Again I ask-do you believe in taxation without representation?
Incorrect premise, as disenfranchisement does not mean these people lack representation in all manner of legislatures. What it does mean is that they may not choose who fills those seats, which is another matter entirely.
Prisoners, ex-prisoners, parolees and people on probation at all times have the right to petition their elected officials - indeed, when I worked for a congressman for a short time, I would see some of this correspondence.
The situation in DC is entirely different, since those citizens actually lack seats in the appropriate representative body.
Again, I refer you to Amendment 14, Paragraph 2:
The meaning of this amendment is pretty clear - abridging the rights of felons to vote does not in any way affect their representation in Congress, change the number of electoral votes due a state, or change the number of congressional seats a state might be due.
I think I missed my calling. I should have gone into law.
BWA? So, it was okay to disenfranchise minorities and women, since they had state and national representatives who respresented their interests? Cool! I guess no one should mind if we reinstate those laws…
Nope. Wasn’t right at all. But it wasn’t taxation without representation either. 
It seems to me that it was the English government’s position that American colonists were already adequately represented in Parliament, even though they didn’t have a say in who represented them.
No, when you impose restrictions on voting but tax people, it’s taxation without representation. If you’re all for that, find other ways to justify it. I personally am for no restrictions on voting felons, especially when the data collection is as sloppy as it seems to be, but am not worked up enough about it to make it a campaign issue.
I just don’t see the difference between representation on a state level versus representation on an individual level. If I can’t vote, I’m not being represented. After all, the members of Parliament were supposed to represent all of the King’s subjects. I don’t see how insisting that we narrow it down to the granularity of the state without going further and applying it to the granularity of the individual makes sense.
Let’s get away from the sloganeering, and look at some facts.
First, the complaint of the colonists who came up with that argument in the first place is that they had no representation in Parliament, which was true. They could not elect representatives to a seat there that directly represented them.
Now, ex-felons and even current felons here are directly represented in government by elected legislators empowered explicitly to represent the citizens within a district or state that does include them.
Also, there are numerous circumstances where taxation without representation in America is tolerated, and rightly so. When I visit Pennsylvania, and pay sales tax for purchases there, it does not entitle me to any say whatsoever in decisions by Pennsylvania’s state government or representation in the state legislature. This was likewise true when, several years ago, I had to pay income tax to the state of California for income I earned there.
We also do not permit resident aliens to vote, and we do require them to pay taxes. They are represented in the various legislatures as citizens are, but they cannot vote for these representatives. Perfectly natural and normal - again, part of the balancing act of society.
Similarly, restricting the franchise when a person commits a felony is also part of this balancing act, and states fall on various sides of the seesaw.
Use rights of petition and protest until enough people agree with you and the law is changed.
Breaking a bad law is still breaking the law.
“Taxation without representation” was sloganeering, too. After all, they had no problem restricting their own countrymen and women from voting.
You still haven’t explained why one group of citizens with no voice in the selection of their government was more adequately represented than another. I submit it is because they are not.
That’s a sticky situation, but one I tolerate due to practicality more than justice.
The only objection I see to this is a security issue: if they want to become citizens, with all the benefits and obligations this entails, and we allow them to stay here, and they pass a certain security checklist(what that is, I don’t know,) sure they should become citizens and vote. Are we taking away the citizenship of felons?
Yeah, and you change a bad law by participating in elections. Unless the law says you’re not eligible to participate. Oops.
I noted above that rights free citizens have are restricted severely when one enters the supervision of the state. So no, they don’t lose their citizenship, but they do lose certain rights that would normally attach to it.
Again, this isn’t terribly controversial either, since the loss of those rights was a sentence imposed by a court of law after a fair trial.
My objection is a combination of my reasons against the death penalty and against offender registries: if we have let them serve their sentence, I don’t see what restrictions we can reasonably put on them that don’t serve the purpose of making sure they aren’t causing more problems. I don’t have a problem with restricting their voting during their sentences, at least w/r/t this objection.
OTOH, there is the problem of justice and accuracy. For instance, if you are a felon according to a bogus law, or if you are simply factually innocent. One of the major means you have to correct this is taken away by the state. Sure, if you really really are guilty or the law is a good one, I’d have no objection, but what’s to prevent a state from abusing this when the main ones hurt by it are crippled from removing those who injured them?
Well, like I have now said numerous times, the system I favor would give a felon voting rights back after a short period of good behavior and a non-intrusive review.
So we’re not terribly far apart in this area. Just a few details, really.
What is the purpose of that interview? I mean, seriously…what questions are you going to ask that have anything to do with being an ex-felon and a voter?
Legislators really only represent the voters of their district.
I mean, we all hope that our representatives are kind-hearted enough to consider the impact of their decisions on everyone within their districts, including those who choose not to vote and those who are ineligible. But human nature is what it is. The structure of our government only ensures that representatives have to care about the interests of the people who have the power to keep them in office, i.e. campaign donors and voters.
So, Mr. Moto, do you still think I oppose prison inmates’ having the franchise? You’ve been awfully quiet about that.
Sorry. I was away for the weekend.
Okay, then, if you would, please tell us your position on the voting status of incarcerated felons. If you don’t have one, allow as such.
I really do not want to misrepresent your position, so if I am mistaken set me right as much as you can.
Not that you asked me, but I think they should be allowed to vote in the town they were residing in when they were incarcerated. Why? Why not? It does no harm.
Who’s been posting in your name while you’ve been gone? 
I don’t have a position. I was surprised to be informed that I did.