Conviction = No Vote. Why?

[Crazy Elf]

I've been thinking about the practice in the US where you lose your right to vote if you're convicted of a felony in the vast majority of states. Does anyone have any good arguments for why this practice continues to exist? Also, does anyone know of any other countries in which the same practice takes place?

[Crazy Elf]

Actually, I've found a list of other countries that follow the same practice. I had no idea that Australia has restrictions of inmate voting. Interesting.

[Serious Paul]

First your posts assume that all felons are prevented from voting, but that's actually not true. Michigan and Florida allow felons to vote if they are not incarcerated, or currently a ward of the state. Those are just the two I can think of off the top of my head. I'm also sure that South Africa allows it's felons to vote.

Secondly your post makes the assumption, with out explanation, that limiting felons voting rights is wrong in some way. Presumptive.

[Crazy Elf]

Firstly, I stated in the original posting that it was in the vast majority of states. Secondly, I am against the process and thus if there are good reasons for why it continues to occur I'd like to hear them. No one holds true neutrality on any given position.

[Serious Paul]

Firstly, I stated in the original posting that it was in the vast majority of states.

You're right. I somehow missed this. Sorry.

Secondly, I am against the process and thus if there are good reasons for why it continues to occur I'd like to hear them. No one holds true neutrality on any given position.

I'm not neutral, but I don't care one way or the other. Sorry if I'm not more helpful.

[DV8]

You have to wonder what recourse a felon has after paying his debt to society to get things changed, since all democratic leaders keep defending the myth that you can make a change by voting.

[3278]

Felony convictions are amongst the strongest measure we have of antisocial behavior. Restricting the ability of these strongly antisocial persons to influence the society is reasonable in a prophylactic sense. However, the inability to distinguish between the strongly antisocial and the formerly strongly antisocial makes such a measure arbitrary. The most logical remedy would be to determine a means of discrimination between the two possibilities, which would be of tremendous utility in any case.

[paladin2019]

Secondly, I am against the process and thus if there are good reasons for why it continues to occur I'd like to hear them. No one holds true neutrality on any given position.

How easy it would be to systematically coerce a particular vote out of an incarcerated population.

[Cain]

Felony convictions are amongst the strongest measure we have of antisocial behavior. Restricting the ability of these strongly antisocial persons to influence the society is reasonable in a prophylactic sense. However, the inability to distinguish between the strongly antisocial and the formerly strongly antisocial makes such a measure arbitrary. The most logical remedy would be to determine a means of discrimination between the two possibilities, which would be of tremendous utility in any case.

It should be stated that the mentally ill and developmentally disabled are granted full rights to vote.

I also don't know how it is in all states, but it used to be in Washington, even if you had completed your sentence, you could not vote until your debts/fines were paid. This held true even if you were making payments with a 100% on-time rate. That has since been lifted.

[Crazy Elf]

Felony convictions are amongst the strongest measure we have of antisocial behavior.

Yet, "antisocial behaviour" is largely dependent on what the government legislates as antisocial. It's a felony to smoke pot in the US, and it's not in many other countries in the world. Is smoking pot something that is inherently antisocial and to the detriment of society at large? Hell, in some states you could get arrested for having attended a political rally, which would show engagement with political matters rather than a disengagement with society.

Although I agree that some crimes show antisocial sentiment, I don't think that enough people commit them for their votes to be highly influential in an election. It seems like a strange thing to legislate against.

How easy it would be to systematically coerce a particular vote out of an incarcerated population.

Same can be said for any section of society. Palin is running for office in order to coerce a vote out of the psychotic fundamentalist Christians in the US. Niche appeal is always going to be a factor in an election.

[crone]

It would be fairly easy to coerce prisoners' votes, but surely quite illegal.

[Jeff Hauze]

Same can be said for any section of society. Palin is running for office in order to coerce a vote out of the psychotic fundamentalist Christians in the US. Niche appeal is always going to be a factor in an election.

It really is the fair and balanced viewpoint of the Elf that bring me back for more.

[Serious Paul]

Yet, "antisocial behaviour" is largely dependent on what the government legislates as antisocial.

Say isn't this the same government you trust to point cameras at us all?

Same can be said for any section of society. Palin is running for office in order to coerce a vote out of the psychotic fundamentalist Christians in the US. Niche appeal is always going to be a factor in an election.

I think most people would point out that the difference is those wacko christians live out and about, and can't have their most basic privileges removed at a whim. Where as the incarcerated can have the most basic of rights (Food, clothing, heat, water, you name it) removed quite easily. So while Palin may be influential, she's certainly not going to walk up into your cell tomorrow and beat the shit out of you for your vote with the four biggest guys on shift.

[quote='Crone"]It would be fairly easy to coerce prisoners' votes, but surely quite illegal.[/quote]

At varying times in US history it hasn't been as illegal as you might think. Some states are still a little behind in this artea, but overall I'd say the system has massively improved.

One thing to keep in mind while discussing the incarcerated is that until very recently there has been no serious study of them, and their condition. Cain, fairly, points out that there is a difference between the "antisocial" and mentally ill, a difference that is sometimes lost on a lot of people.

[Crazy Elf]

Say isn't this the same government you trust to point cameras at us all?

Perhaps I should specify that I trust the <i>British</i> government to point cameras at people. The British system of government is completely different to the American system, in that power is not centralised on a single figure, and as such there are more checks and balances in place to prevent horrifying corruption from occurring. The Australian system is somewhat similar. This isn't to say that corruption doesn't occur, but it's certainly much harder to pull off. The British PM and the Australian PM both have to answer to a thing called, "Question Time", in which they have to face direct questioning from the opposition party. If there is something that even sniffs of corruption, the opposition is on it like flies on shit, attempting to get the media in on the fray.

Thus, abuse of a CCTV system could spell the downfall of whichever government is in power. No one wants to risk that, and as such there are a great many checks and balances in place in regards to the CCTV system.

Perhaps I should have specified all that earlier.

In conclusion, I agree that it would be a bad idea for such a system to be set up in the US. Your system is less than ideal.

I think most people would point out that the difference is those wacko christians live out and about, and can't have their most basic privileges removed at a whim. Where as the incarcerated can have the most basic of rights (Food, clothing, heat, water, you name it) removed quite easily. So while Palin may be influential, she's certainly not going to walk up into your cell tomorrow and beat the shit out of you for your vote with the four biggest guys on shift.

Yeah, but if you're thinking of not voting for Palin in a small town, you may be visited by the four biggest guys in the parish that are still struggling with the forgiveness part of Christian doctrine. I agree with you, though.

[paladin2019]

Say isn't this the same government you trust to point cameras at us all?

Perhaps I should specify that I trust the <i>British</i> government to point cameras at people. The British system of government is completely different to the American system, in that power is not centralised on a single figure, and as such there are more checks and balances in place to prevent horrifying corruption from occurring. The Australian system is somewhat similar.

Are you fucking serious? The difference between the British parliamentary system and the American is that the powers and authorities of the American president are essentially vested in the equivalent of the American Speaker of the House. Add to this the idea of state secrets and its requisite superiority of the executive over the judiciary. The only check the Parliamentary system holds the US lack is the vote of no confidence.

I think most people would point out that the difference is those wacko christians live out and about, and can't have their most basic privileges removed at a whim. Where as the incarcerated can have the most basic of rights (Food, clothing, heat, water, you name it) removed quite easily. So while Palin may be influential, she's certainly not going to walk up into your cell tomorrow and beat the shit out of you for your vote with the four biggest guys on shift.

Yeah, but if you're thinking of not voting for Palin in a small town, you may be visited by the four biggest guys in the parish that are still struggling with the forgiveness part of Christian doctrine. I agree with you, though.

Except that you are not monitored and controlled constantly in "small town America," nor are you stripped of effective means of self-defense. Convicts are as children, fully dependent upon another entity for every necessity. For the same reason, children are not allowed to vote.

[UncleJoseph]

It's a felony to smoke pot in the US, and it's not in many other countries in the world. Is smoking pot something that is inherently antisocial and to the detriment of society at large?

As an aside, smoking pot or possessing pot in Michigan is not a felony. It is a misdemeanor...with a penalty of less than a year in jail, but usually only a fine. Possession of marijuana with intent deliver (usually defined by the quantity one has in his/her possession) makes it a felony. Most states parallel Michigan's law in some way.

[Crazy Elf]

Are you fucking serious? The difference between the British parliamentary system and the American is that the powers and authorities of the American president are essentially vested in the equivalent of the American Speaker of the House. Add to this the idea of state secrets and its requisite superiority of the executive over the judiciary. The only check the Parliamentary system holds the US lack is the vote of no confidence.

Wrong. What the British system has that's completely lacking in the US system is question time, in which the heads of state are interrogated regarding their decisions. Thus, parliamentarians are held accountable for their actions as part of the process of government. This cannot be dodged.

Except that you are not monitored and controlled constantly in "small town America," nor are you stripped of effective means of self-defense. Convicts are as children, fully dependent upon another entity for every necessity. For the same reason, children are not allowed to vote.

So your argument for restricting the votes of inmates is that they're dependant on the state?

[3278]

Yet, "antisocial behaviour" is largely dependent on what the government legislates as antisocial.

That's precisely it: a felony conviction is a good indicator - so the argument goes - of the ability of the person to operate within society; the specifics of the society's laws aren't applicable, because it is the violation of social order that counts, not the specific actions undertaken.

That said, I'm not sure that removing the antisocial vote is particularly useful: many strongly antisocial people might have better ideas for the society; at the very least, they live here, too. But violation of the code of society to an egregious level does seem like a not-unreasonable cause for disallowing participation in the political process. I'm not sure how I feel about it, personally, but anyway, that's one of the arguments.

[Serious Paul]

Maybe I'm wrong for thinking this, but the majority of people incarcerated are idiots of the highest order. The kind of people who either wouldn't understand what they're voting for, or would rather vote for the local klucker candidate or black panther melanic wannabe. I'm not sure that losing their vote matters. That's not to say I think they should have their right to vote removed. Personally it makes little difference to me which way it ends up-whether they vote or they don't it's of little concern to me. Maybe that's callous of me, but that's where I stand.

[3278]

Perhaps I should specify that I trust the <i>British</i> government to point cameras at people.

Man, this is just a really bad time to be making that argument.

[Crazy Elf]

That said, I'm not sure that removing the antisocial vote is particularly useful: many strongly antisocial people might have better ideas for the society; at the very least, they live here, too.

That's how I look at it, too. If someone rages against society, they probably have views on where society should be headed instead, and not all of these ideas are going to be bad. I don't see what harm there is in letting them have a say. It seems that the restrictions in regards to inmate voting came into force with the right leaning government in Australia. I wonder if it was similar in the US. If so, it would seem to be a political choice.

Man, this is just a really bad time to be making that argument.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I never said that the British system is perfect and waterproof. Still, I think that they're capable of keeping the cameras operating without high levels of abuse.

Maybe I'm wrong for thinking this, but the majority of people incarcerated are idiots of the highest order. The kind of people who either wouldn't understand what they're voting for, or would rather vote for the local klucker candidate or black panther melanic wannabe.

Yeah, but that's the same for the general public, too.

[paladin2019]

Are you fucking serious? The difference between the British parliamentary system and the American is that the powers and authorities of the American president are essentially vested in the equivalent of the American Speaker of the House. Add to this the idea of state secrets and its requisite superiority of the executive over the judiciary. The only check the Parliamentary system holds the US lack is the vote of no confidence.

Wrong. What the British system has that's completely lacking in the US system is question time, in which the heads of state are interrogated regarding their decisions. Thus, parliamentarians are held accountable for their actions as part of the process of government. This cannot be dodged.

The British parliamentary system has separate and independent executive, legislative and judiciary branches rather than consolidating the executive and legislative in a bloc superior to the judiciary? And the Queen (or governor general) is interrogated by the Parliament? I don't think so. (The PM might be, but he is the PM and explicitly not the head of state.) But yes, basically question time, as you describe it, would require the Speaker of the House and his proxies to exercise the powers of the President and cabinet and it would be the House of Representatives questioning them as to what they decided to do. Which happens here, they're just pitched as debates rather than "interrogations."

Except that you are not monitored and controlled constantly in "small town America," nor are you stripped of effective means of self-defense. Convicts are as children, fully dependent upon another entity for every necessity. For the same reason, children are not allowed to vote.

So your argument for restricting the votes of inmates is that they're dependant on the state?

Their total dependency removes any means of resistance to coercion. Their warden's vote is essentially multiplied by the number of inmates under his control.

[Crazy Elf]

And the Queen (or governor general) is interrogated by the Parliament?

The Queen, although head of state on paper, never actually operates as such in this day and age. That's left up to the PM. It's like the governor general over here in Australia, it's just a symbolic role.

But yes, basically question time, as you describe it, would require the Speaker of the House and his proxies to exercise the powers of the President and cabinet and it would be the House of Representatives questioning them as to what they decided to do. Which happens here, they're just pitched as debates rather than "interrogations."

I've seen Bush completely avoid questions asked to him. In the British and Australian system if a parliamentarian doesn't answer the questions that are put before them the speaker of the house is going to call them on it, and the media will have a field day.