Taxation without representation OR Voting rights of felons

[Guy Montag]

One of the reasons that the founding fathers started this country, was to escape the "taxation without representation" of the british. They reasoned, that if one is supporting the governing body with money, one should have a say in how said government is run. Makes perfect sense to me.
Today, we are faced with a similar situation regarding the disenfranchisement of convicted felons: once one breaks a law made by a governing body, he loses all power to change the law. He has already been punished, served his time, and in theroy "paid his debt to society". Why than, should he not be returned to his former status as a citizen?

If you ask me (and perhaps I'm a bit biased (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150066&perpage=40&pagenumber=1)), even people currently incarcerated should have the right to vote. I see the power to change the government as one of those unalienable rights.
Look at it this way: the law is meant to serve the will of the people, if there are enough people breaking those laws to sway an election, obviously the laws need to be changed. What better way to keep law in check than to allow those who have broken them to have the opportunity to change them?

[light strand]

Just for the record. There are fourteen states that permanently bar felons from voting, and TX which bars felons for four two years from completing their sentence (cite (http://www.hrw.org/press98/oct/vote_fact1022.htm))

I believe that convicted felons who have served their sentences should indeed be able to vote. Moreover, since this is a States Rights issue, I believe that even if a State bars a felon from voting in a State and local election, said felon has a right to vote in Federal elections.

[MEBuckner]

Well, such "inalienable rights" as liberty or (in most states) life itself may be forfeited for violating the rights of others. There are rights which are not forfeited even for the most heinous of crimes (the right to be free of torture or excessively cruel punishment), but I don't think it's unreasonable to bar imprisoned felons from voting. This might perhaps be extended to criminals who have been released but are still on parole or who are on probation. On the other hand, I think prisoners who have entirely completed their sentences, including any sort of parole, should have their right to vote restored, along with their other rights. (Some people's rights should never be entirely restored; some criminals, even if they are released from prison, will be barred from possessing firearms, or having contact with children. In such cases it seems to me that we ought to say--as part of their original sentences--that these people are still "on parole", for the rest of their lives if need be.)

[JRDelirious]

Heh. We got you beat here. Ever since the mid-80s convicts in PR (an American jurisdiction, remember?) have a right to vote even while in the clink.

Recognized today here as a classic What the hell were they thinking?? moment in policymaking. But alas the courts said we can't ungrant it.

[SojournerSamson]

Over four million citizens are denied the right to vote due to felony convictions.
Lest we forget,most of the laws were enacted to block political access to African Americans post-Reconstruction.

Even if civil rights are restored it is likely most refranchised voters would turn out at the same levels as the general population or less.

[Guy Montag]

JRD: I'm curious, why is it seen that way?

light strand: Thousands of so-called felons were barred from voting in the 2000 presidential election in Florida here's a story covering it (http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=1)

[ElJeffe]

First of all, I think that those currently in prison should not be allowed to vote. They have broken the law, and they have had many rights temporarily revoked - effectively, they have lost their right to participate in society. Voting is perhaps the most profound and sacred method of participating in society, by literally helping to shape the laws by which society is governed. As such, it makes perfect sense to me to revoke that right.

Those on parole, I'm fairly ambivalent about. Let 'em vote, don't let 'em vote, whatever. Parole is effectively a way of granting you your rights back in a limited fashion - some you get, some you have to wait a bit longer for. Whether voting goes in column A or column B seems fairly arbitrary.

However, once you are off parole, I see no reason to further prevent you from voting. Keeping, for instance, convicted child molestors from being near children, or convicted murderers from possessing firearms, makes sense in light of the laws they broke. They've demonstrated that they can't be fully trusted with Right X, therefore, don't grant them Right X just yet - depending on the severity of the crime, maybe not ever. However, I don't see how voting fits into the pattern. Unless the person in question committed some heinous voting-crime (???), I see no reason to continue to curtail their right to vote, once they've served their time and made their peace with Johnny Law.

One thing, however, I must comment on:


Look at it this way: the law is meant to serve the will of the people, if there are enough people breaking those laws to sway an election, obviously the laws need to be changed.


Umm... no. By logical extension, if enough people are committing murder that they could form a signficant voting bloc, we should legalize murder. Sorry, but no. Laws should be determined by what is just, not by what is popular.


Jeff

[zev_steinhardt]

Well, to take this a bit further, if the OP believes that taxed = right to vote then I would wonder if he would allow voting to extend to non-citizens as well, since they are taxed?

And lastly, since incarcerated felons don't earn anything, they, in effect, aren't taxed. So, should they be barred from voting for that reason?

Zev Steinhardt

[Guy Montag]

zev: Most (all?) prisons require you to perform some sort of job while you are there, to avoid being called slave labor, they usualy pay on the order of 2 cents an hour. Such a wage is well below "minimum wage", so it could be said that the portion witheld is "tax"
And yes, I believe taht anyone who is taxed should have the right to vote.

Jeff: (can I call you Jeff?) I'm one of those people who believes in utter democracy, regardless of the outcome. Laws imposed for "the moral good" tend to lead to things like the war on drugs. I believe that the majority of society will always believe murder to be wrong, as such would never legalize it--but they should be free to do so if they wanted to.

[Guy Montag]

Laws should be determined by what is just, not by what is popular.
So, who determines what is just? The majority does.

[zev_steinhardt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guy Montag
[B]And yes, I believe taht anyone who is taxed should have the right to vote.

And, just for the record, would you extend that to illegal aliens as well. Even though (being illegal) many of them do not pay income tax, they do pay other taxes (gasoline tax, sales taxes, etc.).

Zev Steinhardt

[Guy Montag]

I've got a problem with them being illegal aliens in te first place. Anyone should be free to immagrate, after all, thats how most of our families got here. (appologies to Native Americians: sorry about that whole taking your land thing, we didn't mean it)

[Grey]

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Guy Montag
[B]And yes, I believe taht anyone who is taxed should have the right to vote.

And, just for the record, would you extend that to illegal aliens as well. Even though (being illegal) many of them do not pay income tax, they do pay other taxes (gasoline tax, sales taxes, etc.).

Zev Steinhardt

Zev the discussion deals with citizen rights. Illegal aliens by definition fall out side that as do landed immigrants.

Taxation seems a reasonable criterion for voting. Not a sole criterion (what about people on welfare etc.?) I'd also apply age, mental competency and lack of active criminal punishment (i.e. out of jail and off parole)

[december]

Originally posted by SojournerSamson
,most of the laws were enacted to block political access to African Americans post-Reconstruction.Do you have a cite on this?

[ElJeffe]

Jeff: (can I call you Jeff?) I'm one of those people who believes in utter democracy, regardless of the outcome. Laws imposed for "the moral good" tend to lead to things like the war on drugs. I believe that the majority of society will always believe murder to be wrong, as such would never legalize it--but they should be free to do so if they wanted to.


I prefer "All-Knowing and Wise Master Who Is Also Really Handsome", but "Jeff" will do in a pinch. And if you rely on "utter democracy", you wind up with what is referred to as the "tyranny of the majority". In most parts of the Middle East, it's legal to maim or kill your wife if she gets too far out of line. The majority has no problem with this. Is it just? Should we not care about that? If you lived in such a society, and the government decided to outlaw wife-beating against the will of the majority, would you support or oppose the government's actions?

Jeff

[erislover]

Said MEBuckner
...but I don't think it's unreasonable to bar imprisoned felons from voting. This might perhaps be extended to criminals who have been released but are still on parole or who are on probation.Well, you make a good point that we obviously withdraw a lot of rights in order to actually imprison people. Much of this is for punishment (incarceration and fines), some is for public protection (incarceration, inability to own a firearm). But I am not quite sure I actually understand why they cannot vote. Can they still write books? Can they still write letters? Have we otherwise removed their freedom of speech?

I think it is that I am just missing the connection to why they can't vote, other than a slippery slope of "Well, we take other rights away, see?"
ElJeffe
effectively, they have lost their right to participate in society. Voting is perhaps the most profound and sacred method of participating in society, by literally helping to shape the laws by which society is governed. As such, it makes perfect sense to me to revoke that right.Yes, especially when those laws might in fact affect prisoners themselves. I am simply not afraid of what a prisoner's perspectiv on politics is. A law passed today will affect a prisoner (well, depending on the law, of course) when he is released. Do you not see a problem with barring him from partaking in his future?Whether voting [while on parole] goes in column A or column B seems fairly arbitrary.You call voting one of the most fundamental rights, and you are satisfied with an arbitrary decision on when a person can use it? :confused: Please explain.By logical extension, if enough people are committing murder that they could form a signficant voting bloc, we should legalize murder.Death penalty, anyone?
zev
And, just for the record, would you extend that to illegal aliens as well.No, but I would extend it to someone who is a legal alien. It bothers me greatly that we allow people to live here, contribute to our society, but allow them no political voice.

[Patty O'Furniture]

It bothers me greatly that we allow people to live here, contribute to our society, but allow them no political voice.

[De Niro]Are you lookin' at me?[/De Niro]

[Kalt]

When you are in prison (felony or not) you should not be allowed to vote, because that enables a huge voting block with one main concern - getting out of prison - which is against public policy.

Once you are out of prison, though, you should have all your voting rights restored immediately.

[erislover]

When you are in prison (felony or not) you should not be allowed to vote, because that enables a huge voting block with one main concern - getting out of prisonIf we have that many people in prison, all the more reason to allow them to vote. Something is out of whack.

[Kalt]

erislover: no, because then "i'm not tough on crime, and i believe in parole for everyone" politicians will get unnecessary, unworthy votes.

[Guy Montag]

All-Knowing and Wise Master Who Is Also Really Handsome: yes. I wuold support the people's decision to legalize wife beating if it were passed. But you are missing my point that it never would be: the only reason it is so in these uncited middle-eastern countries is because the women have no say. Do you realy think that, in a country where women have every right a man does, such a law could pass?

[erislover]

There is no such thing as an unworthy vote, possibly excepting dimpled chads and such.

Do you really suppose that "I'm not tough on crime and I believe in parole for everyone" would win if onle we let all felons vote?

[JRDelirious]

Guy, it has an element of principle (a swing in public opinion in the direction that those in prison indeed should forfeit political rights, and that the 1980s decision was shortsighted vote-grubbing) and of practical application (how come we're using money and resources to make sure pushers and rapists vote)

[erislover]

Maybe if we ostracize them more for longer they will rehabilitate quicker.

[DrDeth]

Yes, Sojournersampson- i'm with December- got a cite? I think that even before the Civil war felons were barred from voting, in fact it seems to be a facet of English Common Law.

"No Taxation w/o Representation" although indeed a rallying cry, is not in the Const, nor a cornerstone of US Law. Taken to the extreme, the concept would allow any who pay taxes to vote- including minors, the insane, aliens, and Corporations. While barring those who are legally Citizens from voting, if they don't pay taxes. You could make a cae for this- but then do those who pay lots of taxes get more votes? How much in taxes, and which sort of taxes allow you to vote? A tourist who has piad $1 in sales taxes?

Going to SCOTUS with a brief that claims "No taxation w/o rep" as your cause would get you booted. It's just plain silly. Just because a few of our Founding Fathers made that a cause does not mean it is enshrined in US Common Law or the Const. It's even weaker than claiming your right to the "pursuit of happiness", which at least is mentioned in one of our basic documents.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by DrDeth
Taken to the extreme, the concept would allow any who pay taxes to vote- including minors, the insane, aliens, and Corporations.
I don't see a problem with allowing minors to vote. They pay taxes, they are subject to our laws, and in many areas they can be tried as adults.

Indeed, the only reason I see for not allowing them to vote is so politicians can pass laws restricting the rights of minors (curfews, graduated drivers' licenses) without fearing for their chances of re-election.

[ElJeffe]

erislover:

Yes, especially when those laws might in fact affect prisoners themselves. I am simply not afraid of what a prisoner's perspectiv on politics is. A law passed today will affect a prisoner (well, depending on the law, of course) when he is released. Do you not see a problem with barring him from partaking in his future?


Do I see a problem? No. We are keeping him from working, which would be partaking in his future. We keep him from socializing with those outside the prison, which would be partaking in his future. He may partake fully in his future when he's done serving time. In the meantime, he is effectively removed from society. Doesn't bother me at all.

Now, we do allow prisoners to do certain things that will lessen their chances of reverting to crime upon their release. We allow them to pursue education, and we allow them to work in a limited fashion, and build a savings of sorts (I think). Voting will not lessen his chances of reverting to crime, so there is no reason to allow it.


You call voting one of the most fundamental rights, and you are satisfied with an arbitrary decision on when a person can use it? Please explain.


Freedom to go where you please is also a fundamental right. There are many fundamental rights that are revoked when you go to prison. When you get out on parole, we give you back some. Some, we reserve until you're off parole. Which of these rights we give you back immediately, and which we give you back later, is fairly arbitrary. As such, yes, I am satisfied with it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By logical extension, if enough people are committing murder that they could form a signficant voting bloc, we should legalize murder.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Death penalty, anyone?


Murder and the death penalty are hugely different, whether you agree with the death penalty or not. One is unprovoked, one is punishment. At any rate, this in no way invalidates my argument. If you think that the death penalty is unjust, than this illustrates my point even better - to wit, the death penalty is legal because a majority of people agree with it. If you feel the death penalty is unjust, then wouldn't you agree that justice-through-majority-rule is a bad idea?


Guy:
[QUOTE]
I wuold support the people's decision to legalize wife beating if it were passed. But you are missing my point that it never would be: the only reason it is so in these uncited middle-eastern countries is because the women have no say. Do you realy think that, in a country where women have every right a man does, such a law could pass?
[QUOTE]

Whether or not Nasty Law X would ever be passed is irrelevant. The point is that it is inherently unjust to provide society with a mechanism to do whatever atrocities it please, as long as the majority can agree. How about current laws that discriminate against gays? Are those just ducky, as long as the majority is fine with them? If everybody else decided that we should tie you down and beat you daily for the rest of your life, you would support that, because if the majority supports it, it must be just jim-dandy?


Jeff

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by erislover
Said MEBuckner
...but I don't think it's unreasonable to bar imprisoned felons from voting. This might perhaps be extended to criminals who have been released but are still on parole or who are on probation.Well, you make a good point that we obviously withdraw a lot of rights in order to actually imprison people. Much of this is for punishment (incarceration and fines), some is for public protection (incarceration, inability to own a firearm). But I am not quite sure I actually understand why they cannot vote. Can they still write books? Can they still write letters? Have we otherwise removed their freedom of speech?

I think it is that I am just missing the connection to why they can't vote, other than a slippery slope of "Well, we take other rights away, see?"
As you say, some of the things we do to prisoners is to punish them (we punish people both out of an abstract sense of "justice"--"they get what they deserve"--and as a rational deterrant--"Gee, I'd better not do that, or unpleasant stuff will happen to me".) Depriving criminals of the right to vote--at least while they are still in the clutches of the corrective system--is a punishment. OK, it probably won't deter your really hardened criminals, but I wouldn't want to lose any of my civil and political rights, so it would deter at least some people.

A more important point: Criminals have shown themselves unable to respect the rights of others*. If they can't govern themselves to the extent of not infringing on other people's rights and liberties, I think it just to deprive them of the right to govern everyone else by voting. I agree that this deprivation shouldn't be permanent, unless the crime was so severe that we have sentenced them to be permanently deprived of their liberty.

*I am assuming here that criminal convictions are the result of committing a crime which harms another. This doesn't really apply to "victimless crimes", like drug use (unless you do something like drive a car on a public street while under the influence); for that reason, I don't support depriving people of any of their rights or liberties for "victimless crimes". But that's a whole other debate.

[Apos]

I think you've all got it backwards. If one can't vote, why must they pay taxes? If we hold to the "no taxation without representation line," then if felons who've served their time can't vote, I don't see any reason why they should then have to pay taxes into a system they have no say in. Likewise immigrants.

[Palo Verde]

Originally posted by Mr2001
I don't see a problem with allowing minors to vote. They pay taxes, they are subject to our laws, and in many areas they can be tried as adults.

Indeed, the only reason I see for not allowing them to vote is so politicians can pass laws restricting the rights of minors (curfews, graduated drivers' licenses) without fearing for their chances of re-election.

Um... you really want my 5 year old to VOTE? How about my 10 month old?

This would in effect give more power to parents of several children. If I told my children to vote for Senator A, they would most likely do it. I have 3 children so my vote would be in effect magnified.

Yes, at some point they would stop voting the way I told them, but I would have several years before that happens.

Still trying to figure out how my baby will vote. I assume you have to have some age limit. If not 18, then should it be 12? 8? 4? Or should I bring my infant in her baby stroller and guide her hand so she can 'punch' out chads?

[erislover]

ElJeffeIn the meantime, he is effectively removed from society. Doesn't bother me at all.But he isn't removed from society, he is removed from us having to look at him. In doing so, we put him in another society.Voting will not lessen his chances of reverting to crime, so there is no reason to allow it.Sure it will, if the crime committed is overturned because of voting. Like... drug legalization?There are many fundamental rights that are revoked when you go to prison.Can I ask you, please, not to use the word "fundamental" anymore? It actually sickens me to hear you trivialize it so.One is unprovoked, one is punishment.Yes, and when I kill a rabbit we call it "hunting". It is still killing.If you feel the death penalty is unjust, then wouldn't you agree that justice-through-majority-rule is a bad idea?No, I would agree that we shouldn't remove their ability to affect justice.MEBuckner
Depriving criminals of the right to vote--at least while they are still in the clutches of the corrective system--is a punishment.I agree that it is a punishment.A more important point: Criminals have shown themselves unable to respect the rights of others*. If they can't govern themselves to the extent of not infringing on other people's rights and liberties, I think it just to deprive them of the right to govern everyone else by voting.But that's like saying Texas never killed an innocent man—the very thing that makes them criminals are the laws you now won't let them address.

I might sound naive; after all, they could vote before they were caught and prosecuted, so if they had anything to say, then they could have said it before. In this way, I suppose the road for me to take is the middle, and accept ElJeffe's idea (and your hint) of only not letting them vote while in prison; they could regain their rights after release.

[meara]

In my opinion, no citizen of majority age should be denied the right to vote. If there are ever enough felons to swing the vote on critical issues, then something is seriously wrong.

Murder is a straw man -- instead, think about the many controversial felonies on the books, from being a bystander to a drug transaction, to "disorderly conduct" at airports, to breaking feeble encryption used for copyright control. These laws are under active protest. Isn't it a bit scary and undemocratic that breakers of them are disenfranchised?

Do we really want the following scenario?
1. Politicians strengthen zero-tolerance laws to make any drug possession a felony.
2. Millions of drug users are arrested and convicted as felons.
3. Prisons can't hold them all, so they're let off with light sentences, but are no longer allowed to vote.
4. Politicians campaign as "tough on crime" without fear of electoral backlash.
5. Aforementioned laws remain on the books forever, since their most vocal opponents have been disenfranchised.

Why not just take the moral high ground and decide to never deprive any grown citizen of his personal protest vote?

[erislover]

These laws are under active protest. Isn't it a bit scary and undemocratic that breakers of them are disenfranchised?Right, that's why I mentioned drugs. There are plenty of felonies besides murdering innocent babes.

[meara]

Managed to delay my response so long that I didn't see your post, erislover. :o

I agree with it almost completely, except that I wouldn't even compromise on imprisoned felons. If anything, they have the most stake in elections, since it is one of the only forms of political expression we can safely allow them.

[erislover]

Right, I guess that's my beef... we punish people and do things to make ourselves safe from them... isn't that accomplished without denying them a vote?

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by autz
This would in effect give more power to parents of several children. If I told my children to vote for Senator A, they would most likely do it.
That's what they said about giving women the vote. "Oh, they'll just vote for whoever their husband tells them to." But I know when I was 10, I had my own opinions on political issues.

To be practical and avoid the abuse we saw with "literacy tests", there would probably have to be some lower limit; say, the age at which minors can legally work, or get married, for consistency. However, anyone under that age shouldn't be taxed or tried as an adult.

[The Ryan]

zev_steinhardt
since incarcerated felons don't earn anything, they, in effect, aren't taxed.
Don't you mean "most"?

Grey
Zev the discussion deals with citizen rights.
Really? I thought it was about human rights.

Originally posted by Kalt
When you are in prison (felony or not) you should not be allowed to vote, because that enables a huge voting block with one main concern - getting out of prison - which is against public policy.
So should people dying from cancer be barred from voting?

Mr. 2001
That's what they said about giving women the vote.
That's an incredibly specious form of reasoning.

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by erislover
But that's like saying Texas never killed an innocent man—the very thing that makes them criminals are the laws you now won't let them address.
Originally posted by meara
Murder is a straw man -- instead, think about the many controversial felonies on the books, from being a bystander to a drug transaction, to "disorderly conduct" at airports, to breaking feeble encryption used for copyright control. These laws are under active protest. Isn't it a bit scary and undemocratic that breakers of them are disenfranchised?
Y'all seem to be arguing that the laws need to recognize that they themselves are unjust: "Anyone guilty of malicious muggery in this state shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 20 years in the state penitentiary; but since this law is so unjust, those convicted thereof shall be free to try to change it". But the presumption of any law is going to be that it is itself just and proper. If the law is unjust, it's unjust to deprive people who have been convicted of breaking it of the right to vote to repeal it, but more to the point, it's unjust to put them in prison in the first place. The solution is not to give felons more rights, but to repeal laws which unjustly criminalize behavior that ought not be criminalized. I'm not saying that even convicted felons should have no rights, but if they're rightly convicted of breaking a just law, I have no problem with curtailing their rights fairly seriously--I don't want people who have been rightly convicted of violating just laws to have the power to make decisions about my government, at least not until they've paid their debt to society. If they're convicted of breaking an unjust law, I don't want to increase their rights while imprisoned (or on probation or parole), I want them to be not imprisoned (or on probation or parole) at all. For those wrongfully convicted of breaking a just law, I still don't think increasing their rights as felons is the answer; the answer is to not wrongfully convict innocent people.

But again, to argue that we shouldn't prohibit felons from voting because some of them may be innocent, or may have been convicted of breaking unjust laws, is really to argue that we shouldn't punish felons at all, because some of them may be innocent, or may have been convicted of breaking unjust laws.

[erislover]

MEBucknerBut the presumption of any law is going to be that it is itself just and proper.Hardly! If that were the case we could dispense with democracy....I have no problem with curtailing their rights fairly seriously...Well, I don't either. I think imprisoning people and/or fining them severely, nevermind making their crime something they must report to all employers in the future is already fairly serious. In general. But this is because when I think of felonies I tend to think of violent crimes against other people, which is not always the case. It isn't the case now, and I don't know that it would ever be the case in the future.If they're convicted of breaking an unjust law, I don't want to increase their rights while imprisoned...You wouldn't be increasing their rights by simply not taking away something they already have!

[Grey]

Originally posted by The Ryan

Grey

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zev the discussion deals with citizen rights.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? I thought it was about human rights.



Oh get off your high horse. :rolleyes:

People allowed to vote must be citizens of the country. Unless you feel a deep and abiding need to have the whole world vote in you next City/State/Federal election. It follows that someone deprived of the right to vote had to have it to begin with.

Now if you want to debate who should be eligible to possess the right to vote in the fist place, that's different.

[The Ryan]

MEBuckner
But again, to argue that we shouldn't prohibit felons from voting because some of them may be innocent, or may have been convicted of breaking unjust laws, is really to argue that we shouldn't punish felons at all, because some of them may be innocent, or may have been convicted of breaking unjust laws.
No, to argue that they shouldn't be prohibited from voting is to argue that they shouldn't be prohibited from voting. I think that a decent case can be made that this prohibition has a negible detyerrent value, and has a significant impact on the democratic process. That can be said about punishment in general.

erislover:
Hardly! If that were the case we could dispense with democracy.
If I may presume to speak for MEBuckner, I believe that what he meant to say is "Any law, were it a sentient being capable of forming an opinion of itself, would presume that it is itself just and proper."

Grey
Oh get off your high horse.
High horse? I was expressing an opinion about what the intented topic of discussion was. Where's the high horse?

People allowed to vote must be citizens of the country. Unless you feel a deep and abiding need to have the whole world vote in you next City/State/Federal election.
There are counties that aloow noncitizens to vote. While you may think that they are wrong in doing so, that is merely your opinion, not an absolute restriction on the privilidges that can be extended to noncitizens. Your second sentence is missing a dependant clause, so I'm not sure what you're saying, but there is certainly is middle ground between allowing only citizens to vote, and allowing everyone to vote.

[The Ryan]

That can be said about punishment in general.
That should be "can't be said"

There are counties that aloow noncitizens to vote.
That should be "There are countries that allow noncitizens to vote."

[Hermann Cheruscan]

A slight hijack:

I notice some posters seem to be worried about "taxation without representation", because people who lose their voting rights are still required to pay taxes like everyone else.

Would these people be in favor of allowing wealthier taxpayers to have more than one vote, to reflect the fact that they pay more in taxes? Lets say one vote for every hundred dollars in taxes someone pays? After all,anything less would be taxation without representation.

[Mr2001]

Hermann Cheruscan: Been there, done that. When was the last time a poor person lobbied Congress to get his bill passed?

[Hermann Cheruscan]

Well, the NEA is the largest and most powerful lobbying group in DC, and they are composed of hundreds of thousands of government school employees.

[Grey]

Originally posted by The Ryan
There are countries that allow noncitizens to vote. While you may think that they are wrong in doing so, that is merely your opinion, not an absolute restriction on the privilidges that can be extended to noncitizens. [/B]

I apologize for the "high horse" comment, which was out of line. That said it is not a human rights failure to not extend voting to non-citizens. And the UN agrees with me.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.


Note the reference to his country.

As for non-citizen voting rights, US municipalities are free to extend the voting list to non-citizen, and the same can be said of various European states.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/europe/1899942.stm

I did not see any reference to federal level voting rights being extended to non-citizens except for Australia were due to its development its elections act of 1918 allows for British citizens to vote in federal elections/referendums.

From here out, assuming I can contribute anything, I'll note that m comments deal with Federal level voting.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan
Would these people be in favor of allowing wealthier taxpayers to have more than one vote, to reflect the fact that they pay more in taxes?
A person can become a citizen of the US by having a father or mother be a citizen, or by being born in the US. So should someone who was born in the US to a father and mother who are both US citizen get three votes?

Grey
I apologize for the "high horse" comment, which was out of line.
Thank you, I appreciate that.

That said it is not a human rights failure to not extend voting to non-citizens. And the UN agrees with me.
You seem to be saying that "his country" means "the country of which he is a citizen". There are many people whose parents immigrated to the US when they (the child) was only a few years old. They have few or no memory of their country of birth, and consider the US to be "their" country. And what of countries without a equivalent of the 14th amendment, that have non-citizens who, along with their ancestors several generations back, were born and lived their entire lives in that country? Should the host country be allowed to say "Well, this isn't your country, so you can't vote"? If your interpretation is correct, then I guess Americans should be really glad about the 14th amendment. Otherwise, Congress could deny the vote to anyone they wanted simply by denying them citizenship. Don't like blacks voting? All you have to do is pass a bill declaring that black people are no longer citizens.

[Hazel]

I can see no possible justification for failing to restore the right to vote as soon as the convicted person has paid his or her debt to society. That is, as soon as they are released from prision / off parole.

Should people convicted of felonies be allowed to vote while in prison or on parole? IMO, yes, they should. But I can see the justification for denying them this right. What I can't see is the justification for failing to restore the right once the debt is paid.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan
Well, the NEA is the largest and most powerful lobbying group in DC, and they are composed of hundreds of thousands of government school employees.
I suppose that's why the government keeps raising teachers' salaries, right? Meanwhile, the entertainment industry never gets their (http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/) bills (http://www.eff.org/IP/NET_Act_sentencing/) passed (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act).

Or do I have that backwards? ;)

[Hermann Cheruscan]

A person can become a citizen of the US by having a father or mother be a citizen, or by being born in the US. So should someone who was born in the US to a father and mother who are both US citizen get three votes?


What does that have do do with the price of pussy in China? In this thread, we are discussing whether felons should have their right to vote restored. Not weather native Americans get 3 votes.


I suppose that's why the government keeps raising teachers' salaries, right? Meanwhile, the entertainment industry never gets their bills passed.


Thats probably why the FedGov has a department of Education, when its not in the Constitution. Thats probably why the FedGov spends taxpayer money on education, when its forbidden to do so.

[Mr2001]

Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan
Thats probably why the FedGov has a department of Education, when its not in the Constitution.
Hmm... I don't see anything about interstate highways, the CIA, the War on Drugs, or copyrights for movies/photos/music in the Constitution either. Funny how a literal interpretation of the Constitution isn't always the correct one.

Thats probably why the FedGov spends taxpayer money on education, when its forbidden to do so.
Forbidden? That's news to me, and probably everyone else in the country. But probably the subject for a different thread.

[Grey]

Originally posted by The Ryan
You seem to be saying that "his country" means "the country of which he is a citizen". There are many people whose parents immigrated to the US when they (the child) was only a few years old. They have few or no memory of their country of birth, and consider the US to be "their" country. And what of countries without a equivalent of the 14th amendment, that have non-citizens who, along with their ancestors several generations back, were born and lived their entire lives in that country?[/B]

Fair enough, however we're now debating criteria for citizenship and not the OP which was “should felons be allowed to vote?”

As a last kick at the can, I’d say that citizenship confers greater obligations which in turn justify their involvement (i.e. vote) at the highest levels. The state can not obligate non citizens in the same way it can a citizen. The best example (and I know I’ll get hammered for this) would be a military draft.

Now how to label one person a citizen and the other not….well that would be a GD on it own. The fact is, I couldn’t find a single country that allowed non-citizens to vote at a federal level. Since citizenship seems to be required to vote, all felons who are citizens should have their right to vote restored once their punishment is complete. (HA! Got it back to the OP! :) )

[Gadarene]

A disturbing and (hopefully) unintended consequence of denying felons the right to vote, either within prison or after their parole: Given that the demographics of felons in this country cleaves disproportionately along class and ethnic lines, you're unfairly disfranchising a particular group of interests other than felons (the poor as a whole, say). That is, poor people--whether or not they're felons--are generally likely to agree more with each other on economic issues than with the wealthy or middle-class. So if I'm poor and honest, my voice in the democratic process is being systematically leached away as other poor people around me permanently lose the right to vote. Kinda sucks.

[DrDeth]

Originally posted by Hermann Cheruscan
Well, the NEA is the largest and most powerful lobbying group in DC, and they are composed of hundreds of thousands of government school employees.

I think it is actually the AARP- or at least they were about a decade ago, when i read a book about it. Got a cite for this, or is it just something you got while listening to Rush?

Nor is the Federal Gov "forbiddeb" to spend money on just about anything it damn well pleases- including education. Both parties agree on education spending.

[Gadarene]

Orrrr...maybe we don't give two flips about the poor whatsoever. ;)

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Gadarene
So if I'm poor and honest, my voice in the democratic process is being systematically leached away as other poor people around me permanently lose the right to vote.
No, your voice isn't being leached away. The voice of other people, who happen to agree with you, is being leached away.


Hermann Cheruscan
What does that have do do with the price of pussy in China? In this thread, we are discussing whether felons should have their right to vote restored. Not weather native Americans get 3 votes.
I find your tone to be rude, and I don't why it's such a stretch to go from "If someone paying X in taxes get one vote, does someone paying 2X get two votes?" to "If A, B or C is true means that someone gets one vote, does A, B and C mean they get three?"

[Gadarene]

No, your voice isn't being leached away. The voice of other people, who happen to agree with you, is being leached away.

No, the voice of other people who happen to agree with me is being taken away. My figurative voice--the degree to which my views are represented by elected officials or mirrored in public policy--is being leached away when this happens.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Gadarene
No, the voice of other people who happen to agree with me is being taken away. My figurative voice--the degree to which my views are represented by elected officials or mirrored in public policy--is being leached away when this happens. You seem to be ignoring my emphasis; I bolded "your", and you italitized "taken". I completely agree with the word "taken". That's not where the disagreement lies. Where we disagree is the word "your" (and "unfairly"). Simply because the voice is voicing your views, that doesn't mean it's yours, that you have a claim to it. Suppose that another poster were concurring with you in this matter, and was arguing against my position, but he was being extremely rude in another thread and therefore got banned. Would you really feel justified in complaining to the adminstrators that your posting privilidges have been unfairly infringed?

[Gadarene]

Perhaps we're not seeing eye to eye about the word "leached." If I support the repeal of the Third Amendment, and other supporters of repealing the Third Amendment are systematically losing their right to vote, then the chances of my viewpoint (regarding the Third Amendment) being heard and/or represented by the federal government become less and less. It's a collective action problem.

The strength of my viewpoint is being weakened to the extent that others who hold my views are silenced.

I'd say "let's not quibble over semantics," but, well...