NationStates Jolt Archive

We've been doing it for over two hundred years. You would think we'd be pretty good at it by now, but I've just read an article that shows our electoral system is fucked. If you're black, native American, or hispanic it seems your vote is likely to be thrown away and not counted. How is it that some third world countries can manage free and fair elections and the USA can't? Why aren't those responsible for fucking up our elections, whether they do it on purpose or through stupidity, punished?

http://www.gregpalast.com/recipe-for-a-cooked-election#more-1515

Because conservatives (and make no mistake, both US parties are conservative) don't want poor people voting for socialists, and blacks, hispanics and natives etc. are generally poorer than whites?

We've been doing it for over two hundred years. You would think we'd be pretty good at it by now, but I've just read an article that shows our electoral system is fucked. If you're black, native American, or hispanic it seems your vote is likely to be thrown away and not counted. How is it that some third world countries can manage free and fair elections and the USA can't? Why aren't those responsible for fucking up our elections, whether they do it on purpose or through stupidity, punished?

http://www.gregpalast.com/recipe-for-a-cooked-election#more-1515
Because they're elected officials--they've rigged the game and have a vested interest in making sure it favors them.

We don't like brown people here.

Probably because all of your best electoral observers are in the Third World observing their elections instead. :p

This is news?

It's one thing when Nero fiddled while Rome burned, but a disturbing number of people joining Bush to form an orchestra? We're watching a car crash in slow motion.

For three reasons:

1. Since the founders, who would be undoubtedly disgusted by the partisanship shown in the USA's politics today, envisaged a nonpartisan government they did not consider the concept of gerrymandering, therefore leaving the drawing of congressional and state legislative districts open to abuse.

2. For the same reason, the founders left drawing boundaries to state legislators, again, leaving the political system to abuse.

3. Even the design of ballot can vary from state to county, without a uniform system, again, leaving it open to abuse.

Personally, I think America needs a major overhaul in the way it conducts its elections. The political norms have changed since the Constitution was written, and the Constitution and other federal/state legislation fails to reflect this. The problem is that the Constitution seems to have a semi-divine untouchable status, meaning that amending it, even to improve the quality of government and representation, would be politcally impossible.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to condemn America and its voters.

However, from an outside point of view, I'd say that the following would hugely improve the quality of US government and, to be on topic, elections.

1. Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national IRV vote. Conduct gubernatorial and other single-winner state and county/city executive elections by the same.
2. Elect legislative bodies by STV in 3-5 seats.
3. Abolish gerrymandering and use nonpartisan boards with standards such as mathematical compactness to make gerrymandering more difficult.
4. Have a standardised ballot, instead of leaving it to states/counties etc to design their own ballots.

We've been doing it for over two hundred years.

I think, this is the reason for the complicated and old fashioned voting laws in the US.

200 years ago, it perhaps was a reasonable system, but it doesn't fit to a modern democracy.

In newer democracies, the laws are much more simple and much harder too abuse.

Stupid question: What is gerrymandering?

Stupid question: What is gerrymandering?

Adjusting voting districts to favor one group or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander

Why the hell can't the US hold decent elections?

there's no incentive to do so?

Why the hell can't the US hold decent elections?

Because you dont kick up a fuss. 2000 was your chance for electoral reform but as a populace you bottled it.

Can you see the Europeans putting up with this?

Can you see the Europeans putting up with this?

Considering that the British Prime Minister is in office having been voted for by only 25% of the electorate, the French population got the choice between the corrupt President and the Facist, and the Italians only-just-former PM is now facing corruption charges, methinks this is not as high a horse as you would like it to be.

Stupid question: What is gerrymandering?

In democracy, you choose congressman. In Soviet Russia, congressman chooses YOU!!!

It really is that simple. State legislators choose congressional/state district boundaries, and so they choose boundaries that disadvantage their political opponents and give an advantage to their allies. This effectively means that because of this and the two party system the outcome of a congressional seat can in some cases decided before the election (in a few it is so effective that the opposition cannot even get the support to feild a candidate) and in most reasonably guessed.

To give you an example:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/California_District_38_2004.png

Where this California democrat ran unopposed.

and Texas republicans have just done the same on a huge scale (http://www.countryworldnews.com/Editorial/ETX/2003/Artwork/et1023mapbig.jpg) even depriving the Democrat-voting residents of their Capital City the right to their own representative.

It's quite obscene, and goes against everything Democracy stands for. Governments should be accountable to the people. Nowarays, more or less, it's the other way round.

Adjusting voting districts to favor one group or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander

Thanks. :)

Considering that the British Prime Minister is in office having been voted for by only 25% of the electorate,
Because of First Past the Post, no other reason. And it was more like 35%. Nevertheless, a complete farce.

the French population got the choice between the corrupt President and the Facist
No they didn't, in the first round they could choose anyone. Then the top two in that ballot go on to the next. The fascist and the crook got to the second round fair and square, and above board. Look up runoff voting on wikipedia.

and the Italians only-just-former PM is now facing corruption charges,
Nothing to do with the election though.

methinks this is not as high a horse as you would like it to be.
Yeah, but our elections are fairer than those of the United States.

While gerrymandering and role purging are issues of concern, the pale in comparison to the issue of black box voting.

Considering that the British Prime Minister is in office having been voted for by only 25% of the electorate, the French population got the choice between the corrupt President and the Facist, and the Italians only-just-former PM is now facing corruption charges, methinks this is not as high a horse as you would like it to be.

but none of those 3 were suspected of vote fixing. not even by the tin foil hats.

british labour got the majority of seats in an stv party vote. there are more than 4 parties and labour dont even run in Northern Ireland. and no one, except for his constituency in newcastle voted for blair at all. france has a run off system for its presidential election and le pen got lucky as the left vote fragmented. berlusconi's corruption came to light after he founded a political party out of the ashes of another.

dont change the subject. your electoral system has seen more allegations of bias and fraud than any other western state.

Because of First Past the Post, no other reason. And it was more like 35%. Nevertheless, a complete farce.
It was 25% of the electorate, and it gives him close to 100% of the power. Certainly far more than any American President has ever held.

No they didn't, in the first round they could choose anyone. Then the top two in that ballot go on to the next. The fascist and the crook got to the second round fair and square, and above board. Look up runoff voting on wikipedia.
Interesting that when it's a European problem, it's just 'part of the electoral process', but when it's an American issue it's because the elections are 'completely unfair'.

Nothing to do with the election though.
The behaviour of politicians is nothing to do with elections and the electorate? Do tell how.

Yeah, but our elections are fairer than those of the United States.
Pfft. They elect a guy with a couple of hundred thousand votes less than the other guy and it's unfair. We (very indirectly) vote for MPs who (very indirectly) select the Prime Minister who selects the Government, the membership of the Upper House and who has Royal Perogative powers all over the place, and this is somehow a genius system?!

dont change the subject. your electoral system has seen more allegations of bias and fraud than any other western state.

It has? When was this then, good sah?

I suggest you cast your eyes slightly over to the left before replying.

Why the hell can't the US hold decent elections?

Because you dont kick up a fuss. 2000 was your chance for electoral reform but as a populace you bottled it.

Can you see the Europeans putting up with this?

Yes, yes I can.

Don't expect any of this to change if the Dems get into power, either. Considering Bill Richardson, one of the most respected Dems, participated in this, I would not be surprised if the Dems perpetuated the system or even enacted laws to make it worse. It's one of the many reasons we need to break the hold they and the Republicans have over our country.

SMD

Why would either of the two major parties change the way we vote when it favors them to have plurality voting. It assures that the main two parties will be the only two parties that really get elected.

And what we don't need is a third party, because inevitably the third party would oust either the democrats or the republicans and take over as a main party. What we need is a complete overhaul of the system. (Proportional representation) But this is highly unlikely to happen because it would hurt the democrats and the republicans.

It's all big businesses fault. The majority of Americans favour liberal policies, but it's the corporations that pay the politicians.

Interesting that when it's a European problem, it's just 'part of the electoral process', but when it's an American issue it's because the elections are 'completely unfair'.




we arent talking about what system is 'better', we are talking about corruption of the said system.

no-one claims that there is fixing and cheating in the British system, except for NI a generation ago.

there have been hundreds of allegations of gerrymandering, ballot stuffing, harrassing of voters, judicial interference in the US system culminating in the farce that we saw in florida.

why do different counties in the US have different methods of voting (pencil and paper, pen and paper, pully machine, elecronic etc) in the same election? name one other country in which this happens?

Didn't George Washington say that political parties would be the death of democracy?

Yes, yes I can.


Name me one European democracy that needed to get a court to decide the outcome of a presidential or general election because the rules were unclear?

Name me one European democracy that allows political staffers to remove people from the register?


Name me one European democracy that removes the vote from convicted criminals?

no-one claims that there is fixing and cheating in the British system, except for NI a generation ago.

There are endless stories about that! What about Dame Shirely Porter? Governments closing school's and hospitals in opposition constituencies? The fact that every single Government reorganises constituency boundaries to make them more safe?

What in God's name do you think a 'safe seat' is if not the result of 200 years of Gerrymandering? Take a look at the Constituency boundaries of the UK someday. You'll find that some boundaries are bizarre and bare no relation to any sense of geography whatsoever.

Name me one European democracy that needed to get a court to decide the outcome of a presidential or general election because the rules were unclear?
Ukraine.

Name me one European democracy that removes the vote from convicted criminals?
Er...the UK?

There are endless stories about that! What about Dame Shirely Porter? Governments closing school's and hospitals in opposition constituencies? The fact that every single Government reorganises constituency boundaries to make them more safe?

What in God's name do you think a 'safe seat' is if not the result of 200 years of Gerrymandering? Take a look at the Constituency boundaries of the UK someday. You'll find that some boundaries are bizarre and bare no relation to any sense of geography whatsoever.

well you brits always were too close to the yanks.

didnt the dame end up with a £15m bill for her troubles? Constituancy boundaries are done by cross party committee no?

at least electoral fraud as much has it happens in engerland is dealt with by the law.

We've been doing it for over two hundred years. You would think we'd be pretty good at it by now, but I've just read an article that shows our electoral system is fucked. If you're black, native American, or hispanic it seems your vote is likely to be thrown away and not counted. How is it that some third world countries can manage free and fair elections and the USA can't? Why aren't those responsible for fucking up our elections, whether they do it on purpose or through stupidity, punished?

http://www.gregpalast.com/recipe-for-a-cooked-election#more-1515

because your system is only vaguely democratic, with the whole electoral colleges bollocks? a democratic vote = popular vote, surely?

We've been doing it for over two hundred years. You would think we'd be pretty good at it by now, but I've just read an article that shows our electoral system is fucked. If you're black, native American, or hispanic it seems your vote is likely to be thrown away and not counted. How is it that some third world countries can manage free and fair elections and the USA can't? Why aren't those responsible for fucking up our elections, whether they do it on purpose or through stupidity, punished?

http://www.gregpalast.com/recipe-for-a-cooked-election#more-1515

That's right. Paper ballots aren't good enough, so we adopt electronic voting. That's not good enough, either. All the while, we ignore the fact that anyone can claim to be a registered voter and vote in their place because we don't require any ID at the polls. How many of your sainted third-world countries would let just anyone vote?

Ukraine.


Er...the UK?

Not a European Democracy and do the Brits disenfranchise criminals? There are SF MP's with convictions and Bobby Sands got elected while in prison.

Try again.

Not a European Democracy and do the Brits disenfranchise criminals? There are SF MP's with convictions and Bobby Sands got elected while in prison.

Try again.

Try again?

*Chuckles*

Inmates cannot vote in UK elections. There is no need to try again, my friend.

Germany

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/605136.stm

Sweden

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/05/europe/EU_GEN_Sweden_Election_Spy.php

Spain:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5338822.stm

Try again?

*Chuckles*

Inmates cannot vote in UK elections. There is no need to try again, my friend.

I didnt say inmates. I said convicted criminals.

There are people in your parliament that served time, so less of the smartarseism ;)

I didnt say inmates. I said convicted criminals.

There are people in your parliament that served time, so less of the smartarseism ;)

Interesting. How exactly do you define an inmate, then, if not as 'a convicted criminal?'

It was 25% of the electorate, and it gives him close to 100% of the power. Certainly far more than any American President has ever held.
It may have been 25% of the Electorate, but it was around one third of those who voted. And i'm afraid those that don't vote don't count.

Interesting that when it's a European problem, it's just 'part of the electoral process', but when it's an American issue it's because the elections are 'completely unfair'.
The American process is unfair because it is gerrymandered and in Presidential elections malapportioned.

In the UK although we use FPTP it is not gerrymandered and we have a set of standard voting procedures throughout the country. Although it elects politicians based on a minority of the vote the elections are fair.

In France, the election was again far. The french electorate wanted a vote between Chirac and le Pen. That is how the French system works.

The behaviour of politicians is nothing to do with elections and the electorate? Do tell how.
Do you honestly think that a Politician will not engage in corruption because of the electoral system in use? Would Prodi not allegedly done so if he had been elected by STV, IRV or AMS instead of a list system?

No. The electoral system in use does not directly effect politician behaviour in such a way. Some have systems that make it easier to remove a corrupt politician, and the Italian one is interestingly one of them.

Pfft. They elect a guy with a couple of hundred thousand votes less than the other guy and it's unfair. We (very indirectly) vote for MPs who (very indirectly) select the Prime Minister who selects the Government, the membership of the Upper House and who has Royal Perogative powers all over the place, and this is somehow a genius system?!
No, it's not, and I would quite happily aboligh the Monarchy and Perogatives, have an elected Senate and Proportional Representation.

However, the issue at hand is primarily gerrymandering, which does not happen in British parliamentary elections. Although there is a lack of them, they are free and fair. Don't cloud it with other issues.

I thought the Hayes - Tilden election was a lot of fun. And the Kennedy - Nixon debates were great.

Interesting. How exactly do you define an inmate, then, if not as 'a convicted criminal?'

how do you define 'struggling'? you know well what i mean but are being a pedant.

While in a British prison, you cannot vote as its part of your loss of liberty.

Upon release you can vote again as its your right.

In parts of the US, anyone with a conviction, no matter how small cannot vote.

Interesting. How exactly do you define an inmate, then, if not as 'a convicted criminal?'
Who said they wouldnt define inmates as convicted criminals? Of course in at least some cases they'd be right since inmates include suspects being held on remand while awaiting trial....

Did you know that even though all apples are fruit, not all fruit are apples? It doesnt seem likely if your question above is any indication....

how do you define 'struggling'? you know well what i mean but are being a pedant.

I know exactly what you mean. What you mean is "I asked a question that was answered in a way I didn't want, so I'm going to pretend I asked a different question."

To use your own words: try again.

Because they're elected officials--they've rigged the game and have a vested interest in making sure it favors them.

Speaking of that, Ken Blackwell (the man who disenfranchised minority voters and gave the state of Ohio to Bush in 2004,) is running for governor AND overseeing the election. Conflict of interest, anyone?

I know exactly what you mean. What you mean is "I asked a question that was answered in a way I didn't want, so I'm going to pretend I asked a different question."

To use your own words: try again.

you got your arse spanked.

let it go.

I can think of 3 MP's who have done bird (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinn_fein#MPs)and one more who got a serious conviction and deported from Ireland.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Robinson_%28politician%29)
People with records have full electoral rights in the UK, which was clearly the contrast with the US.

Speaking of that, Ken Blackwell (the man who disenfranchised minority voters and gave the state of Ohio to Bush in 2004,) is running for governor AND overseeing the election. Conflict of interest, anyone?

From what I hear, he's so far behind that if he wins, his own party will call for a recount.

you got your arse spanked.

let it go.

Your complete failure to comprehend what is going on around you is greatly amusing. :p

Your complete failure to comprehend what is going on around you is greatly amusing. :p

what age are you?

you were wrong, let it go. do you have to get the last word in?

what age are you?

you were wrong, let it go. do you have to get the last word in?

Oh, deary me. You're worse at this than I originally thought. "I said this, you might have shown me to be stupid but I actually meant that, therefore you're wrong, oh, how old are you, this makes me feel better, er, yeah."

Please. :rolleyes:

Just to clarify not all convicted criminals are inmates, this would be true even if all inmates were convicted criminals, and is still true even though not all inmates are convicted criminals....
If the comments directly above (this post) are meant to indicate that it is S.R. who is showing themselves to be stupid, I can only conclude those comments are are erroneous...

Just to clarify not all convicted criminals are inmates, this would be true even if all inmates were convicted criminals, and is still true even though not all inmates are convicted criminals....

This is irrelevant to the original question. When asked "which nation prevents convicted criminals from voting", the answer is essentially "all of them".

I expect that certain posters believe that changing a question to one better suited to them once an answer has come is more 'democratic' than the US, but, hey ho, we're not all blinded by pure anti-Americanism.

Double post

Oh, deary me. You're worse at this than I originally thought. "I said this, you might have shown me to be stupid but I actually meant that, therefore you're wrong, oh, how old are you, this makes me feel better, er, yeah."

Please. :rolleyes:

I said parts of the US dont allow convicted felons to vote.

You said Britain did the same. Thats incorrect.

It was pointed out that not only do convicted felons have a vote, at least 4 currently hold seats in Westminister and Bobby Sands got elected while in prison.

But you then say you meant people in jail, because thats exclusively what the phrase convicted criminal means.

Someone else pointed out that not all people incarcerated (and deprived of a vote) are convicted criminals. And not all convicted criminals go to jail.

But im the one plating semantics.

You pillock

This is irrelevant to the original question. When asked "which nation prevents convicted criminals from voting", the answer is essentially "all of them". .

No, then the question would have been about people in prison not getting a vote. And many countries allow prisoners a ballot, including Ireland.


Can anyone on planet earth explain what the justification for stripping felons of their vote is and how can only certain states do it for federal elections?

I said parts of the US dont allow convicted felons to vote.

Actually, you said:
Name me one European democracy that removes the vote from convicted criminals?
I'd really rather not play this all night.

Becuase this is really Bolivia and we didnt know ? The matrix is real ?

Who knows ?

Our chads are hanging and need trimming ?

The voters are stupid ?

All of the above ?

Its all Bush's fualt.

Its all clintons fault.

Its Rush Limbuaghs fault for lowering the collective I.Q. of the USA .

Its airhead America's fualt for further lowering Ameica's I. Q. to slighly above sentinent life forms ?


Not enough Vicodin ?

i wonder why america con't hold a decent election.

it has to be this way, otherwise the black people would team up and elect a black president. and then where would we be? in 24 thats where.

This is irrelevant to the original question.
Oh, I see, so what you mean is is "I asked a question that was answered in a way I didn't want, so I'm going to pretend I asked a different question."

When asked "which nation prevents convicted criminals from voting", the answer is essentially "all of them".
No the question was "Name me one European democracy that removes the vote from convicted criminals?"
"Removing the vote" and a "temporary suspension of voting rights" are not the same. The first is permament and is a removal of a right rather than a mere suspension...much like the difference between being expelled from school and being suspended.


I expect that certain posters believe that changing a question to one better suited to them once an answer has come is more 'democratic' than the US, but, hey ho, we're not all blinded by pure anti-Americanism.
Do you always talk about yourself in the third person?

We've been doing it for over two hundred years. You would think we'd be pretty good at it by now, but I've just read an article that shows our electoral system is fucked. If you're black, native American, or hispanic it seems your vote is likely to be thrown away and not counted. How is it that some third world countries can manage free and fair elections and the USA can't? Why aren't those responsible for fucking up our elections, whether they do it on purpose or through stupidity, punished?

http://www.gregpalast.com/recipe-for-a-cooked-election#more-1515

Becuase god luvs him some white man ass!

Oh, I see, so what you mean is is "I asked a question that was answered in a way I didn't want, so I'm going to pretend I asked a different question."
No, what I mean is

This is irrelevant to the original question.

No the question was "Name me one European democracy that removes the vote from convicted criminals?"
"Removing the vote" and a "temporary suspension of voting rights" are not the same. The first is permament and is a removal of a right rather than a mere suspension...much like the difference between being expelled from school and being suspended.
Ah, I see. So, what you're saying is that inmates do have a vote, right? But hang on, that's not right...so they lose their vote? So, they er, lose their right to vote as convicted criminals?

Oo er. This really is a tough one to get to grips with, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Do you always talk about yourself in the third person?
Do you always ask questions that make no sense in an futile effort to look smart?

it has to be this way, otherwise the black people would team up and elect a black president. and then where would we be? in 24 thats where.

Nope the NBA .



FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES OverviewSince the founding of the country, most states in the U.S. have enacted laws disenfranchising convicted felons and ex-felons. In the last 30 years, due to the dramatic expansion of the criminal justice system,these laws have significantly affected the political voice of many American communities. The momentum toward reform of these policies has been based on a reconsideration of their wisdom inmeeting legitimate correctional objectives and the interests of full democratic participation. State Disenfranchisement Laws• 48 states and the District of Columbia prohibit inmates from voting while incarcerated for a felonyoffense. • Only two states - Maine and Vermont - permit inmates to vote. • 36 states prohibit felons from voting while they are on parole and 31 of these states exclude felony probationers as well. • Three states deny the right to vote to all ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. Nineothers disenfranchise certain categories of ex-offenders and/or permit application for restoration ofrights for specified offenses after a waiting period (e.g., five years in Delaware and Wyoming, three years in Maryland, and two years in Nebraska). • Each state has developed its own process of restoring voting rights to ex-offenders but most of these restoration processes are so cumbersome that few ex-offenders are able to take advantage of them. Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement• An estimated 5.3 million Americans, or one in forty-one adults, have currently or permanently lost their voting rights as a result of a felony conviction. • 1.4 million African American men, or 13% of black men, are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average. • An estimated 676,730 women are currently ineligible to vote as a result of a felony conviction.• More than 2 million1white Americans (Hispanic and non-Hispanic)2are disenfranchised.• In five states that deny the vote to ex-offenders, one in four black men is permanently disenfranchised.• Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote. • 2.1 million disenfranchised persons are ex-offenders who have completed their sentences. The state ofFlorida had an estimated 960,000 ex-felons who were unable to vote in the 2004 presidential election


should convicted felons have the right to Vote ?

I dont know ...good question .

No, what I mean is This is irrelevant to the original question.
Then that's just one more error on your part.

Ah, I see. So, what you're saying is that inmates do have a vote, right?
No, what I am saying is that in a number of countries being a convicted criminal does not result in the revocation of one's right to vote.

Firstly you attempt to play semantical games, when someone attempts to redirect that discussion back to the actual points they were intending to communicate, you accuse them of trying to pretend they asked a different question. Then when someone plays your game right back at you, you try to appeal to 'original question', yet it turns out your 'semantic games' were in error (re: the original question), so now you try to pretend that the question and the answer are something other than what they are....all the while accusing everyone else of employing the very tactics you are depending on....yeah that'll fly about as well as a lead zepplin...

But hang on, that's not right...so they lose their vote? So, they er, lose their right to vote as convicted criminals?
No. They dont loose their vote anymore than a suspended student loses their enrollment. Further in at least some countries being a convicted criminal currently serving their sentence as a prison inmate doesnt result in a suspension of voting rights even temporarily.

Oo er. This really is a tough one to get to grips with, isn't it? :rolleyes:
Apparently for you it is, or perhaps you are just playing at being obtuse, only you know which.

Do you always ask questions that make no sense in an futile effort to look smart?
No, I dont do so ever...

This is irrelevant to the original question. When asked "which nation prevents convicted criminals from voting", the answer is essentially "all of them".

I expect that certain posters believe that changing a question to one better suited to them once an answer has come is more 'democratic' than the US, but, hey ho, we're not all blinded by pure anti-Americanism.


You b wrongo dude :p


Misdemeanors are crimes how many criminals convicted of a misdemeanor get disenfranchised ?;)

should convicted felons have the right to Vote ?

I dont know ...good question .
What are the reasons for denying them the vote (either in posters' own opinions or as per the legal rational)?:confused:

Also, does the complication of the apparent inability to prevent convicted felons from voting without also denying innocent persons the right to vote have a significant bearing in reasoning out the answer - to what extent ought the apparent proceedual difficulties of ensuring that innocent persons are not also denied their right to vote influence whether or not convicted felons are allowed to vote?

I personally have a hard time understanding how denying lawful citizens their right to vote as by-product of denying felons can ever be acceptable and tend to think that if you cant deny the latter without impinging on the former the whole project ought to be dropped (but then I'm not sure of the reasons for denying felons the right to vote so this might influence the weighting I give to various aspects of the issue in reaching that conclusion).