FOR the voting rights of prisoners -- and implicitly suggests that you will lose much of that "easy" vote margin you received in the last election -- you listen.

* There are a number of factors that can be viewed as representing institutional discrimination resulting in a disproportionately "minority" prison population. Statistical analyses suggest (but have not definitively proven) that authorities DO profile by race when making decisions as to who will be searched, detained, etc.


Regarding Voting:

The Founding Fathers would have, almost without exception, viewed the idea of prisoners voting as ridiculous (note a, b). Please note, however, that darned few of them were in favor of universal suffrage. They though in terms of a suffrage that was NOT based on birth, group affiliation, religious persuasion, or degree of wealth (beyond a basic level). They were NOT, for the most part, in favor of a suffrage that was universal based only the consumption of 18-plus years of oxygen.

I think we'd be better off if we restricted the suffrage MORE than we do, and in different fashions. We currently have states where a serial pederast who possesses an IQ of 85, who cannot remember who is the serving President, and who does nothing all day but knit whilst serving his life sentence has a vote while a 16-year old with an IQ of 210 who is deeply involved in reading up on the issues of the day when working at the local soup kitchen cannot vote.

That having been said, restriction of suffrage based solely on one's status as a prisoner may NOT be a valid reason for restricting suffrage, any more than was sex was up until the early 20th. You can make an argument that prisoners should lose that privilege until they have "re-paid society" in whatever fashion, but I think how we accord the suffrage has a host of other weaknesses that are more glaring.

[HoreTore]

I doubt there would be politicians trying to persuade the prisoner votes, due to the public backlash anyway.

Why do people think that prisoners only care about themselves getting shorter sentences?

Why shouldn't someone serving 5 years in prison for whatever have the right to an opinion about abortion, national security, the financial crisis, etc etc?

@Seamus: The founding fathers considered everyone who wasn't rich to be insignificant and sub-human, and thus not allowed to have a say in society. They are completely irrelevant to our modern society.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree that sufferage should be more restricted than it is, and that prisoners might not be the most relevant group, BUT they are the easiest - the ones in jail don't vote until they get out. As you point out, age is arbitrary, and one could make as good an argument against the under 18's as one can against the over 90's.

Other ways of discriminating are... discriminating, which in itself is Evil.
Then there's the methodology of deciding who can vote. That has the potential to blossom into a massive industry. whist possibly being no more fair.

[TinCow]

Politically:

Traditionally Democrat polities (Blue states) have a greater tendency to allow prisoners to vote and/or regain the suffrage because there is political pressure to do so.

Most of our typical racial "minority" components (Black, Hispanic, Native American/Amerind) tend to vote for Democrats, with Blacks typically voting at 85%+ for Dem candidates. NON-INCARCERATED members of these communities -- many almost perpetually angry over discrimination, including what they perceive to be a discriminatory incarceration likelihood* -- exert pressure on elected officials to make changes they view as favorable or fair to them. This is good old-fashioned constituency politics. So when the Rev. Jackson stops by your office and suggests that you vote FOR the voting rights of prisoners -- and implicitly suggests that you will lose much of that "easy" vote margin you received in the last election -- you listen.

In general, I agree. But notice the only two states in the country that allow all felons to vote under all circumstances, even while imprisoned. They are Maine and Vermont. Those states rank 1 and 2, respectively, for lowest percent of minority population in the entire country (both at 3.5%). Cite. Clearly political pressure from minorities is not why Maine and Vermont are the most liberal states in the union on this issue.

Also notice that Mississipi has the second largest minority population in the country (39.3%), yet they have the strictest laws in the nation on felony voting.

[Ironside]

I am actually mixed opinions about this. especially when you start looking at Britain where there isn't a bias of "democrats = less time, republicans = more prison". Then again, as it is pointed out, that the prison population would vote along traditional/stereotypical lines anyway, so the ones who would most likely vote republican would still vote that way (if they even use their right to vote).

I doubt there would be politicians trying to persuade the prisoner votes, due to the public backlash anyway.

The US is rather "democrats = more prison, republicans = even more prison", considering their prison ratings.

I do find that losing your voting rights because you did something bad and got to jail is a bit lacking. Are prisoners incompetent voters? No more than a huge part of the population.
Do prisoners vote for selfish benefits? No more than a huge part of the population (rich voting for tax cuts, or poor voting for more social benefits ring any bells?).
The only risk would be them voting for a semi-criminal party in such amounts that it would make a difference and even then that party would require massive support from the non-felon population to be of notice. What's the odds of making rape legal?

And we also have the notice of making voting a priviledge and not a right. So what have you done for your country lately that made you deserve this priviledge?

I agree that sufferage should be more restricted than it is, and that prisoners might not be the most relevant group, BUT they are the easiest - the ones in jail don't vote until they get out. As you point out, age is arbitrary, and one could make as good an argument against the under 18's as one can against the over 90's.

Other ways of discriminating are... discriminating, which in itself is Evil.
Then there's the methodology of deciding who can vote. That has the potential to blossom into a massive industry. whist possibly being no more fair.

The boon and bane of democracy.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I didn't see this answered in the links: apparently then, some states allow felons to vote, and some do not. Does this apply to federal elections as well as state elections? In other words, some people are allowed by their state to vote for a president, whereas some, by dint of their geography and record are not?

If this is the case, it is surely unjust.

Prisoners cannot vote in UK elections either, whilst incarcerated. Equally, in a ruling no doubt to be cherished by HoreTore, neither could the aristocracy (until recently, when most hereditary peers were barred from the House of Lords).

[TinCow]

I didn't see this answered in the links: apparently then, some states allow felons to vote, and some do not. Does this apply to federal elections as well as state elections? In other words, some people are allowed by their state to vote for a president, whereas some, by dint of their geography and record are not?

That is correct. Keep in mind that the US does not actually have any federal election independent of state elections. When Americans vote for the president, they are actually voting for which candidate gets to pick their state's representatives to the electoral college. The actual vote for the President is then done by the electors themselves. So for legal purposes depriving a person of a vote for the president is no different than depriving them of a vote for any State position or issue.

[Lemur]

[S]ome people are allowed by their state to vote for a president, whereas some, by dint of their geography and record are not?

If this is the case, it is surely unjust.

Weeeeeell, this is one of those inherent paradoxes of our system. You're right, of course, that a mixed system of franchise restriction creates deep unfairness at the Federal level when election time comes. However, we as a nation still cling to the notion of states' rights, and the Founders' vision of fifty little laboratories where different ideas are tried out.

What this means in practice is that we never achieve fairness and we never really get the states' rights sorted out. And yet it works somehow.

That said, lifetime restrictions on voting rights for criminals who have served their time make zero sense to this lemur. I can't even formulate a coherent argument in favor. It just seems like an idiot's idea of social engineering.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that this is the great strength of the USA as opposed to the EU - even though the European countries have more obvious differences as they were not started carte blanche but have been at each others throats interacting for hundreds of years.

If you don't like the laws - move state. No one's stopping you.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

@Seamus: The founding fathers considered everyone who wasn't rich to be insignificant and sub-human, and thus not allowed to have a say in society. They are completely irrelevant to our modern society.

Not quite. Typical property restrictions on voting were based on someone who owned land, generated profits/jobs, or paid a moderate rent. Think in terms of upper "lower class" through the highest economic echelons having the franchise and you're probably in the right ballpark.


TinCow:

A good point sir. Political pressure takes many forms and I was guilty of over-simplifying.

[HoreTore]

Prisoners cannot vote in UK elections either, whilst incarcerated. Equally, in a ruling no doubt to be cherished by HoreTore, neither could the aristocracy (until recently, when most hereditary peers were barred from the House of Lords).

Why on earth would you believe that would be "cherished" by me....?

[Major Robert Dump]

We are a nation governed by criminals, why not be one elected by criminals, too?

I could care less. Aside from the obvious well-timed Gerrymandering of how some of these laws come into play, the prison population is going to have a negligible effect on the democratic process when you factor in how many of them will actually take the pantyhose of their head in order to go vote. If anything, it may have a long-term effect on how some of our non-violent offenders are treated and charged and incarcerated and may help pave the way to certain changes in law, like reforming the war on drugs.

From a punitive perspective, I can see where denying them a certain right is just another nail in their coffin. From a purely principled standpoint it makes sense to me, but not from a practical one, because it's not a deterrent. I have yet to hear of a jury return a guilty verdict and the convicted scream out "But what about the election!!!" I'm actually undecided on other punitive punishments as well, such as not being able to own a firearm or run for election. Certain crimes are obvious, others not so much.

Not allowing them to vote in the long run just seems like punishment for the sake of punishment.

Allowing them to vote while in prison, well......this is sticky business. Do they get to vote on everything? What about the county bond issue to make a new prison? What about school board elections? State and Federal? I can see where certain "charities" serving the prison could easily influence the way those inside voted. Buying votes from a captive audience would be a lot easier that buying them from people on the outside who were actually well-informed, ah, who am I kidding? The prisoners are probably better informed.....

[KukriKhan]

We are a nation governed by criminals, why not be one elected by criminals, too?

Thought that was Australia, but on second thought, yep.

[Lemur]

Thought that was Australia, but on second thought, yep.

Old joke, which you probably already know: Why did Australia get the criminals while America got the Puritans? Australia picked first.

[Xiahou]

when we put a murderer in jail it is so that they don't kill anymore, and when we take away someone's license it is so that they don't drive dangerously anymore--not so that they can't participate in deciding who will be president.

Says who? Our justice system has always had punitive aspects.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Says who? Our justice system has always had punitive aspects.

Yes, and we punish people so that they don't commit the crime again...

We've gradually weened out the revenge aspects of it.

[CCRunner]

While they are in prison, they're in prison which in my opinion means they forfeit all rights they have as a normal citizen. Once they are out, they've paid their dues and should be allowed everything again with the exception of second amendment rights being restricted for violence. Meaning no voting while in prison but everyone should have the right to vote once out.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Why on earth would you believe that would be "cherished" by me....?

Apologies if I offended you.

It was meant to be a light-hearted comment, as you have previously stated the aristocracy are equivalent to criminals. I thought you might be tickled that until 1999, the UK treated them exactly the same in terms of voting rights.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, and we punish people so that they don't commit the crime again...

Do I detect sarcasm?

[TinCow]

Yes, and we punish people so that they don't commit the crime again...

We've gradually weened out the revenge aspects of it.

That's not entirely true. This is from the SCOTUS opinion which lifted the moratorium on the death penalty in 1976:

The death penalty is said to serve two principal social purposes: retribution and deterrence of capital crimes by prospective offenders… In part, capital punishment is an expression of society’s moral outrage at particularly offensive conduct. This function may be unappealing to many, but it is essential in an ordered society that asks its citizens to rely on legal processes rather than self-help to vindicate their wrongs… When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they ‘deserve’ then there are sown the seeds of anarchy – of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.

Gregg v. Georgia, 408 U.S. at 183.

[Meneldil]

Wow, the opening post looks so outraged.

Prisonners can vote in France (though many don't bother to). Civil rights are only taken away in case of really serious offenses and state crimes (treason and what not).
Result? Barely 10% of them vote anyway.

Given that the voter turnout is in the US much lower than in France, I expect that barely 5% of your prisonners will vote. Big deal.

And I still don't see any reason why they should be allowed to vote. As I said, some offense should mean you lose your voting rights, but prisonners are still citizens, whether you like it or not.

[Tellos Athenaios]

That said, lifetime restrictions on voting rights for criminals who have served their time make zero sense to this lemur. I can't even formulate a coherent argument in favor. It just seems like an idiot's idea of social engineering.

Especially since you can pretty much resettle to a state that _does_ allow you to vote; wait a few years and vote anyways? (If voting means that much to you, of course; and for many people it appears not to.)

[rory_20_uk]

And I still don't see any reason why they should be allowed to vote. As I said, some offence should mean you lose your voting rights, but prisoners are still citizens, whether you like it or not.

One could easily legislate otherwise. An with increasing amounts of Health and Safety legislation, declassifying them as citizens would help.