Should convicted locked up terrorists have the right to vote?

[K1052]

Ironically, as prisons are usually in rural, conservative areas conservatives have successfully argued that prisoners should be counted as citizens of the state/district where they are incarcerated, not where they are from. This helps give conservative areas even more disproportionate clout despite the fact that none of the 'citizens' of that area can vote.

Which is another example of the perverse incentives we've created to incarcerate an ever increasing number of citizens.

 

[fleshconsumed]

I'm not ignoring it, but what you are referring to is not even close to a majority of who we are talking about. That is just as much FUD as what SS is being accused of in his first post. It is the opposite of what I said which is if you give them the rights to vote it could be used for unscrupulous party to get them to vote for you. The 2nd one is way more likely to happen and be more impactful as they have way more leverage over said group of people.

Again, I have addressed your concern in a different post. If you're afraid that the prison population vote can significantly sway overall vote it means that you have way too many people in prison because a) laws are incredibly unjust putting away too many people behind bars for trivial offenses in which case letting prisoners vote can help address those unjust laws or b) these are true criminals in which case your society has spectacularly failed and you're fucked either way.

 

[mect]

I actually agree with you pretty closely. While in prison, in particular for felony level crimes (and maybe then even not all felony level crimes) I don't believe people should vote. I don't understand why some seem to think that is a magical unicorn of a right. We take away rights as part of the punishment for certain crimes, I don't see anything that makes voting different in that respect. But, once the sentence is served out, that right should be reinstated.

To me, its not that its a magical unicorn of a right. I agree, people that break the law have rights removed all the time. However, I think there are two important considerations. The first is that in my opinion removal of rights for prisoners should primarily focus on the safety and security of society. The second consideration is the point I've made already in this thread, which is that as a nation we already have an issue with our legal system targeting minority groups. If we can ever reach a point where we can demonstrate that our legal system treats everyone equal, then maybe I'd get on board with removing a felons right to vote while serving time. Until then, I don't want politicians viewing prison as a means of voter suppression, particularly when we already live in the nation with the highest incarceration rates in the developed world.

 

[fskimospy]

Again, I have addressed your concern in a different post. If you're afraid that the prison population vote can significantly sway overall vote it means that you have way too many people in prison because a) laws are incredibly unjust putting away too many people behind bars for trivial offenses in which case letting prisoners vote can help address those unjust laws or b) these are true criminals in which case your society has spectacularly failed and you're fucked either way.

It is frankly insane that the US has incarcerated so many people that we are afraid if all the locked up people banded together they could exert major influence on our elections.

That should be a sign to any sane person that there is something very, very wrong with our justice system. It should not be a sign that we can't allow these people to vote.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It is frankly insane that the US has incarcerated so many people that we are afraid if all the locked up people banded together they could exert major influence on our elections.

That should be a sign to any sane person that there is something very, very wrong with our justice system. It should not be a sign that we can't allow these people to vote.

If they can't sway the vote, then why should it matter to anyone else that they vote or don't vote?

 

[JSt0rm]

this idiot shows up every day with a thread to feed the outrage synapsis in his brain.

 

[fskimospy]

If they can't sway the vote, then why should it matter to anyone else that they vote or don't vote?

Because it’s an American value.

I do not think non citizens should be held as enemy combatants without trial and subject to military tribunals. It’s un-American. I care about this even though there is a zero percent chance that this will affect me.

As I said before I’m sure I can find plenty of things you care about that don’t affect you.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Because it’s an American value.

I do not think non citizens should be held as enemy combatants without trial and subject to military tribunals. It’s un-American. I care about this even though there is a zero percent chance that this will affect me.

As I said before I’m sure I can find plenty of things you care about that don’t affect you.

I understand what you are saying, I simply don't agree. Fair enough. I don't think you, I or any of the others can say if this change would personally affect us one way or the other, but to think it would have zero impact on voting outcomes seems short sighted.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand what you are saying, I simply don't agree. Fair enough. I don't think you, I or any of the others can say if this change would personally affect us one way or the other, but to think it would have zero impact on voting outcomes seems short sighted.

I never said it would have zero impact on voting outcomes, only that its impact on voting outcomes is irrelevant as the decision to allow these individuals is either right or wrong on its own merits. If the choice is right and it changes voting outcomes that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[dank69]

I understand what you are saying, I simply don't agree. Fair enough. I don't think you, I or any of the others can say if this change would personally affect us one way or the other, but to think it would have zero impact on voting outcomes seems short sighted.

It may or may not affect voting outcomes. That is irrelevant, as fskimo pointed out. I also want to amplify what mect said in that any right taken away from any American should only be taken away if it is necessary to protect the rest of society. That is why they lose the right to possess weapons and why they lose their freedom to go where and do what they want. They used that freedom to harm others so they lose it.

 

[Perknose]

If they can't sway the vote, then why should it matter to anyone else that they vote or don't vote?

That's a truly ignorant question you just asked.

 

[ImpulsE69]

That's a truly ignorant question you just asked.

If you take it out of context sure. I know what I'm asking. Do you?

 

[fleshconsumed]

If they can't sway the vote, then why should it matter to anyone else that they vote or don't vote?

If any individual voting can't sway the overall vote, why don't we take away your right to vote? Surely you won't mind?

 

[ImpulsE69]

If any individual voting can't sway the overall vote, why don't we take away your right to vote? Surely you won't mind?

Completely off target on that one.

1. I'm not a felon
2. You and others are the one who keeps saying their votes don't matter, I am saying they will AND it will be abused. You can keep spouting about 'well if there's that many then something is wrong' all you want, but I agree with that. The difference is I say fix the laws rather than bandage something that doesn't change those people getting thrown in jail.

What this 4 pages of discussion has really told me is more people are just concerned they might get a felony for smoking weed than anything else. Change the law then. No one has given a 'reason' as to why they care so much that a felon can vote other than 'it's an american right'. Really? Compared to all the other American rights of non-criminal Americans that get trampled daily? Basic human needs is what they have. Hell many live better in prison than on the outside. Stating I don't think they should vote does not mean I think they need to be abused.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Ironically, as prisons are usually in rural, conservative areas conservatives have successfully argued that prisoners should be counted as citizens of the state/district where they are incarcerated, not where they are from. This helps give conservative areas even more disproportionate clout despite the fact that none of the 'citizens' of that area can vote.

That 3/5 compromise.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Slow is one of those 'strict constitutionalist' types who has never actually read the Constitution.

Donald Trump hates the constitution. “It’s a very rough system,” he said. “It’s an archaic system … It’s really a bad thing for the country.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...trump-popularity-ratings-barack-a7710781.html

Slow is evidently.... Antifa

 

[1sikbITCH]

Completely off target on that one.

1. I'm not a felon
2. You and others are the one who keeps saying their votes don't matter, I am saying they will AND it will be abused. You can keep spouting about 'well if there's that many then something is wrong' all you want, but I agree with that. The difference is I say fix the laws rather than bandage something that doesn't change those people getting thrown in jail.

What this 4 pages of discussion has really told me is more people are just concerned they might get a felony for smoking weed than anything else. Change the law then. No one has given a 'reason' as to why they care so much that a felon can vote other than 'it's an american right'. Really? Compared to all the other American rights of non-criminal Americans that get trampled daily? Basic human needs is what they have. Hell many live better in prison than on the outside. Stating I don't think they should vote does not mean I think they need to be abused.

You jumped right over that little bit didn't you!! Millions of folks jailed unjustly CANNOT VOTE. Please explain for the viewers how those people CHANGE THE LAW.

Thanks.

 

[cytg111]

Its the difference between us and the rest. The west needs to cherish that vote as it personified freedom itself, an ultimate right only given up come the reaper.

 

[ImpulsE69]

You jumped right over that little bit didn't you!! Millions of folks jailed unjustly CANNOT VOTE. Please explain for the viewers how those people CHANGE THE LAW.

Thanks.

But according to everyone here their votes wouldn't impact anything! This is what I keep trying to get people to justify. They claim it means nothing, yet expect it is needed to make change! It doesn't work both ways.

Also, please point me to the 'millions' because while yes we all know people are unjustly jailed on occasion, the number jailed is around 2.2 million. Are you trying to allude that over half are unjustly in prison? Let's be real here. If the overall people being jailed voting wouldn't impact anything, then those law changes should get by just fine by the people who aren't in jail.

Again what needs to change is what is considered a felony because THAT is what most of the people in this thread have an actual issue with.

 

[compuwiz1]

I'm answering the original question in the thread title. Convicted terrorists should not be allowed to vote. They have committed crimes against America and her people, showing no regard for our country or its citizens. Anyone who has committed a hate crime against our citizens and is serving time for it should not be allowed to vote.

 

[Jhhnn]

It comes down to an issue of principles & ideology. Dems want everybody to vote & Repubs want to limit the franchise to favorable groups. The latter employ a variety of mechanisms to achieve their goals. They'll basically do anything to win. Here's a new twist-

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/...ule=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=Contributors

 

[UNCjigga]

I'm answering the original question in the thread title. Convicted terrorists should not be allowed to vote. They have committed crimes against America and her people, showing no regard for our country or its citizens. Anyone who has committed a hate crime against our citizens and is serving time for it should not be allowed to vote.

Fun question—which is the slipperier (not a word?) slope:

A) Restoring voting rights for all felons, including violent felons and terrorists (provided they’ve done their time/paid for their crime)

B) Legally revoking citizenship from US citizens convicted of terror-related crimes (I.e. rendering them stateless) in order to prevent their exercising a right to vote.

 

[fskimospy]

But according to everyone here their votes wouldn't impact anything! This is what I keep trying to get people to justify. They claim it means nothing, yet expect it is needed to make change! It doesn't work both ways.

Also, please point me to the 'millions' because while yes we all know people are unjustly jailed on occasion, the number jailed is around 2.2 million. Are you trying to allude that over half are unjustly in prison? Let's be real here. If the overall people being jailed voting wouldn't impact anything, then those law changes should get by just fine by the people who aren't in jail.

Again what needs to change is what is considered a felony because THAT is what most of the people in this thread have an actual issue with.

Why do you keep claiming that everyone here says it wouldn’t affect the vote when multiple people have said otherwise?

 

[mect]

But according to everyone here their votes wouldn't impact anything! This is what I keep trying to get people to justify. They claim it means nothing, yet expect it is needed to make change! It doesn't work both ways.

Also, please point me to the 'millions' because while yes we all know people are unjustly jailed on occasion, the number jailed is around 2.2 million. Are you trying to allude that over half are unjustly in prison? Let's be real here. If the overall people being jailed voting wouldn't impact anything, then those law changes should get by just fine by the people who aren't in jail.

Again what needs to change is what is considered a felony because THAT is what most of the people in this thread have an actual issue with.

Considering our prison population is more than double that of any other developed nation, I don't think its outlandish to think that half of our prison population shouldn't be there.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Considering our prison population is more than double that of any other developed nation, I don't think its outlandish to think that half of our prison population shouldn't be there.

That may be the case, but again, that's about changing the laws that put them there in the first place. Why should they have a 'vote' in that since they broke the law to begin with? Isn't that up to their peers to decide instead?