No, to argue that they shouldn’t be prohibited from voting is to argue that they shouldn’t be prohibited from voting. I think that a decent case can be made that this prohibition has a negible detyerrent value, and has a significant impact on the democratic process. That can be said about punishment in general.
erislover:
If I may presume to speak for MEBuckner, I believe that what he meant to say is “Any law, were it a sentient being capable of forming an opinion of itself, would presume that it is itself just and proper.”
Grey
High horse? I was expressing an opinion about what the intented topic of discussion was. Where’s the high horse?
There are counties that aloow noncitizens to vote. While you may think that they are wrong in doing so, that is merely your opinion, not an absolute restriction on the privilidges that can be extended to noncitizens. Your second sentence is missing a dependant clause, so I’m not sure what you’re saying, but there is certainly is middle ground between allowing only citizens to vote, and allowing everyone to vote.
I notice some posters seem to be worried about “taxation without representation”, because people who lose their voting rights are still required to pay taxes like everyone else.
Would these people be in favor of allowing wealthier taxpayers to have more than one vote, to reflect the fact that they pay more in taxes? Lets say one vote for every hundred dollars in taxes someone pays? After all,anything less would be taxation without representation.
I apologize for the “high horse” comment, which was out of line. That said it is not a human rights failure to not extend voting to non-citizens. And the UN agrees with me.
Note the reference to his country.
As for non-citizen voting rights, US municipalities are free to extend the voting list to non-citizen, and the same can be said of various European states.
I did not see any reference to federal level voting rights being extended to non-citizens except for Australia were due to its development its elections act of 1918 allows for British citizens to vote in federal elections/referendums.
From here out, assuming I can contribute anything, I’ll note that m comments deal with Federal level voting.
A person can become a citizen of the US by having a father or mother be a citizen, or by being born in the US. So should someone who was born in the US to a father and mother who are both US citizen get three votes?
Grey
Thank you, I appreciate that.
You seem to be saying that “his country” means “the country of which he is a citizen”. There are many people whose parents immigrated to the US when they (the child) was only a few years old. They have few or no memory of their country of birth, and consider the US to be “their” country. And what of countries without a equivalent of the 14th amendment, that have non-citizens who, along with their ancestors several generations back, were born and lived their entire lives in that country? Should the host country be allowed to say “Well, this isn’t your country, so you can’t vote”? If your interpretation is correct, then I guess Americans should be really glad about the 14th amendment. Otherwise, Congress could deny the vote to anyone they wanted simply by denying them citizenship. Don’t like blacks voting? All you have to do is pass a bill declaring that black people are no longer citizens.
I can see no possible justification for failing to restore the right to vote as soon as the convicted person has paid his or her debt to society. That is, as soon as they are released from prision / off parole.
Should people convicted of felonies be allowed to vote while in prison or on parole? IMO, yes, they should. But I can see the justification for denying them this right. What I can’t see is the justification for failing to restore the right once the debt is paid.
What does that have do do with the price of pussy in China? In this thread, we are discussing whether felons should have their right to vote restored. Not weather native Americans get 3 votes.
Thats probably why the FedGov has a department of Education, when its not in the Constitution. Thats probably why the FedGov spends taxpayer money on education, when its forbidden to do so.
Hmm… I don’t see anything about interstate highways, the CIA, the War on Drugs, or copyrights for movies/photos/music in the Constitution either. Funny how a literal interpretation of the Constitution isn’t always the correct one.
Forbidden? That’s news to me, and probably everyone else in the country. But probably the subject for a different thread.
Fair enough, however we’re now debating criteria for citizenship and not the OP which was “should felons be allowed to vote?”
As a last kick at the can, I’d say that citizenship confers greater obligations which in turn justify their involvement (i.e. vote) at the highest levels. The state can not obligate non citizens in the same way it can a citizen. The best example (and I know I’ll get hammered for this) would be a military draft.
Now how to label one person a citizen and the other not….well that would be a GD on it own. The fact is, I couldn’t find a single country that allowed non-citizens to vote at a federal level. Since citizenship seems to be required to vote, all felons who are citizens should have their right to vote restored once their punishment is complete. (HA! Got it back to the OP! )
A disturbing and (hopefully) unintended consequence of denying felons the right to vote, either within prison or after their parole: Given that the demographics of felons in this country cleaves disproportionately along class and ethnic lines, you’re unfairly disfranchising a particular group of interests other than felons (the poor as a whole, say). That is, poor people–whether or not they’re felons–are generally likely to agree more with each other on economic issues than with the wealthy or middle-class. So if I’m poor and honest, my voice in the democratic process is being systematically leached away as other poor people around me permanently lose the right to vote. Kinda sucks.
I think it is actually the AARP- or at least they were about a decade ago, when i read a book about it. Got a cite for this, or is it just something you got while listening to Rush?
Nor is the Federal Gov “forbiddeb” to spend money on just about anything it damn well pleases- including education. Both parties agree on education spending.
No, your voice isn’t being leached away. The voice of other people, who happen to agree with you, is being leached away.
Hermann Cheruscan
I find your tone to be rude, and I don’t why it’s such a stretch to go from “If someone paying X in taxes get one vote, does someone paying 2X get two votes?” to “If A, B or C is true means that someone gets one vote, does A, B and C mean they get three?”
No, the voice of other people who happen to agree with me is being taken away. My figurative voice–the degree to which my views are represented by elected officials or mirrored in public policy–is being leached away when this happens.
You seem to be ignoring my emphasis; I bolded “your”, and you italitized “taken”. I completely agree with the word “taken”. That’s not where the disagreement lies. Where we disagree is the word “your” (and “unfairly”). Simply because the voice is voicing your views, that doesn’t mean it’s yours, that you have a claim to it. Suppose that another poster were concurring with you in this matter, and was arguing against my position, but he was being extremely rude in another thread and therefore got banned. Would you really feel justified in complaining to the adminstrators that your posting privilidges have been unfairly infringed?
Perhaps we’re not seeing eye to eye about the word “leached.” If I support the repeal of the Third Amendment, and other supporters of repealing the Third Amendment are systematically losing their right to vote, then the chances of my viewpoint (regarding the Third Amendment) being heard and/or represented by the federal government become less and less. It’s a collective action problem.
The strength of my viewpoint is being weakened to the extent that others who hold my views are silenced.
I’d say “let’s not quibble over semantics,” but, well…
)