This really bothers me. Putting aside voter fraud and registering felons (which of course is happening), why does the NAACP feel it has to go to jails to find constituents? But the thing that bothers me the most is this:
You can all but rest assured that the topic of which candidate is softest on crime (i.e. “which candidate will get me outta jail sooner?”) is a major topic at these “voter registration drives” at prisons. What’s the #1 issue on the minds of jail inmates? Getting out of the friggin jail. It’s just bad public policy to allow any group to go campaigning (yes, that’s what it is) in jails/prisons. “Vote democrat and you’ll get out of jail sooner than if you vote republican” (which is probably the sad truth). I hate voter drives because people prone to not vote are typically poor, stupid schlubs, and when you give them an Oreo cookie to register to vote, they’re very impressionable and will most likely vote for whomever the “get out and vote” drive sponsors tell them to vote for (and it won’t be for Republicans). In prison, the sole issue is getting out asap, and politicians shouldn’t be made, in effect, to cater to the desires of those in jail by promising to get them out sooner than the opposing candidate.
This is just horrible, and the NAACP should be ashamed.
Er… is the OP aware of the difference between jail and prison, by chance?
Jails are typically used to house pre-trial detainees – that is, those accused but not yet convicted of a crime – and persons sentenced to less than a year of confinement, typically the punishment for a misdemeanor.
With that in mind, what’s the specific reason for the desire to outlaw registration drives at jails again?
yes i’m aware of the difference. The reasoning remains the same… the interests of someone facing jail time (even if it’s just potential jail or prison time) is to elect representatives “soft on crime.” And there are plenty of voter registration drives at prisons too - all prisoners can vote unless they’re felons. Let them register to vote and decide who to vote for without outside help.
The whole “we’ll help you get registered, just vote for the democrat because you’ll get outta jail/prison faster if he’s elected” thing is still present.
Kalt, I read your link and didn’t see the word “Democrat” anywhere. Please explain how you got there from here, and if this thread is a serious attempt to discuss if prisoners should be allowed to vote or simply a partisan screed.
It would also be interesting to know how the number of felons in Jacksonville who are now registered to vote compares with the number of ordinary citizens there who were removed from the list because of a false list of felons provided by the Jeb Bush administration, and have not yet been reinstated almost 2 years after the problem was revealed.
The timing of the article, just before the next election, is curious, too. What, for that matter, is the traditional political orientation of the Jacksonville Times-Union? Always gotta look for agendas at work, even in newspaper management.
I suspect that, if the topic comes up at all, it would be more like which candidate is interested in protecting the rights of the accused, since most of the people are probably pre-trial. Now you may feel that “protecting the rights of the accused” and “being soft on crime” are the same thing but I respectfully disagree. In any case by the time the candidate they vote for actually enters office and criminal law is changed as a result, they most likely will have already been tried and sentenced. So the way they vote is very unlikely to have any effect on their immediate circumstance or future sentence.
I’m not sure how to even respond to this. Poor, stupid schlubs? That says everything about where you’re coming from. “Poor, stupid, schlubs” have a right to vote and a right to be represented. And by the way, as a former Republican I can tell you for a fact that Republicans also have “get out the vote drives” where they ask you to vote for a specific candidate. Both parties can and do try to get out the vote.
Kalt may have a point there. We should only permit the right folks to vote. Like me.
Those 18 year-olds are too green to know what’s what’s and those over 70 have forgotten . Then there are those foreigners who were naturalized last year but still talk and dress funny. Worse yet, those people who don’t know what’s right and don’t go to my church. And I don’t like redheads and left-handed people voting either.
I guess really the question is not whether they should be barred from doing this, but for god’s sake, why do we want to encourage them to vote? I somehow doubt these are the most upstanding informed individuals around. I have no problem having someone making making a vote contrary to my own as long as the person is informed.
I have no problem with letting them vote, but encouraging them, geez…
ElvisL1ves: the NAACP is a liberal group; they never support republicans, and they always support democrats. It’s not a stereotype or assumption, but rather the way things really are. Remember the political ads in the 2000 election accusing bush of co-killing james byrd by not enacting hate crimes laws in texas and urging people to vote for al gore? Remember who paid for that? Yeh, it was the NAACP. It’s a partisan group, sorry if that upsets you. The christian coalition is a partisan group too - they vote for republicans.
Chumpsky: and how, pray tell, do you get to the conclusion that i’m a “racist”? By criticizing the NAACP? Thought so. The sad thing is, for a lot of idiots, that’s all it takes to invote the R word :rolleyes:
greenteeth: that’s really the jist of my question (i really intended it to be more of an observation which is why i posted it originally in the “IMHO” section). Assuming the people in jail and prison can legally vote (i.e. they’re not felons), they should be allowed to exercise that right, but they shouldn’t be encouraged to, especially by a highly partisan group.
The NAACP is basically going into jails and prisons (yes both) to drive up the Democrat vote. It’s a known fact that when a partisan group does a “voter drive” they “educate” the registrants about the candidates, full spin ahead. That’s what voter drives are for; they’re not for the altruistic purpose of increasing overall voter turnout just for the aesthetics of it. I’m sure republicans/conservative groups have their own voter registration drives to do the same thing, but I’ve never seen or heard of a conservative group going into jails and prisons to help their candidate get the “crime” vote. Republicans are not as smart as democrats when it comes to using voter registration drives to acquire votes. Most, if not all, massive highly-coordinated voter registration drives are funded by liberal groups, and liberal “candidate information” and other “voter education” pamphlets are always handed out, along with candid advice about which candidate (erm, the liberal one) is the one to vote for. Doing it on a college campus is just fine and dandy, but doing this in jails/prisons is just wrong.
Actually, the NAACP has been running voter registration ads on television here. What bothers me about this is you must register to vote at least 30 days before the election! In other words, even if I run out and register to vote now, I still won’t be allowed to vote in Tuesday’s election. I’m particularly aware of this because I was naturalized in October, too late to vote in a governor’s race which I was interested in.
Kalt, while I don’t know for sure what the rules are in your state, this sounds like too little too late. I wouldn’t worry about these people voting in this election.
Bricker, davidm, these felons were not pre-trial, or misdemeanor folks. These were people, for the most part, convicted and sentenced on felony charges. The NAACP registration drive was in early October.
Felons who REQUESTED ballots: (info snipped, names dropped)
Felons who RETURNED ballots, aka voted (again, snipped)
In FL it is ILLEGAL for Convicted Felons to vote, unless they petition the state to get that right reinstated, another topic of discussion altogether. As for “undesirables” being encouraged to vote, EVERYONE who can legally vote should be encouraged to vote. And the Election here is Nov 5. People who registered Oct 4th and 5th can vote in this election.
UncleBill,
Maybe I misunderstood the tone of your message. It struck me as a general statement against jailhouse vote drives and vote drives in general. I stand by my defense of those. I agree that registrations from b]felons** should not be accepted. I suspect that this is one those rare violations that is unlikely to make a major difference in the scheme of things. But it shouldn’t be allowed and intentional violaters should face legal consequences.
Oops, I think I screwed up here. UncleBill did NOT post the OP so I should rephrase this:
I took the OP, which was posted by Kalt, as a general statement against jailhouse vote drives and vote drives in general. It certainly appeared that way to me but I could be mistaken.
as has been noted, different juridictions have different regs re: felons and voting. Some, like FLA, generally don’t allow it, most don’t allow it while they’re incarcerated in a prison, but, some do.
Prison, as noted, is different from jail. At the local county jail, you would have an assortment :
People serving short amount of time (less than a year usually) for either a felony or a misdemeanor.
People who have been arrested and charged awaiting trial, unable to bond out.
People who’ve just been arrested, waiting arraignment.
People incarcerated on failure to pay child support issues (ie in some jurisdictions, not convicted of any crime)
People who’ve been detained on a traffic warrent (again, a civil vs. a criminal matter).
as for the rest, convicted felons often are also:
parents who care about the education of their children.
employed persons who care about taxes.
patriotic persons (including some vets) who care very deeply about this country;
etc etc etc.
they’re people. they care about pretty much the same issues as the rest of us do. From my experience (working w/felons for 25 years now), as a group, they aren’t a ‘single issue’ group (the closest to a single issue I’d ever heard was they often respond positively to “I will lower your taxes”.
as for them specifically sponsoring/voting for/piling into office persons who are specifically “soft on crime”. I can’t remember the last time some one ran on a platform promising to reduce criminal penalties generally (you may find some one who ran, probably unsuccessfully, on a platform that included reducing penalties for mj. offenses for example).
One reason, IMHO, to try and get this population to vote, is in an attempt to get them to see themselves as part of society, vs. apart from it.
“EVERYONE who can legally vote should be encouraged to vote.”
Why? How does increasing voter turnout do a service to democracy? The people who don’t vote are the ones who don’t care. If they don’t care, don’t know about the issues and candidates, why should they vote just so we can smile at a slightly higher overall turnout number after the election? The bottom line is those who aren’t inclined to vote shouldn’t. No, they shouldn’t be “banned” from voting, the system works just fine how it is. Those who could care less about the system don’t participate in it. That’s the way it should be.
If you want to increase voter turnout, do it by getting people interested in the issues and educating them. Don’t do it by helping stick a blank ballot in their hand on election day just for the sake of “voter turnout.”
