I see your points, but I don't share your reservations about a granularized popular vote at the local level.

this is exactly what I am afraid of also.

I dont trust those things as far as I can throw 'em.

So yu steal 32 million dollars (is that right?) you can be vice president... you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving children and you are no longer a citizen?

stealing a loaf of bread is not a felony.

Who stole 32 million? What are you using to back this up or is it just a blanket accusation?

Once again, the emotional response. When all else fails, use the emotional plea.

How many people that were correctly on the felon list stole bread so that they could feed their starving children. I would guess: zip, zero, zilch, nada. How many people that are on this list want to vote? How many people are just being used as pawns to promote a cause?

This is not an emotional issue (if your name is on the no-vote list correctly). Nowhere does it say that your slate is wiped clean after committing a crime.

Everybody knows this.

Don't want a criminal record to follow you for the rest of your life....don't commit a crime. Don't want to lose your voting priviledge....don't get convicted of a felony. Want to keep your driver's license....don't get DUI's. etc., etc., etc.

It is not like the punishments associated with committing crimes are a great big secret.

Edit: Since when does one lose their citizenship for committing a crime? A little bit of hyperbole there, eh?

Pawns to promote what cause? What are you alleging there? That there is some partisan scheme to restore voting rights to felons?

I am not referring to the people that were on the list, but shouldn't have been. I am referring to the comments in the article about the people that are rightfully on the list.

I would hazard a guess (based on opinion, nothing else) that a large number of the people that are rightfully on the list don't care whether they vote or not. I may be wrong, but it is just a suspicion.

Sometimes there is an advocacy group that uses "victims" to promote their own cause when the supposed victims don't have the same agenda, they are just being used. Off the top of my head, I don't have any examples.

I am not really describing this as well as I would like to, am I making sense?

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that you can fairly accuse those who may be concerned with restoring the "inalienable" rights of a fellow citizen of using them as "pawns." Were civil rights leaders using politically disinterested minorities as pawns? Do you see what I mean?

yes.

I think my point would be better made if I came up with an example, but I am not coming up with anything. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes the advocates are pushing their own agenda using people that don't share the belief.

I wonder, based on absolutely no factual evidence, how many of these convicted felons really care about their right to vote. There is no way to prove/disprove this idea at this point, I am just wondering.

I am not accusing anybody of anything, but if these people were to regain the right to vote and they tend to vote Democrat then the Democrats would have a vested interest in restoring that right and pushing these people (i.e. convincing them it was important when they didn't care before) into polling places. Conversely, the Republicans would have a vested interest in blocking that move. Two different sides, pushing their own agenda, the nature of the beast.

The only way we can get a little insight is to see if any of these felons made any attempt to vote prior to losing the right to. Either way, it would be too difficult to prove their desire to vote or not vote now that this is being made public.

The first problem I see with what you wrote is that there is no reasonable, inexpensive, or quick way to determine who should be on the banned list or who has been placed on it inaccurately.

That is one reason someone could argue that the list should be scrapped--until proponents of such a list or law can prove they will not place an innocent person on it. That's how our laws have always worked, and they should not work any differently in this case.


Now, the rest of your post implied that felons should a)know the ramifications of their behavior, and b) the status quo of restricting their voting priviledge is normal/acceptable.

Voting priviledge restrictions is not normal, nor is it even widespread:

Voting rights are left up to the states.

All except Vermont and Maine prohibit felony prisoners from voting.

Only six states permanently ban all ex-offenders, even those who've completed their sentences.


Why are you sitting here arguing that it is normal when only a handful of states support the practice? Do you even live in a state that bars ex-cons from voting?

Clearly, an ex-con who moves from California (where they can vote) to Texas (where they can't) is not being any more irresponsible or unaware of his or her priviledges simply due to changing residency.


While I agree with you that most felons on that list probably don't give a shit about voting, we ought to be careful to champion that attitude. While they can't vote, those laws certainly apply to them.

Or would you rather inculcate an attitude that further seperates felons from the communities they live in? I would rather they feel welcomed back into the community, if we are concerned about their continued productivity and the community's continued safety.

If you don't want them to feel welcome, or beholden to the social ties in the community, keep treating them like second class citizens. You are correct, though--they probably don't care what you do one way or the other since most suspect you don't care as it is (and you seem to indicate you don't). So you have only yourself to blame when a person who does not get all the benefits of citizenship decides not to act within the same constraints as a citizen ought to--remember that ditty about responsibility.

I live in Colorado, but I used to live in Florida.

It was common knowledge in Florida that you lose your right to vote.

I just don't see verifying the list as difficult. Time consuming, yes. Difficult, no. I am familiar with most of the crime reporting agencies (i.e. CBI) and the information just isn't that hard to get. The problem is that someone has to sit down and actually put some effort into it.

I think Cythetiq said it best. If you want to vote and you are able to vote, make sure that all of your ducks are in a row in plenty of time. I did this today so that I know where to go to vote, that I am elegible, etc.

And yes, my opinions on this subject relating to criminals are very biased because of the work I do and the background I have. Arrest a guy (for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, whatever time) and have him laugh at you because he will be out of jail before the paperwork is even done and you might see my point. Deal with the victims from the crimes and you learn to not give a shit how the con feels, he/she certainly didn't care about the people they were hurting, I will not shed a tear because they can or can't vote.

Here is a novel idea: For a person on the felony list, let the victim decide whether they get to vote or not (if there is a victim).

...I am ranting now, so I better stop.

Letting the least rational person involved with a crime make decisions about punishment of the criminal is a little much. I have all the sympathy in the world for crime victims, but there is a reason that juries are composed of impartial citizens.

If you are concerned about our "revolving door" justice system, perhaps you shuld consider efforts to use alternative sentences for non-violent drug crimes. It's these crimes that are filling our prisons and swamping the courts.

That was sarcasm, by the way. My point being that when you witness the effect on the victims first-hand, felons whining about losing their right to vote is just that, whining. I have no sympathy for them, time served or not.

I would agree to legalization of marijuana, but nothing else. Too many problems with the other stuff, but I don't see marijuana as much different the alcohol. But that is a whole different argument for a whole different thread.

[bah, got away from myself]

that is true, smooth.

I don't know too many criminals that like cops. Something about them breaking the law and the other enforcing it.

However, I don't know too many people that want a criminal for a neighbor.

It depends on the criminal.

yeah....

Start a thread with a poll asking if people would rather have a cop or a criminal as a neighbor and see how many people come back with, "depends on the crime". I would guess the responses would be on the low end.

Geez, can't a man make a joke? Honestly, though, there was a grain of truth to that. I've been harrased by police enough times not to consider automatically consider their presence a good thing. If you've never been part of a group that was targeted by police, you won't understand what a threat that they can be. Have you ever had police in riot gear charging towards you? It's not a good feeling.

actually, yes I have in another country and it was very scary.

Like U.S. cops or not, I would rather tangle with a U.S. cop then, say, a Mexican cop (where I was).

No. I'm saying that the disenfranchisement argument is not an inherent consequence - it is a consequence defined by law. If you contract AIDS, the inherent consequence is that you have AIDS. If you commit a crime, the inherent consequence is that you have commited a crime - one of the consequences as defined by law is disenfranchisment.

You're still using "accept responsibility for your actions" as an excuse for your support of the law - not as the reason you feel the law is appropriate.

If the law stated that anyone convicted of a felony would lose their left leg - you are stating that a potential felon should then "accept responsibility for their actions", and therefore - it is acceptable that a convicted felon should lose their left leg.

There is a disconnect in your logic. Simply because someone should be responsible does not mean anything/everything that is defined as a consequence is acceptable or should be accepted.

If you feel the law is appropriate, that is fine (I disagree). But to claim it is appropriate because people should be responsible is an invalid statement. Anything could be defined as the consequence of being convicted of breaking a federal law. That does not mean anything that is defined is an appropriate consequence.

There is no disconnect in my logic.

It is my opinion an appropriate punishment based on the growth and direction that the country took from it's beginnings. Remember there were times before that said non land owners, women, and blacks, had no right to vote. Those were changed.

If it's not clear to you: the law is appropriate because I feel that the consequence is not unreasonable. Because I find it a reasonable consequence I find the law appropriate. If there is another way that is EQUALLY compelling and preventative measure for consequence I'd probably be all for it too. I'd be interested in hearing alternatives, but to just speculate that it's problematic without solution to me leaves me thinking that there are other things to be more concerned about.

Losing your left leg is unreasonable, which is why we don't do an eye for an eye in the US.

People who cannot vote directly can still influence other voters, and the candidates themselves (ex. the whole illegal immigration benefits currently playing out)

That's fine. As I said, I disagree. My point is - "accept responsibility for your actions" is not the reason that it is an acceptable law to you. You used that phrase as if it had a meaning in this discussion - but other than a statement of "well too bad, deal with it", it doesn't mean anything here.

Hence, the disconnect.