# Jimmy Carter: Basic requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 28, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519 "2004-09-28T17:24:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/121 "2004-10-04T03:02:21Z")
Sigh. United StateS, dude. Not all states disenfranchise felons. Not all states keep them disenfranchised when they get out. Only seven keep them disenfranchised for life. Here’s a map ([sorry, another PDF file](http://www.soc.umn.edu/~uggen/felon_disenfranchisement.htm)). Neither of the states I have lived in, NY and MA, disenfranchise people who have fully paid their debt to society, and they’re two of the most populous states in the Union. The black thing worries me a bit, but I really don’t see a way around it. “White kidnapper, you scumbag, that’s no more voting for you for life. His partner, the black guy? Well, incarceration is so common for you folks we’ll let you slide.” Hmmm. Maybe we should start another thread about this whole Canadian thing? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/122 "2004-10-04T03:10:09Z")
Mehatibel, we don’t have to take time off work to vote if we don’t want to, for the polls are open in the evening as well as in the day. Having various elections and referenda rather than a single election makes it possible for each election to receive the attention it deserves, rather than be burried in a higher level election. As far as the relationship between Parliament and the Government goes, no, Parliament is not part of the Government. This should help clarify the relationship: [http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/index-e.asp](http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/idb/forsey/index-e.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/123 "2004-10-04T03:30:55Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > The black thing worries me a bit, but I really don’t see a way around it. “White kidnapper, you scumbag, that’s no more voting for you for life. His partner, the black guy? Well, incarceration is so common for you folks we’ll let you slide.” Hmmm. Simple solution: don’t disenfranchise, white or black. The USA has a very high incarceration rate, and also a disproportional rate of incarceration of blacks. The combination of the two indicates that something is seriously wrong on a racial basis. ---
**Author:** ![Mehitabel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8797f3/32.png) [@Mehitabel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mehitabel)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/124 "2004-10-04T03:48:57Z")
I agree–MA, for example, does not allow prisoners to vote (if you’ve violated the law enough to be put away, then don’t whine that you can’t change that which you flouted) but for life? Only for election fraud, in which you’ve proven that you have no intention of using the system properly. But that’s not the question. That site is interesting…but…he sure does editorialize and seems to have no idea why the US has the separation of powers. > [@](#): > > Presidential-congressional government is neither responsible nor responsive. No matter how often either House votes against the President’s measures, there he stays. He can veto bills passed by both Houses, but he cannot appeal to the people by calling an election to give him a Congress that will support him. Parliamentary-cabinet government, by contrast, is both responsible and responsive. If the House of Commons votes want of confidence in a Cabinet, that Cabinet must step down and make way for a new government formed by an opposition party (normally the Official Opposition), or call an election right away so the people can decide which party will govern. > > An American President can be blocked by one House or both for years on end. A Canadian Prime Minister, blocked by the House of Commons, must either make way for a new Prime Minister, or allow the people to elect a new House of Commons that will settle the matter, one way or another, within two or three months. That is real responsibility. …or a recipe for constant chaos, threats, and uncertainty. Maybe that’s why Canadians are so quiet and afraid of rocking the boat. Our system has evolved organically–yours was inherited from your masters. It seems to work out OK for everybody, though. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/125 "2004-10-04T04:18:02Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Elections Canada is the independent body (as in independent from the government) that runs our elections. It is not a government body, and is directly responsible to the House of Commons rather than the Government. Minor hijack: That bit confused me, until I remembered the difference in political terminology between the U.S. and . . . well, most countries, especially those with parliamentary systems. Here, we use the word “government” to mean the whole body of public institutions – what in most countries would be called the “state” (a word which, here, usually is understood to mean a state of the Union). We use the word “administration” to mean the group currently running the executive branch – what you would call the “government”. So, in American terminology, Elections Canada **is** part of the government, but not of the administration. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/126 "2004-10-04T04:31:29Z")
> [@Mehitabel](#): > > Our system has evolved organically–yours was inherited from your masters. Actually, my family have been making laws for about 22 generations (over 800 years). 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/127 "2004-10-04T13:42:48Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Simple solution: don’t disenfranchise, white or black. The USA has a very high incarceration rate, and also a disproportional rate of incarceration of blacks. The combination of the two indicates that something is seriously wrong on a racial basis. Yep. Felons tend to be disproportionately black, sadly. I agree something is wrong on a racial basis, but it would be useful to speak in clear terms here. Black people commit more crimes, way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. Any disenfranchisment of felons will affect the black community more, so long as this is true. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/128 "2004-10-04T14:07:50Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Yep. Felons tend to be disproportionately black, sadly. > > I agree something is wrong on a racial basis, but it would be useful to speak in clear terms here. Black people commit more crimes, way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. Any disenfranchisment of felons will affect the black community more, so long as this is true. Under present social conditions in the U.S., this is certainly true. But are you stating a case here for the disenfranchisement of felons, or against it? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/129 "2004-10-04T14:11:05Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Yep. Felons tend to be disproportionately black, sadly. > > I agree something is wrong on a racial basis, but it would be useful to speak in clear terms here. Black people commit more crimes, way out of proportion to their numbers in the population. Any disenfranchisment of felons will affect the black community more, so long as this is true. You know that that sounds stereotypically racist as hell, don’t you? Taking it as a socioethnic assertion devoid of racist content, there may be a point to it – in observing the news, I note that incidents of violence seem to be disproportionately heavy in certain lower-to-moderate-income predominantly-black neighborhoods – in three different cities (Raleigh, Durham, Fayetteville). This held true as well in Syracuse when we lived up north. You get sporadic coverage of such stuff in other neighborhoods of different ethnic, racial, or economic-strata composition, and in rural areas. (Apparently, any kid, of any race, who makes the age of 18 un-abused and un-beat-up in Halifax County should be recruited by the CIA – he’s proved his resourcefulness and ability to take deep cover!) And in those neighborhoods and areas it’s not a matter of race – there are several predominantly black communities and even whole counties here that never have newsworthy crime. IMO the problem in the “problem neighborhoods” is a case of the _mores_ of that particular sub-culture not matching those of the larger area – the attitude seems to be that you need to deal with it yourself and defend yourself and yours, not depend on the police, etc., who not only cannot be relied on but are actively against you and yours. Then, as a matter of historical fact, you have the circumstance that _as a generality_ black families tend to be among the poorer strata in socioeconomic terms – quite understandable when one considers where they’re starting from. (Note that that **is** a generality with numerous exceptions – but allow me to point out that I’m speaking in general terms. For every family that by hard work, wise decisions, brilliance of studies, etc., has made its way up the social ladder, there are many others not so gifted or blessed or motivated.) But also one needs to take into account the tendency, right or wrong, to prosecute more strictly crimes committed by blacks. A good-old-boy network, a kids-will-be-kids attitude that doesn’t extend to black teens, arrant prejudice, an actual higher crime rate in some black areas – the factors that can contribute to this are many. So you may actually have a valid non-racist point in what you say. But given that, what is the solution? A national law, and it might even take a constitutional amendment, barring the disenfranchisement of felons, or of felons who have completed their sentence? Permitting sovereign states to handle it in their individual ways, even if it becomes obvious that one of them is doing it out of racist motives? (That’s not a direct slam of Florida; it’s a hypothetical, rhetorical question.) How does one handle it? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/130 "2004-10-04T14:23:43Z")
Disenfranchising a significant portion of the members of community is not the way to go about improving a community. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/131 "2004-10-04T14:30:20Z")
Oh no. This shouldn’t be considered a racist statement. It was merely an observation of what is perfectly true. I was not generalizing, and saying things to the effect that “all black folks are felons.” Racism comes when you believe traits from specific individuals apply to the group as a whole. Now, we can argue over whether disenfranchisment is a good idea, or not. We can trace the effects of poverty and crime on the black community, if you like. But we can’t have either conversation without taking things as they are, and being honest about the facts. That was the point I was trying to make, however ineptly, in my response to **Muffin**. ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/132 "2004-10-04T14:39:14Z")
I realise this is the continuation of a hi-jack (sory), but I was curious about this issue: According to [this article](http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/feature-commentary/20030217/202/285), > [@](#): > > _The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country in the world. Eighteen European democracies permit incarcerated prisoners to vote, as do Canada and Puerto Rico. In the U.S., only the states of Maine and Vermont do so. No democracy other than the United States bars parolees from voting._ What is the main basis for the justification of not allowing convicted felons (or those on parole) to still partake in the democratic process? They are still citizens, and their incarnation is their punishment, not the removal of their right to partake in democracy. No? I’m not atttempting to make an argument either way, but just looking information as to why this issue is as it is). Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/133 "2004-10-04T14:40:33Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Now, we can argue over whether disenfranchisment is a good idea, or not. We can trace the effects of poverty and crime on the black community, if you like. But we can’t have either conversation without taking things as they are, and being honest about the facts. Well and good. I say the disproportionate felony-conviction rate of blacks is yet another reason to scrap felon disenfranchisement. Things will never get better for the black community if their voting strength, already limited by their proportionate numbers in the population, is artificially diminished still further, to the point where elected officials can safely afford to ignore their problems. Being allowed to vote really does make a difference. When we gave women the vote in 1920, we did not get the compassionate, pacifist social utopia some suffragists had predicted. But we did get a society where laws and public policies became, by gradual stages, much fairer to women than they had been before – because now politicians had to worry about the female vote. Political scientist Robert Dahl studied these issues in his classic _Polyarchy._ ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/134 "2004-10-04T14:48:27Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Oh no. This shouldn’t be considered a racist statement. It was merely an observation of what is perfectly true. > > I was not generalizing, and saying things to the effect that “all black folks are felons.” Racism comes when you believe traits from specific individuals apply to the group as a whole. > > Now, we can argue over whether disenfranchisment is a good idea, or not. We can trace the effects of poverty and crime on the black community, if you like. But we can’t have either conversation without taking things as they are, and being honest about the facts. > > That was the point I was trying to make, however ineptly, in my response to **Muffin**. Check. It was my intent to (1) point out that people might well take what you said as racist, and (2) do a dispassionate analysis of how it might be a non-racist, more-or-less true statement of the factual situation – because I figured that your intent was not to be racist. Any ideas on how to take practical steps to improve the situation, given that? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/135 "2004-10-04T15:14:25Z")
BTW – we’ve had threads on this before – we need to bear in mind that felon disenfranchisement in the U.S. was invented by Southern states in the Reconstruction period for the express purpose of disenfranchising blacks, and in some states was crafted to disenfranchise not all felons, but only those convicted of crimes that were perceived as “black” crimes, such as rape and larceny. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/136 "2004-10-04T15:38:08Z")
Strange, then, that felon disenfranchisement is so widespread. Keep in mind, 47 U.S. states bar incarcerated felons from voting. 29 states similarly do this for felons on probation, and 32 for those on parole. It seems that disenfranchisement of felons currently under the supervision of the criminal justice system is a widespread and accepted practice. The real fight seems to be over the continuing civil penalties suffered after the felon is freed. These take many forms, and some seem to be relatively non-controversial. Many ex-felons are barred from firearms ownership, for example. I see no great outcry to restore this right to them. I accept that the right to vote is certainly different, and that the system as it stands now is far too haphazard. In general, states administer their own election laws, but there is federal interest here where there are civil rights concerns. I would support standardizing the system, and grant voting rights back to ex-felons after sufficient time has passed to ensure there has been no recidivism. I don’t think this needs to be left to the discretion of a parole board, pardon board, or any other decision making body. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/137 "2004-10-04T15:54:26Z")
I should add, I’m fine with current prisoners, parolees and those on probation being disenfranchised. This period, ideally, is supposed to prepare you for your return to society and its norms. Once that happens, you can vote again. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/138 "2004-10-04T16:09:12Z")
> [@Dead Badger](#): > > Erm? The Carter Center is not supposed to observe the exit polls, it observes the elections proper. Basically, we have exit polls of unknown methodology conducted by partisans on one hand, and heavily audited, observed and analysed elections on the other, backed with open and published methods. You can take the former over the latter if you want, but it does make your accusations of partiality somewhat dubious. > > \*\* The fact that the Carter Center doesn’t use some method to verify the vote is my point. > > If you buy 50 lbs. of seed and you verify the weight by watching the seller weigh it then you’ve verified process and not result. There’s nothing dubious about common sense. \*\* > > Which conveniently ignores the question of whom you ask (you can’t ask everyone), where you ask (you can’t be everywhere) and how you ask (the polls were conducted by people with a clear vested interest). If you believe that in spite of all these factors, exit polls are invariably an incontrovertible reflection of the result, then presumably you can explain why two separate exit polls each gave an 18% victory to a different side, and why you believe one over the other when you don’t know anything about how either was conducted. If it’s because you don’t trust Carter, as your last post seems to admit, then fine; but accusing him of partiality on this basis is rather hypocritical. It also ignores the fact that he, personally, did not oversee the election - his organisation did, and has provided a considerable body of evidence to support its view that the election gave a true result. None of this has really been refuted, and I’ve still yet to see any suggestion as to why Carter would want to validate Chavez’s reign (other than Mr. Moto’s “he’s a dictator-loving liberal” line). \*\*I don’t trust one organization over the other. What I trust is that there is was no verification of the result. I don’t know why Carter would want to validate Chavez’s election to office but I also don’t know why he would give N. Korea a nuclear power plant. He’s a mystery to me.\*\* ---
**Author:** ![ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ZombiesAteMyBrain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZombiesAteMyBrain)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/139 "2004-10-04T16:34:28Z")
> [@sinical brit](#): > > So anyway, Jimmy Carter says that basic requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida. > > Regardless of the politics in the middle east in the latter half of the last century, > IS HE CORRECT??? By some coincidence, I read this article on the Florida voting system [from the UKIndependent] earlier today. It doesn’t inspire faith that the Florida elections will be fair this time, either. [http://www.alternet.org/election04/20052/](http://www.alternet.org/election04/20052/) ---
**Author:** ![Aro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b3f665/32.png) [@Aro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aro)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2004, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519/140 "2004-10-04T16:39:16Z")
( **Yojimbo** linked to the same piece in post #57 - got little response…) Also, as per my question above, if anyone is interested there is an [old thread here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=264702&page=1&pp=50&highlight=felon+disenfranchisement) discussig some of the issues. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jimmy-carter-basic-requirements-for-a-fair-election-are-missing-in-florida/266519.md?page=8)