Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote if...

[boochi]

Should welfare recipients lose the right to vote if they have been receiving benefits for more than 3 years?

 

[fskimospy]

No. Also likely unconstitutional.

 

[soundforbjt]

No.

 

[woolfe9999]

Maybe they should lose the welfare, but in no event should a citizen lose the right to vote.

 

[momeNt]

I agree but I would like to tweak it a little bit.

When you sign up for welfare aid, in order to receive you must forfeit your right to vote. This keeps it constitutional because welfare isn't a right, and the right to vote was surrendered freely.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yes, because I consider federal workers and federal contractors to be receiving welfare benefits. The merchants of death, tax collectors, TSA agents, and FBI are much more disgusting than the mothers who have 8 kids and make no effort to do anything. It's worse to be completely destructive than completely non-productive.

 

[MotF Bane]

Maybe they should lose the welfare, but in no event should a citizen lose the right to vote.

Should an inmate on Death Row still be able to vote?

 

[Ausm]

Maybe they should lose the welfare, but in no event should a citizen lose the right to vote.

And in the case of a Red State or in the throes of a GOP takeover without 16 forms of identification.

 

[Anarchist420]

Should an inmate on Death Row still be able to vote?

What if the inmate was wrongfully convicted? You can't trust the U.S. federal court systems and most other state court systems can't be trusted either.

 

[woolfe9999]

I agree but I would like to tweak it a little bit.

When you sign up for welfare aid, in order to receive you must forfeit your right to vote. This keeps it constitutional because welfare isn't a right, and the right to vote was surrendered freely.

They could probably do that, make welfare recipients sign a waiver of voting rights as a precondition to receiving welfare, but why? There is no reason other than to be punitive. If we really think welfare is a bad idea, then we can get rid of it, or if we think it's excessive, we can scale it back, as we did back in the 1990's. There is no reason to punish the welfare recipient by making them choose between economic subsistence and basic constitutional rights. It's a stupid idea motivated by animus toward the poor, not reason.

 

[Ausm]

Should an inmate on Death Row still be able to vote?

Not in my opinion but neither should any felon.

 

[Anarchist420]

The OP should've said "privelege to vote", because voting isn't a right. You can still have all of your votes if you don't vote, provided there was no state.

 

[momeNt]

They could probably do that, make welfare recipients sign a waiver of voting rights as a precondition to receiving welfare, but why? There is no reason other than to be punitive. If we really think welfare is a bad idea, then we can get rid of it, or if we think it's excessive, we can scale it back, as we did back in the 1990's. There is no reason to punish the welfare recipient by making them choose between economic subsistence and basic constitutional rights. It's a stupid idea motivated by animus toward the poor, not reason.

The reason to do it is to eliminate the conflict of interest that politicians have in creating a voting block out of disadvantaged people. If politicians effectively lose that voting block by creating a social service, then it will be kept as minimal and efficient as possible while still adequately providing for their needs.

 

[Anarchist420]

Not in my opinion but neither should any felon.

What about felons who are non-violent drug users?

 

[Yreka]

Not in my opinion but neither should any felon.

In many states they (Felons) can't already.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=286

 

[ichy]

Yes

 

[sandorski]

The reason to do it is to eliminate the conflict of interest that politicians have in creating a voting block out of disadvantaged people. If politicians effectively lose that voting block by creating a social service, then it will be kept as minimal and efficient as possible while still adequately providing for their needs.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[etrigan420]

No.

Stupid question...

NEXT!

 

[woolfe9999]

Should an inmate on Death Row still be able to vote?

In my opinion, yes. I can see depriving an incarcerated felon of 4th amendment rights, for example, because for obvious reasons the state must be able to search an inmate's cell or person freely and without cause. However, I see no compelling reason why an inmate should lose voting rights. There may be reasons, but none are sufficiently compelling.

 

[Ausm]

What about felons who are non-violent drug users?

That's a whole separate issue with the failure on the "War on Drugs".
I should have said violent felons.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yes, but only if welfare Red States count.

 

[woolfe9999]

The reason to do it is to eliminate the conflict of interest that politicians have in creating a voting block out of disadvantaged people. If politicians effectively lose that voting block by creating a social service, then it will be kept as minimal and efficient as possible while still adequately providing for their needs.

I see your logic, but the problem as you see it is overstated. Welfare recipients actually have extremely low voting turnout. They aren't likely to make much difference in a given election.

 

[zsdersw]

What happens if they get off of welfare just before the 3 years and then get back on it after voting in an election?

 

[EagleKeeper]

They are still citizen and required to pay taxes.

There is no need for a second class of citizens that have not committed any crime.

 

[woolfe9999]

What happens if they get off of welfare just before the 3 years and then get back on it after voting in an election?

I seriously doubt many poor people would even temporarily give up their subsistence benefits to vote in an election. The vast majority of them do not vote as it is.