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). 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?
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.
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.
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.
…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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
**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.**
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.
