Why prevent felons from voting?

[Richard_Parker]

@Magiver

It’s to keep people with the mental thought process and the morals of a politician from voting same.

Magiver, have you ever committed a felony?

Ever possessed a controlled substance? Let someone else take one of your prescription pills? Driven after drinking when you’re over the limit but feel fine? Downloaded something illegally? Violated a gun possession or registration law? Struck someone in a bar fight? Bashed mailboxes? Bought alcohol for someone underage? Failed to report tips on your taxes? Violated the terms of use on a website? Left your child with a babysitter younger than your state’s minimum? Had sex in a public place (in some states)?

No, you haven’t done any of those things because you have refined “mental thought process and morals”? Well, the vast majority of Americans have done one or more of those things. And your notion that they are all cretins is silly. It means you think your friends, family, and co-workers are all degenerates, which is a crazy old man way to go through life.

You probably picture murderers and rapists when you think of felons. But the majority of federal felons committed drug crimes, gun possession crimes, and immigration crimes. No other category breaks 10%. Homicide, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and rape account for about 8% of federal prisoners. Even in state prisons, violent crimes account for a minority of felonies. Drug crimes and public order crimes account for about a quarter.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I thought he was joking, actually.

[Richard_Parker]

It’s obviously a joke about politicians. But I assumed his description of felons was sincere.

[wolfpup]

@Bricker

I am skeptical of your allegiance to these methods.

Because Voter ID has been approved by the Supreme Court, enjoys strong public support, is in use in most states and most nations, and yet clearly none of these have managed to persuade the liberal crowd of its value.

It’s odd that anyone should be skeptical that pragmatic rationalism, learning from the experience of others, and the role of the judiciary* as a check and balance against legislative zealotry are important principles of governance. Trust me, my support of those principles is sincere.

Nice try throwing out “Voter ID” as a counter-example. It’s one of those loaded terms whose real meaning is quite different than the literal meaning of the words. Who supports voter fraud? I certainly don’t. And where I live I’m accustomed to showing both my voter card and some form of ID when I vote, and as far as I remember it has always been so. It’s for this reason that some years ago I argued in another forum – rather naively, it turns out – that I didn’t see what all the fuss was about. Well, I certainly know now. It seems that Republicans have appropriated a legitimate goal – prevention of voter fraud – and turned it into a systematic methodology for disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities, who tend to be Democrats. It’s become the modern equivalent of “voter literacy tests”. Locations and hours of polling stations and early-voting rules have also been used to similar effect.

So it’s pretty simple, despite your attempted obfuscation. Do I support a legitimate need to ID voters to the extent necessary to prevent fraud? Sure. I’ve argued as much. Do I support the abuse of such, as a systematic method of disenfranchising the poor and minorities? Not so much. Nice try, as I said, but it’s hardly the same question.

–
*though it must be said, on the latter point, that it’s discouraging when one sees the Supreme Court itself divided by ideology and sometimes ruling accordingly. Note the difference between disagreeing with a decision and observing that said decision is, yet again, established by a completely predictable 5-4 split.

[Saint_Cad]

@RTFirefly

I mean, I agree that there are a lot of rapacious interests out there who enrich themselves while doing harm to society. The question is, what to do about them.

Would you deny the vote to every payday lender? To the owners and executives of every company that makes a buck in a way that fouls the environment?

That’s rather extreme, IMHO.

Oh, wait: you’re just talking about those who would rob you with a six-gun, not the ones who would rob you with a fountain pen.

I’m talking about those that break the law because they knowingly violate the rules society has set down. Polluters may be vile and have their own interests above those of society but a line has to be drawn and for disfranchisement I prefer that line to be clear and non-ambiguous and one that has been agreed to as part of the social contract i.e. a law. On the other hand, just because your a criminal does not mean you should be disfranchised. If you steal a Coke from a 7/11 you don’t lose you right to vote but the guy in my city that robbed numerous houses for over $100,000 worth of stuff, was only sorry when he got in front of a Boulder County judge (known for their very liberal and pro-criminal rulings) and strangely did not have enough money to pay back his victims? Oh yes he should lose his right to vote until he serves his time (oh wait! he didn’t get any prison time) and make amends to his victims and/or community.

[Bricker]

@wolfpup

It’s odd that anyone should be skeptical that pragmatic rationalism, learning from the experience of others, and the role of the judiciary* as a check and balance against legislative zealotry are important principles of governance. Trust me, my support of those principles is sincere.

Nice try throwing out “Voter ID” as a counter-example. It’s one of those loaded terms whose real meaning is quite different than the literal meaning of the words. Who supports voter fraud? I certainly don’t. And where I live I’m accustomed to showing both my voter card and some form of ID when I vote, and as far as I remember it has always been so. It’s for this reason that some years ago I argued in another forum – rather naively, it turns out – that I didn’t see what all the fuss was about. Well, I certainly know now. It seems that Republicans have appropriated a legitimate goal – prevention of voter fraud – and turned it into a systematic methodology for disenfranchisement of the poor and minorities, who tend to be Democrats. It’s become the modern equivalent of “voter literacy tests”. Locations and hours of polling stations and early-voting rules have also been used to similar effect.

So it’s pretty simple, despite your attempted obfuscation. Do I support a legitimate need to ID voters to the extent necessary to prevent fraud? Sure. I’ve argued as much. Do I support the abuse of such, as a systematic method of disenfranchising the poor and minorities? Not so much. Nice try, as I said, but it’s hardly the same question.

–
*though it must be said, on the latter point, that it’s discouraging when one sees the Supreme Court itself divided by ideology and sometimes ruling accordingly. Note the difference between disagreeing with a decision and observing that said decision is, yet again, established by a completely predictable 5-4 split.

You laid out a set of principles in post 235 that you supposedly agreed were sufficient to allow us to reach sound public policy decisions.

I pointed out that Voter ID laws meet those principles.

Now you simply declare that “it’s not the same question.” What happened to the principles? Remember them? How come they vanish when this question is being considered?