Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
This "hierarchy of rights" framework you're employing doesn't really make sense to me. Yes, locking someone up is harsher than not letting them vote, but I don't see how that's relevant. No positive goal of the criminal justice system (i.e., rehabilitation, deterrence, or protecting the public, as opposed to revenge) is meaningfully served by disenfranchisement.
Democrats don't have anything to gain from reducing the voting demographic at the moment, since none of the independently justifiable restrictions tip in their favor.
So the idea is that Democrats would *love* to disenfranchise some people, but they just can't think of any excuses for it? I don't buy that. I think there's a left-wing ideal of universal enfranchisement, and a right-wing ideal that only sufficiently qualified people should vote. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the latter ideal, but we should acknowledge that there is a real difference.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
This "hierarchy of rights" framework you're employing doesn't really make sense to me. Yes, locking someone up is harsher than not letting them vote, but I don't see how that's relevant. No positive goal of the criminal justice system (i.e., rehabilitation, deterrence, or protecting the public, as opposed to revenge) is meaningfully served by disenfranchisement.
If voting rights are vital, then certainly the loss thereof is a powerful deterrent.
But, more fundamentally, we are not only talking about the policy goals of the criminal justice system, but the policy goals of extending voting rights to certain populations. As I said in my last post, a convicted serial killers shouldn't be denied the right to vote as punishment. He should be denied the right to vote because he has shown himself to be unfit for the great responsibility of making decisions that have huge effects on everyone else who lives in the United States.
17 and under are still considered dependents of their parents; therefore, it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the policies governments implement benefit their children.
Once a person turns 18, they can be considered independent from their family and hence, have the right to help shape policies that effect them.
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy.
Three Points in response to this (nice new profile pic btw): 1. We don't live in a "true democracy", but a republic with democratically elected representatives. I personally hope the United States never devolves into a true democracy. There is more than enough dangerous populism already. 2. People can legally be independent from their parents significantly below the age of 18. However, some laws have considered children dependent on their parents for certain purposes long after they turn 18 (most notably, the Affordable Care Act allows 26 yos to be on their parents insurance). 3. " Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy. " Except you clearly do agree that maturity should play a role since I take it you are not advocating for toddlers or 13yos voting. Also, how about the currently incarcerated? There are tons of things "someone can think of" that should definitely have bearing on someone's right to make decisions that effect all of society.
Maturity and age are two separate things.
The currently incarcerated should definitely be allowed to vote. Committing a crime should not take away your rights. Two words if you disagree: Political Prisoners.
It would never happen? The "Lock her up" chants say otherwise.
Democrats don't have anything to gain from reducing the voting demographic at the moment, since none of the independently justifiable restrictions tip in their favor.
So the idea is that Democrats would *love* to disenfranchise some people, but they just can't think of any excuses for it? I don't buy that. I think there's a left-wing ideal of universal enfranchisement, and a right-wing ideal that only sufficiently qualified people should vote. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the latter ideal, but we should acknowledge that there is a real difference.
You're ignoring the fact that progressives since Teddy Roosevelt have favored a technocratic administrative state. A lot of the technocratic left would like to see college degree requirements for voting (I've personally met people who work at Brookings who advocate for it). The difference is that this policy proposal is very unpopular, and is far less likely to succeed than voter IDs.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
17 and under are still considered dependents of their parents; therefore, it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the policies governments implement benefit their children.
Once a person turns 18, they can be considered independent from their family and hence, have the right to help shape policies that effect them.
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy.
Three Points in response to this (nice new profile pic btw): 1. We don't live in a "true democracy", but a republic with democratically elected representatives. I personally hope the United States never devolves into a true democracy. There is more than enough dangerous populism already. 2. People can legally be independent from their parents significantly below the age of 18. However, some laws have considered children dependent on their parents for certain purposes long after they turn 18 (most notably, the Affordable Care Act allows 26 yos to be on their parents insurance). 3. " Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy. " Except you clearly do agree that maturity should play a role since I take it you are not advocating for toddlers or 13yos voting. Also, how about the currently incarcerated? There are tons of things "someone can think of" that should definitely have bearing on someone's right to make decisions that effect all of society.
Maturity and age are two separate things.
The currently incarcerated should definitely be allowed to vote. Committing a crime should not take away your rights. Two words if you disagree: Political Prisoners.
It would never happen? The "Lock her up" chants say otherwise.
Voting is a privilege, not a right. They are forfeiting the privilege to vote, not the right to vote in my opinion...
17 and under are still considered dependents of their parents; therefore, it is the parents responsibility to make sure that the policies governments implement benefit their children.
Once a person turns 18, they can be considered independent from their family and hence, have the right to help shape policies that effect them.
Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy.
Three Points in response to this (nice new profile pic btw): 1. We don't live in a "true democracy", but a republic with democratically elected representatives. I personally hope the United States never devolves into a true democracy. There is more than enough dangerous populism already. 2. People can legally be independent from their parents significantly below the age of 18. However, some laws have considered children dependent on their parents for certain purposes long after they turn 18 (most notably, the Affordable Care Act allows 26 yos to be on their parents insurance). 3. " Maturity, education, past criminal activity, incarceration or anything else someone can think of should have no baring on an independent person's ability to exercise their right to vote in a true democracy. " Except you clearly do agree that maturity should play a role since I take it you are not advocating for toddlers or 13yos voting. Also, how about the currently incarcerated? There are tons of things "someone can think of" that should definitely have bearing on someone's right to make decisions that effect all of society.
Maturity and age are two separate things.
The currently incarcerated should definitely be allowed to vote. Committing a crime should not take away your rights. Two words if you disagree: Political Prisoners.
It would never happen? The "Lock her up" chants say otherwise.
1. the only justification for an age requirement is maturity levels. 2. "Committing a crime should not take away your rights". That makes zero sense. Losing rights on account of committing crimes is the entire basis of our criminal justice system. Should we do away with prisons then? You lose hundreds of rights when you are incarcerated. 3. So how many political prisoners have we had in recent times on account of denying the incarcerated the right to vote. Not only do you create an imagined harm, but a counterfactual one.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
@jjstraka34 you missed all of @joluv and @deltago 's posts. That is exaclty what they are advocating for.
I think the lack of suffrage should only last as long as incarceration does. The loss of rights in prison is meant to be temporary; the punishment is meant as a deterrent. Once people have paid their debt to society, they should return to being normal citizens.
Democrats don't have anything to gain from reducing the voting demographic at the moment, since none of the independently justifiable restrictions tip in their favor.
So the idea is that Democrats would *love* to disenfranchise some people, but they just can't think of any excuses for it? I don't buy that. I think there's a left-wing ideal of universal enfranchisement, and a right-wing ideal that only sufficiently qualified people should vote. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the latter ideal, but we should acknowledge that there is a real difference.
The Democrats do not want to 'disenfranchise' anybody for sure. However, I doubt they'd be so eager for 'universal enfranchisement' if those people were going to vote Republican. They can easily take the supposed 'high road' when a good portion of the people they're championing would vote for them. They risk absolutely nothing and look like saints. Win-win for them. Not such a high road in my humble opinion...
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
@jjstraka34 you missed all of @joluv and @deltago 's posts. That is exaclty what they are advocating for.
I agree with you on former felons.
Yeah, I did miss that. I don't see how that would work. Beyond that, I also strongly have to push back on this narrative that Democrats would be attempting to suppress voting rights if only they had the chance and it benefited them. This is another one of those hypothetical scenarios that everyone just assumes would be so, based on this iron-clad "both sides" rule. But reality is that I doubt you could find even a SINGLE example of Democratic legislatures looking to make it harder for people to vote. Specifically, they would have to be making it harder for white rural voters to vote to have any parallel. And until that changes, this argument doesn't have any basis in reality. The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers.
Open up voting rights for felons, all of a sudden political parties are pandering for the votes of felons. I see very little good coming from appealing to the serial rapist voting bloc, myself.
*goes back to silently munching popcorn in the background*
I think the lack of suffrage should only last as long as incarceration does. The loss of rights in prison is meant to be temporary; the punishment is meant as a deterrent. Once people have paid their debt to society, they should return to being normal citizens.
I would agree for the most part. There are some limitations that follow incarceration for a short duration as a condition for parole, and perhaps voting rights can follow those in some cases. The devil is in the details there, but I am in general agreement that people who pay their debt to society should be welcomed back as citizens, and that includes voting.
I don't agree at all that those who are currently incarcerated should vote, even though I think overcriminalization is a big problem that ought to be dealt with.
Democrats don't have anything to gain from reducing the voting demographic at the moment, since none of the independently justifiable restrictions tip in their favor.
So the idea is that Democrats would *love* to disenfranchise some people, but they just can't think of any excuses for it? I don't buy that. I think there's a left-wing ideal of universal enfranchisement, and a right-wing ideal that only sufficiently qualified people should vote. I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the latter ideal, but we should acknowledge that there is a real difference.
The Democrats do not want to 'disenfranchise' anybody for sure. However, I doubt they'd be so eager for 'universal enfranchisement' if those people were going to vote Republican. They can easily take the supposed 'high road' when a good portion of the people they're championing would vote for them. They risk absolutely nothing and look like saints. Win-win for them. Not such a high road in my humble opinion...
Again, this argument and assumption is taking place in a alternate reality that doesn't exist. It's just assuming they would be just as bad as Republicans on this issue if the tables were turned, but since the tables AREN'T turned, there is no way to prove this.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
@jjstraka34 you missed all of @joluv and @deltago 's posts. That is exaclty what they are advocating for.
I agree with you on former felons.
Yeah, I did miss that. I don't see how that would work. Beyond that, I also strongly have to push back on this narrative that Democrats would be attempting to suppress voting rights if only they had the chance and it benefited them. This is another one of those hypothetical scenarios that everyone just assumes would be so, based on this iron-clad "both sides" rule. But reality is that I doubt you could find even a SINGLE example of Democratic legislatures looking to make it harder for people to vote. Specifically, they would have to be making it harder for white rural voters to vote to have any parallel. And until that changes, this argument doesn't have any basis in reality. The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers.
The only example I can think of is in Vermont and New Hampshire they raised the amount of time one needs to stay in the state to vote in state and local elections. In New Hampshire they feared the Free State movement, while in Vermont they did not like all the Republican hunters who were moving in.
"The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers."
The Brookings Institute is highly influential, and has the most brilliant minds on the left by far.
Open up voting rights for felons, all of a sudden political parties are pandering for the votes of felons. I see very little good coming from appealing to the serial rapist voting bloc, myself.
*goes back to silently munching popcorn in the background*
This would seem to be an issue of the sentences for serial rapists being too light if that was the case. They should be in jail for life if they are guilty of those crimes.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
@jjstraka34 you missed all of @joluv and @deltago 's posts. That is exaclty what they are advocating for.
I agree with you on former felons.
Yeah, I did miss that. I don't see how that would work. Beyond that, I also strongly have to push back on this narrative that Democrats would be attempting to suppress voting rights if only they had the chance and it benefited them. This is another one of those hypothetical scenarios that everyone just assumes would be so, based on this iron-clad "both sides" rule. But reality is that I doubt you could find even a SINGLE example of Democratic legislatures looking to make it harder for people to vote. Specifically, they would have to be making it harder for white rural voters to vote to have any parallel. And until that changes, this argument doesn't have any basis in reality. The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers.
I totally said they wouldn't disenfranchise anybody. I said they wouldn't be looking to 'enfranchise' groups that wouldn't likely vote their way. Throw in the fact that they're all for getting those folks into our social welfare system and I'll flat out say that they're trying to buy votes!
Open up voting rights for felons, all of a sudden political parties are pandering for the votes of felons. I see very little good coming from appealing to the serial rapist voting bloc, myself.
*goes back to silently munching popcorn in the background*
This would seem to be an issue of the sentences for serial rapists being too light if that was the case. They should be in jail for life if they are guilty of those crimes.
I assume he was referencing the proposal that the currently incarcerated should vote, not former felons.
I don't see how favoring a technocratic administrative state directly leads to a desire to suppress voting rights, and Brookings is full of centrist/elitist doofuses.
My objection, though, was more to the suggestion that people arguing for voting rights do so only out of cynical self-interest. Championing voting rights of convicted felons, for example, is not great politics.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
@jjstraka34 you missed all of @joluv and @deltago 's posts. That is exaclty what they are advocating for.
I agree with you on former felons.
Yeah, I did miss that. I don't see how that would work. Beyond that, I also strongly have to push back on this narrative that Democrats would be attempting to suppress voting rights if only they had the chance and it benefited them. This is another one of those hypothetical scenarios that everyone just assumes would be so, based on this iron-clad "both sides" rule. But reality is that I doubt you could find even a SINGLE example of Democratic legislatures looking to make it harder for people to vote. Specifically, they would have to be making it harder for white rural voters to vote to have any parallel. And until that changes, this argument doesn't have any basis in reality. The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers.
Throw in the fact that they're all for getting those folks into our social welfare system and I'll flat out say that they're trying to buy votes!
While that certainly may be the effect, and even the intent in some limited circumstances, I think we should all impute good intentions in political opponents. I believe that the vast majority of elected officials who believe in extending social welfare do so for achieving a social good rather than simply buying votes.
I think Balrog is referring to the political elites moreso than the idealistic people on the ground, though I don't want to put words in his mouth. I subscribe far less good intentions to political leaders than ordinary folks with political opinions.
My objection, though, was more to the suggestion that people arguing for voting rights do so only out of cynical self-interest.
I never once suggested that they did.
I would suggest that some reasonable regulations on voting rights have merit aside from political gamesmanship, even if they are often promoted by people with the intent to gain electoral advantages.
I am absolutely for as little restriction on voting as possible. But in our current climate, the only people who actually have trouble voting (in certain states) are minorities, the poor, and college students. I don't think currently serving prisoners should be able to vote. I do think they should be able to vote when their sentence is finished. Obviously, non-citizens CAN'T vote (and wouldn't dare do so in this climate, because the risk/reward of the act is totally skewed).
My objection, though, was more to the suggestion that people arguing for voting rights do so only out of cynical self-interest.
I never once suggested that they did.
I would suggest that some reasonable regulations on voting rights have merit aside from political gamesmanship, even if they are often promoted by people with the intent to gain electoral advantages.
Currently incarcerated people and legally emancipated teens should be allowed to vote.
I disagree. I don't think a just society allows convicted serial killers to have the same say in important policy decisions as you or I.
Perhaps exceptions can be made for non-violent crimes, but even then if you can be deprived of basic liberty on account of your guilt you can be deprived of your right to make decisions that affect others. I think most would agree that the right to not live in a cage is superior to a right to vote.
That said, it would create an interesting incentive to correct our overcriminalization problem.
Serial killers aren't getting out of prison. We are talking about people who serve their time, are off parole, and have no more debt to society. No one is advocating that people in jail or prison be able to vote. But if someone serves a 10-year sentence for a drug charge, and is released, well....yeah, he should be able to vote.
@jjstraka34 you missed all of @joluv and @deltago 's posts. That is exaclty what they are advocating for.
I agree with you on former felons.
Yeah, I did miss that. I don't see how that would work. Beyond that, I also strongly have to push back on this narrative that Democrats would be attempting to suppress voting rights if only they had the chance and it benefited them. This is another one of those hypothetical scenarios that everyone just assumes would be so, based on this iron-clad "both sides" rule. But reality is that I doubt you could find even a SINGLE example of Democratic legislatures looking to make it harder for people to vote. Specifically, they would have to be making it harder for white rural voters to vote to have any parallel. And until that changes, this argument doesn't have any basis in reality. The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers.
Throw in the fact that they're all for getting those folks into our social welfare system and I'll flat out say that they're trying to buy votes!
While that certainly may be the effect, and even the intent in some limited circumstances, I think we should all impute good intentions in political opponents. I believe that the vast majority of elected officials who believe in extending social welfare do so for achieving a social good rather than simply buying votes.
The focus should be on integrating them into our society. Ie: Getting them job skills or otherwise giving them the ability to take care of themselves. I'd be all for that. Handouts are not the answer, they perpetuate the problem ad infinitum. The difference between earning something and having something given to you is like night and day. I'm not talking about people who can't take care of themselves due to disabilities or whatnot so don't throw that usual stone at me.
I don't think anyone was arguing against you about welfare programs, @Balrog99. I think @booinyoureyes was just saying that (at least some) people who support welfare programs also have good-faith reasons for their position.
I think it's naive to think those attracted to political power are sincere ideologues most of the time. Those who want power for themselves are usually self interested by default, and I think the susceptibility of politicians to lobbies proves me right on this. Do I think Obama had a sincere change of heart about gay marriage during the course of his presidency rather than reading the political winds accurately and changing positions accordingly? Not at all.
I suspect that most politicians are fairly ideological on a narrow set of issues and much more "flexible"/pragmatic on the rest of them.
The gay marriage issue was especially weird because it was more or less universally understood for years that almost all Democratic politicians favored legalizing gay marriage but were unwilling to go out on a limb for it.
Comments
But, more fundamentally, we are not only talking about the policy goals of the criminal justice system, but the policy goals of extending voting rights to certain populations. As I said in my last post, a convicted serial killers shouldn't be denied the right to vote as punishment. He should be denied the right to vote because he has shown himself to be unfit for the great responsibility of making decisions that have huge effects on everyone else who lives in the United States.
The currently incarcerated should definitely be allowed to vote. Committing a crime should not take away your rights. Two words if you disagree: Political Prisoners.
It would never happen? The "Lock her up" chants say otherwise.
2. "Committing a crime should not take away your rights". That makes zero sense. Losing rights on account of committing crimes is the entire basis of our criminal justice system. Should we do away with prisons then? You lose hundreds of rights when you are incarcerated.
3. So how many political prisoners have we had in recent times on account of denying the incarcerated the right to vote. Not only do you create an imagined harm, but a counterfactual one.
I agree with you on former felons.
*goes back to silently munching popcorn in the background*
I don't agree at all that those who are currently incarcerated should vote, even though I think overcriminalization is a big problem that ought to be dealt with.
"The technocrats you mentioned certainly aren't having any effect on actual Democratic policy makers."
The Brookings Institute is highly influential, and has the most brilliant minds on the left by far.
I don't see how favoring a technocratic administrative state directly leads to a desire to suppress voting rights, and Brookings is full of centrist/elitist doofuses.
My objection, though, was more to the suggestion that people arguing for voting rights do so only out of cynical self-interest. Championing voting rights of convicted felons, for example, is not great politics.
I would suggest that some reasonable regulations on voting rights have merit aside from political gamesmanship, even if they are often promoted by people with the intent to gain electoral advantages.
The gay marriage issue was especially weird because it was more or less universally understood for years that almost all Democratic politicians favored legalizing gay marriage but were unwilling to go out on a limb for it.