NationStates Jolt Archive

It's not just felons, is it? Aren't ex-cons also prevented from taking part in the American democratic process?

I don't agree that people should lose their rights because they're serving time in jail, or have served time in jail at some point in their lives. Democracy is supposed to be inclusive, not a country club.

It's not just felons, is it? Aren't ex-cons also prevented from taking part in the American democratic process?

I don't agree that people should lose their rights because they're serving time in jail, or have served time in jail at some point in their lives. Democracy is supposed to be inclusive, not a country club.

The logic, I believe, is that by committing a felony, they have committed treason, and are thus no longer full citizens.

Personally, I think you should not be able to vote while serving your time/on probabtion if you have been convicted of a felony. However, once you've "served your debt to society," so to speak, that should be it. At that point, you should be a full citizen again.

I agree with Dempublicents... voting is a right that comes with a responsibility. If you are not responsible you get your rights taken away as a punishment. I also agree that once you have served your full punishment, or "debt to society", your rights should be restored and given a chance to start anew.

The logic, I believe, is that by committing a felony, they have committed treason, and are thus no longer full citizens.

Personally, I think you should not be able to vote while serving your time/on probabtion if you have been convicted of a felony. However, once you've "served your debt to society," so to speak, that should be it. At that point, you should be a full citizen again.

I have to agree with that. There should be a period of time, say two or three years after their sentence is up, after which former criminals are reinstated as citizens.

By commiting a crime, a person must face the consequences of their action; they lose most of their rights.

It's not just felons, is it? Aren't ex-cons also prevented from taking part in the American democratic process?

I don't agree that people should lose their rights because they're serving time in jail, or have served time in jail at some point in their lives. Democracy is supposed to be inclusive, not a country club.
The Law is a State Law not a Federal.
Some States let vote from Prison.
Here in Michigan you can not vote while in Jail/prison once you are free you need to go register again--even if you are on parole you can vote.
Other states revoke the right completely.
This is completely constitutional--Because Federal Voting is not a Right--The president is Elected by the electoral College, any State may at any point decide to revoke the popular voting propcess and allow their electors to do the Job.
Therefore any State may at will decide who can and can not vote inside their jurisdiction.

some states bar you from any job requiring a license, including BARBER.

practically speaking, if you clean up your act and lead a respectable life after prison you can petition the governor in most states to get your voting rights back.

I wish the system was the same in the UK as it is in some States in the US. If a criminal has taken away a person's right to feel safe and secure, then screw their rights, political or otherwise. Why *should* they get to vote? Because democracy is inclusive? OK, why shouldn't I get to feel safe in my home/place of work/walking down the street? If, upon realise, they can show that they have *genuinely* changed their ways, then there is some argument in favour of that. But while they are in prison, too bloody bad about them; if they hadn't committed a criminal act in the first place, they'd have nothing to worry about.

The Law is a State Law not a Federal.
Some States let vote from Prison.
Here in Michigan you can not vote while in Jail/prison once you are free you need to go register again--even if you are on parole you can vote.
Other states revoke the right completely.
This is completely constitutional--Because Federal Voting is not a Right--The president is Elected by the electoral College, any State may at any point decide to revoke the popular voting propcess and allow their electors to do the Job.
Therefore any State may at will decide who can and can not vote inside their jurisdiction.

Well I gotta split for a few hours, so I won't be here to discuss it, but I just wanna say that that is a seriously effed-up state of affairs. You don't have the same rights and freedoms from state to state? Wha-? Voting Federally isn't a Right? What the f-?

And you Americans look down your noses at other countries? You think you've got the world by the balls? Holy crap, man it sounds like you people need to seriously rethink your...the words 'outdated' and 'atrophied' come to mind...take on Democracy. And here I was thinking that our electoral process was becoming archaic - yours is seemingly ossified by comparison.

Holy crap!

Well I gotta split for a few hours, so I won't be here to discuss it, but I just wanna say that that is a seriously effed-up state of affairs. You don't have the same rights and freedoms from state to state? Wha-? Voting Federally isn't a Right? What the f-?

And you Americans look down your noses at other countries? You think you've got the world by the balls? Holy crap, man it sounds like you people need to seriously rethink your...the words 'outdated' and 'atrophied' come to mind...take on Democracy. And here I was thinking that our electoral process was becoming archaic - yours is seemingly ossified by comparison.

Holy crap!
The Electoral College is to ensure that States with Large populations do not put a strangle hold on Federal resources so that states with fewer people are ignored because they have less voters- the Electoral college levels the field.
The purpose of States rights is to ensure that power is not centralised.
A difficult concept I know.

Okay I stuck in for another minute...I think a strong centralized federal government is good and appropriate for administrating any democracy, otherwise you have redundancy and wasteful duplication of services.

If you want devolution of powers, if you want decentralization, then why do you even need a federal framework?

Maybe it's a more difficult concept than you think. Maybe you're just used to your situation. It doesn't make sense to someone on the outside, though.

some states bar you from any job requiring a license, including BARBER.

practically speaking, if you clean up your act and lead a respectable life after prison you can petition the governor in most states to get your voting rights back.

Barber? Probably fear the guy will stab you in the neck with a pair of scissors. You sit in that chair and you never know...

Okay I stuck in for another minute...I think a strong centralized federal government is good and appropriate for administrating any democracy, otherwise you have redundancy and wasteful duplication of services.

If you want devolution of powers, if you want decentralization, then why do you even need a federal framework?

Maybe it's a more difficult concept than you think. Maybe you're just used to your situation. It doesn't make sense to someone on the outside, though.
I wasnt being a smart ass, I myself often find it a difficult concept.

If a criminal has taken away a person's right to feel safe and secure, then screw their rights, political or otherwise. Why *should* they get to vote? Because democracy is inclusive? OK, why shouldn't I get to feel safe in my home/place of work/walking down the street?
What about drug criminals? Or corporate criminals (Enron, Martha Stewart, etc.). You are overreacting. Ex-criminals voting is not going to hurt you.

Okay I stuck in for another minute...I think a strong centralized federal government is good and appropriate for administrating any democracy, otherwise you have redundancy and wasteful duplication of services.

If you want devolution of powers, if you want decentralization, then why do you even need a federal framework?

Maybe it's a more difficult concept than you think. Maybe you're just used to your situation. It doesn't make sense to someone on the outside, though.
The US wasn't thought out to be a federation in the beginning, but a loose association of states, more like a confederation. Basically the states would be sovereign in everything but would form a union for mutual defense, internal trade and economy, etc. Under that system the presidential election would not be a privilege of the citizens, but of the states.

In time the states passed more and more power to the central government and the US became a federation, especially after the Civil War, which consolidated the central power. Even so, the states still retain a lot of sovereignity over many administrative issues. In the case of elections, if a state so wants, the citizens could not vote for the president, just for their representatives and let them handle the matter. Of course, that's not the case with any state, but there's nothing legal to impede it.

That's why some things about the US seem so weird from the outside.

Republicans shouldn't object.

After all, many of these felons are GOP employees.

(Just not the black ones.)

It's not just felons, is it? Aren't ex-cons also prevented from taking part in the American democratic process?

I don't agree that people should lose their rights because they're serving time in jail, or have served time in jail at some point in their lives. Democracy is supposed to be inclusive, not a country club.

You're missing the point. Felons can't vote because they're black.

I'm just kidding. Felons can't vote because they showed they can't play nice with others. If you want, you can petition the government.

Just to get in on the civics debate, one of the reasons the US is a successful democracy is we have pretty good checks and balances. Included in those checks and balances are balancing states rights with central federal authority.

Felons can't vote because they showed they can't play nice with others. If you want, you can petition the government.
Not everywhere. I live in a rather liberal state, but once you're a convict, that's it as far as voting is concerned. Now, here's what I don't get. After you leave prison, other rights get reinstated- you're free to work more-or-less where you choose, own a house and car and whatnot, but you can't vote. If the idea is to rehabilitate criminals so they can reenter society, why deny them the right to vote? In certain cases here, you can qualify for gun ownership as a convicted felon, but you can't vote. How much sense does THAT make?

Not everywhere. I live in a rather liberal state, but once you're a convict, that's it as far as voting is concerned. Now, here's what I don't get. After you leave prison, other rights get reinstated- you're free to work more-or-less where you choose, own a house and car and whatnot, but you can't vote. If the idea is to rehabilitate criminals so they can reenter society, why deny them the right to vote? In certain cases here, you can qualify for gun ownership as a convicted felon, but you can't vote. How much sense does THAT make?
Well. I'm pretty sure that convicts vote liberal. I mean, you wouldn't want to vote for the party that advocates harsher sentences for whatever you ended up doing. Keeping them from voting makes some sense, in a dirty political way. :p

Not everywhere. I live in a rather liberal state, but once you're a convict, that's it as far as voting is concerned. Now, here's what I don't get. After you leave prison, other rights get reinstated- you're free to work more-or-less where you choose, own a house and car and whatnot, but you can't vote. If the idea is to rehabilitate criminals so they can reenter society, why deny them the right to vote? In certain cases here, you can qualify for gun ownership as a convicted felon, but you can't vote. How much sense does THAT make?

In most places you can't own a gun as a felon ever. However, think of it like this. Voting is a right to choose the course of society. As a felon (for any crime) you have decided to disrupt that society.

Two examples. You steal a million dollars or shoot someone. Both disrupt the normal rules of society in a large way. Since you have choosen to do that, you should lose your right to influence its direction.

Gun ownership is also a right. Individual ownership, however, does not necessarily influence society as a whole.

Stealing the million dollars is not neccessarily a violent act. In those rare cases that a municipality has choosen to allow these individuals to own a firearm. That is their right.

Killing someone is a violent act. Those individuals have choosen to show that they can't be trusted w/ the ownership of a potentially lethal weapon.

Just my two cents.

Which is why we let big time white collar criminals vote. They only bankrupted thousands of americans, pillaged retirement funds, stole the life savings of others. They are harmless enough.

But that black guy who got into a fight in the alleyway over a nickle bag, he's obviously a threat to our national order.

It really is a state issue, with one exception. If you're convicted of a felony in a state that automatically gives you back your right to vote once your sentence is up, no other can deny you that right simply because you were convicted of a felony elsewhere. In other words, if you're convicted of a felony in Maine, you do your time and get your right to vote back, and you move to Florida, Florida cannot deny you the vote, even though they have the most restrictive felony voter law in the US. I use Florida as an example because they've done precisely that in the past, and are still under a consent decree from a federral court to make sure they don't do it again. The consent decree dated back to before 2000, but there were still problems with their system during that election. What a shock.

Not everywhere. I live in a rather liberal state, but once you're a convict, that's it as far as voting is concerned. Now, here's what I don't get. After you leave prison, other rights get reinstated- you're free to work more-or-less where you choose, own a house and car and whatnot, but you can't vote. If the idea is to rehabilitate criminals so they can reenter society, why deny them the right to vote? In certain cases here, you can qualify for gun ownership as a convicted felon, but you can't vote. How much sense does THAT make?

Felons can own a gun in some states? Let's here it for the NRA! Yeah!!

Anyway, I wouldn't mind knowing who murderers and pedophiles vote for.
Think their Republicans?

Felons can own a gun in some states? Let's here it for the NRA! Yeah!!

Anyway, I wouldn't mind knowing who murderers and pedophiles vote for.
Think their Republicans?
No. As I pointed out before, more felons are black. Also, most blacks vote democrat. Therefore, and ignore the fuzzy logic, more felons vote democrat.

Note how I voted democrat TODAY. And how I'm not a felon.

No. As I pointed out before, more felons are black. Also, most blacks vote democrat. Therefore, and ignore the fuzzy logic, more felons vote democrat.

Note how I voted democrat TODAY. And how I'm not a felon.

Hey i didn't mean anything. If Kerry doesn't win it'll be dark in America for another four years. I wake up on Nov. 3rd I better hear "Kerry is elected!"

Hey i didn't mean anything. If Kerry doesn't win it'll be dark in America for another four years. I wake up on Nov. 3rd I better hear "Kerry is elected!"
November 3? I want to hear it before I go to bed November 2. I want to hear that Kerry's at 250 electoral votes before the polls close in California. I want a landslide baby! :D

In most places you can't own a gun as a felon ever. However, think of it like this. Voting is a right to choose the course of society. As a felon (for any crime) you have decided to disrupt that society.

Two examples. You steal a million dollars or shoot someone. Both disrupt the normal rules of society in a large way. Since you have choosen to do that, you should lose your right to influence its direction.

Gun ownership is also a right. Individual ownership, however, does not necessarily influence society as a whole.

Stealing the million dollars is not neccessarily a violent act. In those rare cases that a municipality has choosen to allow these individuals to own a firearm. That is their right.

Killing someone is a violent act. Those individuals have choosen to show that they can't be trusted w/ the ownership of a potentially lethal weapon.

Just my two cents.

Yes, felonies disrupt society, which is why we take away the rights of felons.

However, why let them out of prison at all, if it isn't because we believe they have been punished enough for their crimes? And if they have been fully punished and rehabilitated, how can we continue to deny them those rights?

We can't expect someone to stay out of a life of crime if we refuse to treat them like a normal citizen.

You're missing the point. Felons can't vote because they're black.

I'm just kidding. Felons can't vote because they showed they can't play nice with others. If you want, you can petition the government.

Just to get in on the civics debate, one of the reasons the US is a successful democracy is we have pretty good checks and balances. Included in those checks and balances are balancing states rights with central federal authority.

so you're saying felon's can't vote cuz they incapable of following social norms and mainly negros(kidding of course). ah my aryan brethern there may be hope for you yet.... now if negros(or felons in code.. wink wink) can't follow the white mans social norms and therefore should be deny franchize what other societal changes need made to effect the control of these antisocial elements?

November 3? I want to hear it before I go to bed November 2. I want to hear that Kerry's at 250 electoral votes before the polls close in California. I want a landslide baby! :D

Here, here. I just wish I'd kept my Wisconsin resgistration after I moved out here. My vote for Kerry means squat here in L.A., but if I could vote with an absentee ballot...oh, well. Nov. 2 I'll be sitting up late, drinkin' a vodka coke, and watching the poll numbers tick by - hoping my home state goes to the lesser of two evils.

The logic, I believe, is that by committing a felony, they have committed treason, and are thus no longer full citizens.

Personally, I think you should not be able to vote while serving your time/on probabtion if you have been convicted of a felony. However, once you've "served your debt to society," so to speak, that should be it. At that point, you should be a full citizen again.

Agreed. Once you're clear of prison, you should have the same rights as everybody else.

Agreed. Once you're clear of prison, you should have the same rights as everybody else.

Not counting parolees of course.

Not counting parolees of course.

Well, that isn't exactly "clear of prison." That's "you do one little thing and we'll haul your butt back."

=)

You lose your civil liberties once you go to prison, but I think it differs for each state. They're not allowed to vote because they have commited crimes against society. Their disrespect for the rules of society must also mean a disrespect for every rule, including voting.

Okay thanks for the input, people...but it still seems pretty arcane, this state-driven electoral process of yours.

I still think elections in a democratic society should allow the input of all citizens, not just those without police records or who aren't incarcerated. I don't think it bodes well for a democratic society to make distictions as to what rights its' citizens are entitled to. If you're comfortable with the notion that a man with a gavel could strip you of your rights, I guess it's not such a big leap to be comfortable with holding political prisoners in dog kennels for three year stretches.

Where does that particular train lead to? I don't know, but I'd want off at the next station.

Why should the onus be on the formerly convicted to petition their leaders to once again allow them the right to vote? I'd think that in the interests of democracy that some form of automatic change in status would be enacted, allowing the formerly convicted to reintegrate into greater society. But I suppose that doesn't mesh with the idea that incarceration is meant to be a strictly punitive experience.

Not that that idea isn't popular here as well, it's just that rates of recidivism are much higher in jurisdictions where little or no attempts are made at rehabilitation, where only punishment and retribution are practiced.

But I really am now starting to wonder if there isn't a racial or socioeconomic impetus behind this exclusivity in voting. I can only imagine that heavy-handed 'law & order' Republicans would be facing a pretty hostile electorate if it were to include all the formerly convicted. More than one person has coyly suggested that we're talking about American blacks, and I won't dispute it, I think we probably are for the most part. I wouldn't know directly, as I'm not from around there, but that would sem to jibe with what my American friends have told me, anyway.

Thanks for the input, good luck next week, remember you're voting in front of the whole planet, and just try doing what you know in your heart to be in the best interests of us all. We're counting on you. Think of it as enlightened self-interest. Think of your mom. Think of your flag. Think of your mom airbrushed to look like your flag.

No - wait. Let me think of your mom airbrushed to look like your flag, you concentrate on voting. That's better.

Okay thanks for the input, people...but it still seems pretty arcane, this state-driven electoral process of yours.

I still think elections in a democratic society should allow the input of all citizens, not just those without police records or who aren't incarcerated. I don't think it bodes well for a democratic society to make distictions as to what rights its' citizens are entitled to. If you're comfortable with the notion that a man with a gavel could strip you of your rights, I guess it's not such a big leap to be comfortable with holding political prisoners in dog kennels for three year stretches.The Democratic party generally agrees with you. It's the Republicans who have shown a propensity, time and again, for suppressing the vote, especially among communities that don't favor their candidates.

It's the Republicans who have shown a propensity, time and again, for suppressing the vote, especially among communities that don't favor their candidates.

Republicans Urge Minorities To Get Out And Vote On Nov. 3 (http://theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4043&n=1)

Since they are already running the country, we may as well let them vote, don't you think?

It is so hypocritical of Bush/Rove to go around culling felons from the voting rolls when they have been employing them in cushy jobs!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=
Iran-Contra Felons Get Good Jobs from Bush

Via NY Transfer News * All the News That Doesn't Fit

AP - March 13, 2002

Bush Employs Iran-Contra Veterans

by the Association Press

WASHINGTON, March 13 (AP)--In the 1980s it was the biggest scandal of
the Reagan administration, a covert arms-for-hostages overture to
Iran -- more popularly known as "Iran-Contra."

Today, a half-dozen alumni of that episode have found prominent jobs
in the Bush administration.

The most recent is former National Security Adviser John Poindexter,
65. The retired admiral took over a new Pentagon counterterrorism
office last month.

Poindexter was convicted in 1990 on five felony charges of
conspiracy, making false statements to Congress and obstructing
congressional inquiries. He was sentenced to six months in prison,
time he never served.

An appellate court overturned the convictions in 1991, as well as
similar ones against former White House aide Oliver North, the Marine
lieutenant colonel who ran the illegal operation. The court ruled
that their testimony to Congress, for which they had been given
immunity from prosecution, had been improperly used against them.

The Iran-Contra scandal is scarcely mentioned today. But it brought
near political paralysis to the closing days of the Reagan
presidency.

"It involved wrongdoing," said veteran GOP consultant Charles Black.
"People didn't serve the president well, and a lot of them paid a
price for that."

Another former Iran-Contra defendant is Elliott Abrams. He now serves
as Bush's special White House assistant for democracy and human
rights. An assistant secretary of state under Reagan, Abrams pleaded
guilty to withholding information from Congress, then was pardoned by
the first President Bush.

One of the most outspoken Iran-Contra figures is Otto Reich, the
State Department's top official for Latin America, who migrated to
the United States shortly after the 1959 revolution in Cuba. In his
first speech since joining the department in January, Reich said
Tuesday that the United States can speed a democratic transition in
Cuba by "not throwing a lifeline to a failed, corrupt, dictatorial,
murderous regime."

>From 1983 to 1986, Reich led a State Department office accused of a
covert domestic-propaganda effort against Nicaragua's leftist
Sandinista government.

Others given jobs by Bush:

--Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. Questions linger over
the former Defense Department official's 1986 contacts with Israel on
the Iran arms sales.

--U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte. His service in the 1980s as
ambassador to Honduras, which the U.S.-supported Contra rebels used
as a base, has drawn criticism.

--Budget Director Mitch Daniels. As Reagan's political director in
1986 and 1987, Daniels helped oversee a White House damage-control
effort.

Senate Democrats raised Iran-Contra objections last year,
particularly over the Reich and Negroponte nominations. The
appointments of Abrams, and now Poindexter, drew little open
criticism. Neither post is subject to Senate confirmation.

Congressional hearings made a celebrity out of North, who came across
as a dashing, brash commando. He stood in contrast to Poindexter,
round-faced and balding, his unruffled, pipe-smoking boss.

Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia professor who has written a
book on political scandals, said someone with Poindexter's talent and
experience "shouldn't be put in the penalty box for life," regardless
of past misdeeds.

"I doubt you could find one American in 100,000 who could explain
what the Iran-Contra scandal was all about," Sabato said.

With Israel serving as an intermediary, proceeds from the secret U.S.
arms sales to Iran were funneled to anti-communist "Contra" fighters
in Nicaragua, which defied a congressional ban.

After their convictions were set aside, North made an unsuccessful
run for the Senate, then began a new career as a syndicated radio
talk show host. Poindexter went into business as a private defense
consultant.

Poindexter rejected an interview request.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer called him "an outstanding
American and an outstanding citizen. ... The president thinks that
Admiral Poindexter has served our nation very well."

Secretary of State Colin Powell, Reagan's last national security
adviser, described Poindexter in his 1995 autobiography as
"brilliant, but in a narrow, technical sense" and not up to the top
National Security Council post. Under Poindexter, North and company,
"the NSC had gone off the rails," Powell wrote.

Poindexter graduated at the top of his class at the Naval Academy in
1958 and holds a doctorate in physics from the California Institute
of Technology.

An administration critic, Thomas Blanton, director of the private
National Security Archive, said Poindexter has a daunting intellect
and deep computer-systems expertise.

He also suggested political payback is at work in appointments of so
many Iran-Contra figures. "They were good soldiers. They fell on
their swords. Good soldiers get rewards -- at least in this
administration," Blanton said.

[Tom Raum has covered national affairs for The Associated Press since
1973.]

Copyright (c) 2002 The Associated Press



=================================================================
NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org

What about drug criminals? Or corporate criminals (Enron, Martha Stewart, etc.). You are overreacting. Ex-criminals voting is not going to hurt you.
It's not going to *hurt* me, but why should the vote of someone who's committed something against the law cancel out the vote of the law abiding citizen? And I did say if they are genuinely *ex*-criminals that could be different matter.

Political parties use the names of convicted criminals as false votes, severly mentally handicapped individuals have voted, children have voted, and even comatose victims have voted.

Last election in Ohio, amazingly enough, not only did non-voters discovered they had voted, but we discovered it was also deceased people that were voting too.

I go to the polls and use the "write-in candidate" just so I'll know that noone is using my absentee ballot for their own agenda.

"None Of The Above"

Why should felons get to vote? They obviously failed the easily understood civil contract: Don't commit crimes.

Ex-cons voting? How about; "they can't be trusted"?

Ex-cons voting? How about; "they can't be trusted"?

Then why let them out of jail at all? If they haven't served their time and been rehabilitated, that is?

People can and do change - especially when given the opportunities to do so.