If you look at the fourth word of what you quoted, you will see the word “legally”. If the rules under which a person is convicted remove their right to vote, then so be it. If they get that right re-established after serving their sentence, then they should be able to vote. Where I live, FL, it is difficult for a convicted felon to get that right returned. Most other states it is much easier, if not automatic.
It is unethical to entice a person to vote a certain way with a reward system, yet it happens. By encouraging people to vote, I imply encouraging them to vote INTELLIGENTLY. If they honestly don’t give a flying flip, then no, they should not vote ignorantly.
unclebill: i know i said “legally” … even those who are not precluded by law from voting should not be enticed to do so just so we can all say “voter turnouts were higher this year yay!” That does a disservice to democracy. Uninformed participation is a bad thing.
If I may be so bold, I support the point Kalt is trying to make. In a jail setting you have a ‘captive audience’, and that is not really conducive to ‘free expression’. In addition, I’m sure the ‘materials’ the NAACP brought with them (to inform the newly registered voters) were a wee bit one sided.
I mean, you do want your voters informed, don’t you.
If you’re so sure they are that ignorant and uninformed then what are you concerned about? If they really don’t have a clue then they’ll essentially be voting randomly and statistically they’ll cancel each other out. That is unless you believe that “uninformed” means “having a viewpoint on the issues that is different than Kalt’s.” If you’re concerned that they are receiving a slanted viewpoint than the answer isn’t to rail against the NAACP. The answer is for the opposition to send in their own people to educate them about opposing viewpoints.
What do you think is going on inside the county jail, Kalt - the NAACP is going in with weapons drawn and telling people to register to vote “or else?”
Nah – only those people at the jail who do care about the system will participate in it, by registering and then, later, voting. And, if it puts your mind at ease, remember that only around 50% of * registered * voters vote anyway.
It’s a self-correcting system, with two levels of safeguards. First, only those interested register, even down at the county jail. Second, only those really interested get off their ass and stand in line to vote on election day.
So sleep well, my friend. Only those crooks who care about the electoral system will vote.
While acknowledging that this in fact mostly the case, I will note that one should always be careful of absolute statements. As an example, I offer up Oakland, CA’s ( current, I think and he has won re-election since becoming a Republican despite being in a democratic stronghold ) NAACP chapter president, Shannon Reeves, Republican:
A nitpick, perhaps. Possibly enen a singular exception, I don’t know. But since I live in the same vicinity and hear about him semi-regularly, I thought I would bring him up.
I will say it again:
Convicted Felons in Florida cannot vote while incarcerated.
Convicted Felons in Florida need to petition the State to get that right returned to them (a partial or full pardon) AFTER fulfilling the sentence and all conditions of supervision. cite
Florida does not give give that right back easily.
The NAACP was soliciting voter registrations with Convicted Felons currently doing time in Florida.
They were soliciting illegal votes.
If the friggin Boy Scouts were doing this, it would be illegal.
UncleBill - you raised some excellent examples of illegal voter registrations.
But were they the result of a concerted effort to register felons? Or were they a few errors in the process of the mostly legal registrations of pre-trial confinees or misdemeanants? In other words, you mention ten felons - was this an exhaustive list? And was it out of twenty registrees - an unacceptable 50% - or out of 2,000 registrees, in which case an understandable one-half of one percent?
I maintain that while certainly no political party should be proud of finding overwhelming support at a jail (“Democrats - Favored by Nine Out of Ten Convicted Criminals!”) neither is it correct try to limit any person who is legally entitled to vote from doing so.
If the OP’s point was merely to heap scorn on a particular group or party for enjoying wide-spread support amongst criminals and accused criminals… fine, point noted. If the OP intended to offer some sort of ban on such voter registratiojn, I’m against it.
Bricker, you raise excellent questions that the article did not cover. It, of course, would have been much less exciting news to print if they had 973 good applicants and 27 bad ones. My reiteration of these facts was for the benefit of a few who may not have realized they were law. I fully support any effort to get folks to vote legally and intelligently.
As for why the NAACP went to the jail in the first place, there are an inordinately large number of black men incarcerated in this country. For whatever reason, the prison population is heavily tilted toward blacks (or “Colored People”, from NAACP). The NAACP would not do well to try this in the Country Club circuit.
The ten samples I pulled from the article were those who registered to vote after being convicted (10 of the 16 in the linked story). There were a total of 27 felons found to have registered and requested absentee ballots. These ones are the ones who used the address of the jail or work release office. They could have used a home address and had it forwarded to them in jail, but the elections folks had not checked all absentee ballots as of this story’s posting.
no, but they are going in to register people who wouldn’t otherwise register, and at the same time they’re “advising” the inmates on who to vote for. Even if they only manage to get one extra vote for the candidate(s) that support their agenda (in this case, the democrats) it is wrong. And trust me, they’re getting more than one extra vote.
Then by that logic we don’t need any voter registration drives.
If the law doesn’t preclude them from voting (i.e. they’re not felons) then all they have to do is register to vote just like anyone else, and they can then exercise their right to do so. They don’t need any assistance or encouragement (which only hurts democracy by getting people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t).
Unfortunately that’s not the case. Lots of unisterested people are pressured into registering at voter registration drives. At the same time they’re told who to vote for. Often they’re put on guilt trips to vote for that person because “s/he really needs and is expecting your vote. We helped you, it’s the least you can do…” I’ve been to countless voter registration drives, this is what’s done. It’s questionable out of prison, but in prison it’s just plain wrong, especially if/when the candidate’s position on crime/jail (i.e. how electing him will effect you, the inmate) comes into play.
As a side note, I wonder if the NAACP helps register white inmates when they do voter drives at jails/prisons? Are the disinterested white potential voter-inmates out of luck? Does the NAACP have an ethical/legal duty to assist the registration of white inmates, or can they legetimately only assist blacks who decide (then and there, of course) that they want to register to vote? After all, they’re for the “Advancement of Colored People” and whites do not qualify as colored people. Assisting white voters necessarily hinders the advancement of colored people, because as any NAACP member will tell you, whites want to keep the colored people down. Do women’s voter groups have to help register men? Probably not, I’d presume. So, I have a hunch that, as a matter of course, these guys are going into jails/prisons solely to register black people to vote for the Democrat party. If a white inmate decides he wants to vote for a republican, he’s probably out of luck in terms of getting registration assistance from the NAACP. How horrible is that (if indeed it is the case)? :mad:
Kalt, you cannot excoriate the NAACP for choosing to devote their efforts to assisting blacks. This is, after all, their mission. Nor can you complain that they fail to take a role of neutrality politically; that, too, is not their mission. They have every right to band together and support causes, politicians, and referenda that are to their liking, and to assist in the registration (legally, of course) of persons likely to help their cause.
Other groups are just as free to court potential voters and work to register them as well. It’s how the system works.
Nah – only those people at the jail who do care about the system will participate in it, by registering and then, later, voting. And, if it puts your mind at ease, remember that only around 50% of registered voters vote anyway.
Then by that logic we don’t need any voter registration drives.
If the law doesn’t preclude them from voting (i.e. they’re not felons) then all they have to do is register to vote just like anyone else, and they can then exercise their right to do so. They don’t need any assistance or encouragement (which only hurts democracy by getting people to vote who otherwise wouldn’t).
[/QUOTE]
Here’s the issue. The jail registration is only a symptom of what you see as the real evil; increased participation in democracy. Let’s debate the real issue here.
It would appear that increased participation in democracy, by definition, cannot harm democracy. You beg to differ. Defend your view.
And you know that they can just register while they’re in jail how? It’s a little tough to swing by the DMV or the County building while you’re behind bars.
**
Kalt, you cannot excoriate the NAACP for choosing to devote their efforts to assisting blacks. This is, after all, their mission. Nor can you complain that they fail to take a role of neutrality politically; that, too, is not their mission. They have every right to band together and support causes, politicians, and referenda that are to their liking, and to assist in the registration (legally, of course) of persons likely to help their cause.
Other groups are just as free to court potential voters and work to register them as well. It’s how the system works.
if they are going to assist people with doing x (i.e. voter registration) they should assist all people who need help with x, not just the black ones. Especially with voting and the racist history the process encompasses. Imagine if David Duke went around registering only white people and refusing to assist blacks. Please spare me the “a little racism now makes up for racism in the past” argument because I don’t buy it.
The bottom line is nobody - white or black - should be courting potential voters in prisons/jails. If they’re only potential voters, they should stay that way.
>It would appear that increased participation in democracy, by
>definition, cannot harm democracy. You beg to differ. Defend your view.
Increased participation in democracy just for the sake of saying “look we have increased participation in democracy” is not good for democracy. Getting people to participate who don’t know/understand what they’re voting for is a bad thing, even if there’s the possibility of all such votes cancelling each other out. I fail to see how tossing in a few million uneducated, random votes helps anything.
Why, for heaven’s sake, should they do as you suggest. I suspect you have them confused with the NAAAV, the National Association for the Advancement of All Voters. They have no particular duty to do as you suggest. They have a mission. If you feel there is a need, I advise you to form an organization to support whomever you feel is un- or under-supported. But you cannot simply assert that this particular group has some sort of duty to do as you command.
