Why is that their responsibility? The NAACP’s purpose is the “advancement of colored people”, after all.
Bluntly, why not?
Nobody is stopping anyone else from doing the same thing the NAACP is, nor should they. If you don’t like it, don’t whine, participate.
If a group is going to institute a racist (i.e. only registering blacks) program, it shouldn’t be done on public/state property. Jails and prisons are such property.
Consider we live in a country where just parking an empty police car at a voting precinct is considered racist and anti-black (seeing the police car keeps them away), I don’t think black groups should be going around with racist voter registration drives. Were david duke to do the same thing, he’d be banned from doing it within 10 minutes (that’s “why not”). Another reason “why not” is because groups whose purpose is the Advancement of White People are simply not allowed.
Of course, I was just wondering if the NAACP was doing this, but considering nobody is against it, I don’t see what would be stopping them. Sucks to be a white guy in prison who doesn’t want to vote but could be easily pursuaded to do so at the whim of a partisan group. Yer fucked.
Again, where is your proof that white voters were turned away by the NAACP?
Groups that have as their primary purpose the advancement of whites exist today, and are most certainly permitted. In fact, some such groups routinely obtained permits to march on public property and display their messages on public property. Have you never heard of them?
Such groups would certainly be permitted to visit jails and register voters, were they so inclined.
Your premises are simply not accurate.
i’m sure a group doesn’t just walk into a jail/prison and conduct a voter reg. drive. Surely some sort of permit and pre-arranged permission is needed. If the group’s goal is to just help some of the inmates - based on their skin color - they should be turned down the permit. Public forums such as streets, city parks, etc. have long been used for marches and displays by every conceivable group all through our nation’s history (and back across the pond, as well). Getting a permit to go into a jail to institute a racist program is not even in the same ballpark.
stofsky: i just posed the question (“I wonder if this is what they’re doing…”) and everyone seems to think they clearly have the right to do this. If there is no argument against them doing it, they’d be idiots not to. Why should they help white inmates register to vote if they have no obligation to do so? Remember, the group’s purpose is to help blacks, not whites.
Sua
where did I say 18 year olds are not capable of understanding what they’re voting for?
if the voters do vote randomly (i.e. “i just saw this guy’s name on the poster outside, I’ll vote for him” / “i like this guy’s name… same name as my brother… cool, i’ll vote for him”) - which is what often happens when you sign up someone and hand them a ballot on election day - the system is hurt, not helped… even if voter turnout is higher. Assuming the voter registration drive manages to get the registrants to the polls, they’ll most likely either vote randomly or they’ll vote for the party line that the sponsors of the voter registration drive told them they should vote for. Both are equally bad results, democracy is best served by not having such votes cast at all.
by “educated,” I mean possessing the minimal amount of information necessary to make an informed vote.
Do you have a cite for any of that?
OK, define “minimal amount of information necessary to make an informed vote.”
Sua
the primary purpose of voter reg drives is to register voters who would otherwise not be registering and influence their votes. Ever been to a voter reg drive? They’re typically all organized by liberal groups and they all tell the registrants who to vote for. I’m sure there are a few out there organized by conservative groups, and they do the same thing. I suppose there’s always that off chance that one of the registrants will become inspired and go out and learn about the issues between the time they were registered at the drive and election day, but it’s probably not going to happen. If it does, it’s extraordinarily rare. If you register someone and tell them “you gotta vote it’s your duty!” they’ll either vote for who you tell them to or they’ll vote randomly. If random votes didn’t occur on a large scale, sticking signs all over town with the candidates names on them would be a complete waste of time and money.
As for a cite, I don’t know of anyone who’s studied random voting, but unless you have an unreasonably high faith in humanity, you’ll realize that I’m right.
The only way to really define “minimal amount of info necessary to make an informed vote” is to look at situations where there’s not that minimal info. Kinda like defining what a reasonably prudent driver is. There’s no definitional way of doing that, but someone who is driving while intoxicated is not a reasonably prudent driver. Someone who votes for a candidate because they remember his name from the pretty green signs at the grocery store does not have the minimum info required to make an informed vote.
What he said.
why on earth not? Surely you remember where it was pointed out that there are often people in jail who are not ‘convicted felons’. Misdemeanors, people waiting trail (who are presumed innocent), child support violators to name just a few.
what’s different from courting the same ‘potential voters’ at a shopping mall, local college, bowling alley etc? again, if felons are to be excluded by law, you’ll find felons in all sorts of places, not just jails. and you’ll find non felons in all sorts of places **including ** jails.
i’m not saying they shouldn’t vote, i’m saying partisan groups shouldn’t go into prisons to register and “educate” them (i.e. “vote democrat”).
again. why not? aren’t Partisan groups allowed to register voters?
are you assuming that the people who register won’t ever think for themsevles? won’t ever look at a political ad for the other party? won’t ever read the paper? attend a rally? listen to an ad on tv??
Kalt, the whole thing is set up as an adversarial system. It’s inherent in the design.
Republicans don’t trust Democrats. They watch them like hawks and scream bloody murder whenever they catch them doing something even vaguely unethical. If the charges have merit, they stick, and the transgressor is sanctioned. If the charges turn out to be vapor, nothing happens.
Democrats don’t trust Republicans. They watch them like hawks and scream bloody murder whenever they catch them doing something even vaguely unethical. If the charges have merit, they stick, and the transgressor is sanctioned. If the charges turn out to be vapor, nothing happens.
The Republicans do everything they can to advance their cause.
The Democrats do everything they can to advance their cause.
Neither side is obligated to do anything to help the other.
Each attempts to implement its policies and minimize the power of the other by using the apparatus of the state. In this way, they keep each other honest.
That’s the way it works.
Why is it so hard to understand?
wring: in the context of inmates, yes. All those assumptions are valid. If they haven’t already registered to vote, they will not think for themselves when a partisan group comes into prison and registers them while telling them to vote democrat. Voter drives in the “free world” are bad enough, but they’re tolerated because any group can have them. It’s different in prisons. You have a captive audience at your mercy, and you can get them to vote for whoever you are campaigning for by telling the inmates that he/she will get them out of prison sooner if he/she wins. Nobody has a right to walk into a jail/prison and start registering voters and “educating them” about the upcoming election. Everyone is free to do it on any street corner. That’s where it should be done.
Cervaise: it’s adversarial to an extent, but there are still some things off-limits. There always have been. Rounding up who wouldn’t otherwise be voting, registering them to vote, and telling them which candidate is more sympathetic to inmate issues (read “get you out sooner”) is simply against public policy. It shouldn’t be allowed. The Christian Right shouldn’t be going into prisons to find votes either. I’m not just bashing the liberals here, although as far as I know, they’re the only ones looking for votes in our jails and prisons. I could be wrong about that, though.
Is it the Dem’s fault if the Repub’s stay away from jails? Are they supposed to only court people that have also been courted by Republicans? That seems silly.
I don’t know why you think they are bad. In an ideal world, everyone would register the moment they turned 18, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
How so? Do Democrats hold a monopoly over jailhouse visits now?
Sure, you can tell them that. But is there evidence that the NAACP or the Democrates actually did this?
Says who?
Again, says who?
You speak as if jail inmates have no legitimate beefs or political concerns. Well, if I were a black male arrested simply because he “fit the profile”, racial profiling would become suddenly important to me. I might spend a little more time listening to a candicate who shares this concern. I may decide to shrug off the blinds of apathy and register to vote for like-minded people This doesn’t seem bad at all to me. This seems like the way government for the people, by the people, is supposed to work.
You may disagree with the political views of jail inmates, but they have them and they also have just as much right to act on them as you do.
actually, Kalt speaks as if he’s never met a prisoner/been in a prison/done any research about the issue.
I go to a county jail once a week, have for several years. I’ve also visited prisons and other assorted lock ups, and have dealt with thousands of prisoners/former prisoners throughout my career.
yes, they’re a ‘captive audience’, but you’re not realizing the full impact. anyone coming into the jails etc, they’re entertainment something to break up the monotony.
So, unless you have some specific data to suggest that people who have been registered while incarcerated never research any candidtate in the future, never listen to a political ad and vote the way those who registered them way back when say to, well, then I’ll have to assume that you’re just basing your statements on assumptions vs. data.
and, bottom line -
if they are legally registered, they have a right to vote exactly however they wish.
I may personally feel that it’s insane to vote for a candidate merely 'cause they’re ‘pro-life’, but I also recognize that not only do many people do that, but it’s their right to do so.