zenmaster10665

Well said, opie. The same thing was going thru my mind.

Can someone, anyone give me a good reason why splitting electoral votes proportionally in accordance with popular vote is a bad idea? I can see why the argument would be made that this shuld not be done in select states, but unfortunately that is exactly how our Union works. It is up to the states in this matter to make a decision how they allocate their electoral votes, be that "winner-takes-all" or proportionally...technically it is none of the Federal Government's business which method a state adopts.

If a few states start making changes, more will come on board, be those "Red" or "Blue" or "Green" or whatever. Partisan politics may or may not be behind the current discussions in Colorado, I am not 100% sure...however, I know that there should be a change made in the way that elections are run in the US or else we are going to continue to lose face on the world stage and run into farcical election results just as we did in 2000.

I wish this thing was a landslide either way, but then again I wish that there was at least a viable 3rd party in the US. Maybe this is the year for the Libertarians or the Greens or someone else to make themselves more than just a blip on the radar...I hope so.

Simply becuase something is a precedent does not make it correct or applicable to present times.

The electoral college is still a bad idea, and, partisan politics aside, one of the easiest ways that I can see of fixing it is to start divvying up votes proportionally.

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

SecretMethod70

The electoral college is a very GOOD idea. Ask the majority of people who understand it and political statistics regarding the effect of the outcome of the election. Some of the reasons why I have posted in a thread about it here. Yes, it has problems, but there is nothing better that anyone has come up with. You think 3rd parties would still support the electoral college if it were such a bad idea? It's the reason Perot got 0 electoral votes despite nearly 20% of the popular vote, yet most 3rd parties still support the existence of the electoral college.

What needs to change has nothing to do with the electoral college and everything to do with how we count votes. That's why, rather than fight against the electoral college, most third parties support an alteration in how we count votes to something such as Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

OpieCunningham

Then you're using the phrase "accept responsibility for your own actions" as a cop out to avoid having to deal with changing a law?

If society constantly changes, the consequence of disenfranchisement due to felony is not necessarily an ultimate consequence - it is simply a consequence which may or may not be appropriate. It is one thing to accept responsibility for ones' actions, but it is another thing to suffer a consequence which is essentially arbitrary.

As for your AIDS/Pregnancy analogies - they're weak. Neither of those two scenarios offer an alternative to dealing with the consequences. You have AIDS. You have a child. Disenfranchisement can be removed with the stroke of a pen. Or you can shrug your shoulders and pout and "accept responsibility" (read: accept that society says you cannot vote).

And I'm not asking you to change my mind - I'm asking you to support your case because I want to hear it.

cthulu23

Social darwinism is a discredited 19th century idea. By that logic, I should be able to take what I want from you if I am able to.

cthulu23

I'm all for IRV too, but the electoral college nedds to go. It was put into place as insurance against the "mob" making a "bad" decision and is inherently undemocratic. Can anyone give a reason why it should still exist?

zenmaster10665

These sound interesting...what are they?

Wouldn't an easier way of changing the counting of votes be to proportionally allocate electoral votes, though?

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

SecretMethod70

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

and finally, I think Michael Badnarik sums it up well:

As to the electoral college being "undemocratic," that's EXACTLY what it is. America is not a democracy and the founding fathers disdained democracy. Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Cynthetiq

Neither of those two scenarios offer an alternative to dealing with the consequences.

I'm confused by this... are you saying then that because there is no alternative that there shouldn't be an alternative? The disenfranchisement argument has an alternative because we can change it via laws, so thus people should not need to be responsible for their actions?

Is the person who is being disenfranchised for no reason? Just because? If that's the case, then that is not fair. An innocent person being disenfranchised? Not right, not fair. But that's not how our system works...and that's something that I would be willing to lend my support in changing.

But in this case, commit felony, lose rights. Pretty simple cause and effect.

As far as using it as an excuse to NOT CHANGE the law, I don't see a need to change the law. It's not a cop out. I firmly believe that if you do something wrong you pay the price for it. I consider that to be one of the line items in that price.

As I grew up I learned about consequences. Each action that I made, had a reaction. Each reaction spurred off another set of actions ad infinitum. When I got to be old enough to learn about law and civics. I learned about the rights that I have, not the rights that I think I have.

I took responsibilty for learning about my rights. It is my civic duty to know my rights and abide by them. The penal system has lots of cause and effect written out within it's own code. When I did something wrong my moral compass weighed it out against the consequences. I don't find it unreasonable to expect someone else to learn.

I check each election to make sure that when I go to the voting polls that I am properly registered. I missed it once because of "paperwork" that shuffled me to another preceinct suddenly and I wasn't going to make it to the other precinct. Since that time I make sure that each and every election that I need to vote, if I haven't gotten my voter card, or sample ballot, I enquire.

My support for my position is simple, again, it's my opinion. In this case I don't have precedent cases or sample thesis. My facts are just what I did in my own life, I don't think things I did were extraordinary, but my duty as a citizen.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

zenmaster10665

Thanks Secret...

Approval sounds like a great idea, actually...

The major advantages I can see are (from wikipedia)
After Florida in 2000, it is obvious why this is needed...I think everyone knows that the issues persist well beyond the borders of the state of Florida.

Voter turnout in the the states is appaling. Anything that encourages people that their vote actually does count is a good thing in my book. The fact that people thought that the election was over before the polls even closed in 2000 was very sad...this would eliminate this possibilty (and the possibility for exit polls, as I see it)


amen!


In the case of Approval Voting, if there were multiple candidates within a certain threshold of each other, I would think that this should trigger an automatic run-off in order to dertermine the actual winner?

So, my question is, will the US ever reform their voting procedures?

I think it will take at least another contested election (or maybe 3) before anything is ever done.

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

cthulu23

Even with the electoral college in place, candidates still have to pander to the handful of states with huge populations and, consequently, the most electors. I'm not sure that I understand how the electoral college "protects" the political voice of Peoria.

As far as I understand it, America is a republic, or representative democracy.

zenmaster10665

According to the CIA World Factbook, America is a Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

SecretMethod70

Let's put it this way. Currently, in order to win Ohio's electoral votes (I use them because it's a battleground state) you must appeal to the whole state. Columbus and Cleveland cannot dwarf the rest of the state. However, all the urban and suburban areas of the NATION can easily dwarf all the rural areas, thus eliminating the power of rural areas almost entirely. As it stands, the electoral college effectively limits the power of cities so that they are, for the most part, surrounded by a comparable electorate. For example, the 3 major cities in Ohio add up to about 6 million - the population of Ohio is about 11 million. So, the electoral college limits the contest to winning the state and allows for the needs of the 6 million outside of the urban areas of Ohio to have theoretically as much weight as the 6 million IN urban areas. If voting was done by strictly popular vote, the interests of the urban in Ohio (which are distinctly different than that of the rural) would be joining forces with every other urban and suburban area, thus dwarfing out the rural and, incidentally, entire states such as Montana. As it stands, sure, a candidate could theoretically focus on only places like California, but if they really started to ignore the interests of the large patch of rural states in the midwest the combined electoral votes would be a major loss. This way, since the number of electors is still based on population, it still works to represent the overall interests of the American people while at the same time preserving the interests of the people who are more spread out.

And, yes, America is a republic, which is very different from a flat-out democracy which is what the founding fathers were so much against.

EDIT: Oh, in regards to the US ever changing voting procedures, I don't see it happening anytime in the next decade at least sad to say. The fact is, the current voting system is what helps hold the two "major" parties in power according to Duverger's law. And, since the two major parties control the laws of election....well, you see where I'm going Frankly, at the moment, there are only two reasonable (and unfortunately unlikely) ways I see change happening. First, through the rise of a third party that, after gaining power, will not turn bad. I think, because of their principles, the Libertarians are pretty benign in that regard and would be able to be trusted that if they were to gain enough power they would stick to their fight for a new voting standard and enact change. The second possibility is for the American people to collectively take a stand and fight for a change - and with enough people we can bypass the bipartisan legislators on the capitol and pass an amendment to the constitution. Neither are things I think are likely to occur anytime soon. In order for the people to collectively start to rise up for change, they need to be educated enough to realize that change is needed and that there is something better. And with the two "major" parties controlling government, which, in turn, controls education, that is not going to happen except for the few mavericks such as myself who like to seek information on their own and have no qualms about rejecting the "system."

To be honest, I think we need a couple constitutional amendments regarding elections and parties. First, we need to get rid of this idea that campaign contributions are a form of speech and, second, we need to get rid of this idea that corporations are, legally, like people. Corporations should not be allowed to donate to campaigns. They already get their vote through all their employees who, if they like who they work for, will already care about the well-being of the company. We need a constitutional amendment that states that all states must count votes in a single method - and one which is statistically fair to up-and-coming parties. They can then decide how to distribute their electoral votes as they choose. I don't really care WHICH method so much as I care that there is a fair method. Secondly, we need a constitutional amendment strictly limiting the rights and abilities of parties. The founding fathers disliked political parties so much that they didn't even acknowledge their existence in the constitution. Well, they exist here now, and we need to get something IN there to strictly limit their power so that they are, once again, only a means of quickly identifying a candidates general ideals and nothing more.

Of course, there's one problem with all this: enough people need to be educated regarding all of this to have enough force to bypass the bipartisan federal government and get these amendments which would cut into their control. And, like I said, with them being the ones educating us, I'm not sure it will ever happen.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

roachboy

the analogy is faulty---the legal system is set up to replace the victim of a crime by the state, which prosecutes as injured party--and it is set up with the assumption that the degree of guilt is adequately represented in a sentence passed. the social/legal expiation process is the serving of a sentence. after that sentence, the account should be wiped clean.
responsibility is accepted and acted upon by the serving of a sentence.
that's it--all she wrote on the matter.

it is the basic principle of the existing justice system.

this has nothing to do with the contracting of a disease. the analogy is false.

this process was set up explicitly against the notions of:
endless guilt like those outlined in cyn's post (and he is not alone, simply the most explicit);
against notions like heriditary guilt (so dear to athenian tragedy);
and, as an aside, the translation of state for victim and time/money for criminal act was set up early on to shortcircuit what was a logic of feud. the logic comes from lombard law, and has become basic to every modern judicial system.

you would think this stuff would be basic, would not be still up for debate.

what is also not really up for debate is that herbert spenser was a complete crackpot, that there is nothing descriptively or normatively functional about social darwinism---- this despite the absurd conflation of it with the mythology of "Free markets"---it is a rationalization for social barbarism.

the conflation of the social world with a version of nature, rewritten around the logic of the market, is also absurd, despite the efforts of years of right ideology to claim otherwise.

as a political ideology, it has not been functional since the earliest period of capitalist development--from the first limitations on the length of the work day onward, law has functioned to inflect the "law of the jungle" and capitalist bararity, however rationalized, has been understood as self-defeating in practice.
it is not functional now.
it will never be functional.

but then there are people who confuse ayn rand with a philosopher, george w bush with a competent president and fox with a news outlet.

go figure.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

I'm not going to get into the disenfranchised debate, I view some of the opinions within this thread as wildly misinformed and twisted.


As far as the electoral college goes, I posted this in another thread as to why the EC is proportional voting:


-- http://fortnow.com/lance/complog/20...al-college.html


I support the Electoral College (despite the current advantage it gives the Republicans) and would like to see changes in two areas:

1) proportional awarding of electoral votes, from the state level as Colorado is considering

2) Instant run-off voting


I have read that another way to make the EC more representative (which I do not have a problem with) would be to raise the number of speakers in the House. One issue I have with that, however, is the cost of adding a few hundred more legislatures. Possibly this is the cost of 'democracy.'

I'm not convinced that the semantic corrections between using "Republic" versus "Democracy" serve much purpose. Everyone who is a citizen of this nation within these discussions knows the political reality in which they live. Democracy is not a single concept--there are many flavors of democracy around the world. When people speak to the country being a democracy, or that it ought to be more democratic, I find that they are usually speaking about empowering the electorate. Saying that we are a Republic or Representative Government does not undermine the claim that voters deserve or need to be more empowered, to my mind.
__________________

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

cthulu23

Ok, I can see all of your points about the EC, but there is still one aspect of it that is anti-democratic and was put there as a safety mechanism against the will of the people...namely, that electors do not necessarily need to vote for the candidate that the population that they represent chose. This is the my major objection to the EC and why I previously derided it as undemocratic.

Anyway, we have all threadjacked this discussion. Does anyone want to talk about voter intimidation in Florida again

zenmaster10665

No threadjacking at all. The original post also talks extensively about voting methods which led to discussions about the EC.

The discussions on the EC have been much more productive, in my opinion!

So what baout electronic voting? Do you trust your vote to a Diebold-made, glorified ATM?

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

zenmaster10665

sorry for the double-post

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

jb2000

Smooth, an excellent and substantive post, which I agree with a lot of as well.

I am a whole-hearted supporter of the EC, although I do think that like all good things, it can be improved. The basic premise may have originally been protection of smaller states from being overwhelmed by large ones, and that is partially true today. However, I think it is more important that we not allow candidates to merely curry favor among population centers, and instead be supported by broad based popular will.

I don't necessarily think that new moves, such as Colorado's new plan, are really the right way to go. Granted, it is up to each state to make its own game-plan, but I do think that the winner-take-all approach to a block of EVs is the key to the EC. I do however, support apportioning EVs on the basis of population versus number of Congressmen. This would not change the fact that one would need broad support as opposed to merely strong support amongst a limited, but populous set of states.

The proplem with breaking up the EVs of states is that it becomes simply then a more granularized popular vote, losing some of the moderating effect of the EC's current situation.

cthulu23

Hmmm, let's see....it runs on Microsoft Access, I just read an entry in Bugtraq (the preeminent security vulenrability mailing list) yesterday that revealed that authenticated users on the central tabulation machines can change vote totals, it's other security mechanisms are laughable and there is no paper trail to verify that it's returns are accurate. Given all of that, I think that I have to answer F**K NO!

SecretMethod70

electronic voting is evil, and jb2000's post outlines some of the reservations of I have with measure's such as those proposed in Colorodo. I fear the EC could become, as he put it, a "granularized popular vote." I think the majority of the problem would be fixed simply by changing the voting style, rather than changing the fact that a state's winners gets all the state's electoral votes.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

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

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

zenmaster10665

this is exactly what I am afraid of also.

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

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

Strange Famous

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?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

KMA-628

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?

cthulu23

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

KMA-628

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?

cthulu23

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?

KMA-628

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.

smooth

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.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

KMA-628

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.

cthulu23

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.

KMA-628

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.

smooth

[bah, got away from myself]

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

KMA-628

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.

cthulu23

It depends on the criminal.

KMA-628

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.

cthulu23

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.

KMA-628

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).

OpieCunningham

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.

Cynthetiq

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)

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.