Who should have the right to vote?

[Fire Brns]

It doesn't have to do with "person makes poor voting decisions". It's about "person harms society".

If the relevant point isn't that felons make voting decisions that are harmful to society--i.e., 'poor voting decisions'--then what does their ability to vote have to do with anything? Why do you care? What difference does it make?

Felons given the choice will vote for the person who is soft on crime. It is in the same way as people who are poor voting for the welfare canidate, and the rich voting for the pro-buisiness canidate. Why would you hold the opinion of a man who has no respect towards the government equal to the person who took the effort to be a law abiding citizen?

If you commit a felony chances are you have commited other crimes (maybe your only crime was 1 felony, sorry the system isn't perfect) and will commit more if circumstance permits. Felons hurt other people, given the choice to vote they will hurt everyone.

[Shahriyar]

"That's the way it's being done right here right now" doesn't mean "That's the way it should be done", neither in general nor "right here, right now". There's room for improvement, which is what we're discussing. And I for one am not arguing that felons should be allowed to vote because they might be innocent, I'm arguing that they should be allowed to vote because they're part of society.

Here, have a song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OawiTae0bA (As per standard procedure, avoid the comments section... not the brightest minds there...)

Spoiler:

Now I have that song stuck in my head again. Not MJ, Fatboy Slim.

Felons given the choice will vote for the person who is soft on crime. It is in the same way as people who are poor voting for the welfare canidate, and the rich voting for the pro-buisiness canidate. Why would you hold the opinion of a man who has no respect towards the government equal to the person who took the effort to be a law abiding citizen?

If you commit a felony chances are you have commited other crimes (maybe your only crime was 1 felony, sorry the system isn't perfect) and will commit more if circumstance permits. Felons hurt other people, given the choice to vote they will hurt everyone.

Aha. Yes. Poor people vote for the welfare candidate, don't they? Out of enlightened self interest, of course. Similarly, the rich are only interested in getting richer, yes? (If that's what you mean by "pro-business", I mean, who's against people being busy? "Pro-leisure"?). And you get jailed for one crime, that makes you a crimial, like you've made a habit out of it, one you can't get out of. No smoke without fire, huh? You screw one goat, and, no matter what else you do, that's what people will remember, and judge you on, yes? How can you expect these people to do anything other than hate society, if their record is going to follow them everywhere? They're practically forced to stay criminals: no-one will give them a job, or respect, or a voice, other than each other!

[Fire Brns]

Felons given the choice will vote for the person who is soft on crime. It is in the same way as people who are poor voting for the welfare canidate, and the rich voting for the pro-buisiness canidate. Why would you hold the opinion of a man who has no respect towards the government equal to the person who took the effort to be a law abiding citizen?

If you commit a felony chances are you have commited other crimes (maybe your only crime was 1 felony, sorry the system isn't perfect) and will commit more if circumstance permits. Felons hurt other people, given the choice to vote they will hurt everyone.

Aha. Yes. Poor people vote for the welfare candidate, don't they? Out of enlightened self interest, of course. Similarly, the rich are only interested in getting richer, yes? (If that's what you mean by "pro-business", I mean, who's against people being busy? "Pro-leisure"?). And you get jailed for one crime, that makes you a crimial, like you've made a habit out of it, one you can't get out of. No smoke without fire, huh? You screw one goat, and, no matter what else you do, that's what people will remember, and judge you on, yes? How can you expect these people to do anything other than hate society, if their record is going to follow them everywhere? They're practically forced to stay criminals: no-one will give them a job, or respect, or a voice, other than each other!

Aha. Yes. Poor people vote for the welfare candidate, don't they? Out of enlightened self interest, of course. Similarly, the rich are only interested in getting richer, yes?
People vote in self interest; is this a foreign concept to you? And how is it that everyone on this website does not know what an analogy is?

"No smoke without fire" ect, ect, you are just spewing broad spectrum phrases, you missed "all roads lead to Rome"

"And you get jailed for one crime, that makes you a crimial, like you've made a habit out of it, one you can't get out of."
I like how you just ignored this part: (maybe your only crime was 1 felony, sorry the system isn't perfect)
But then again condescension cannot exist without arrogance.

To your other point about felons being forced to remain felon: my brother is a felon, he is turning his life around. Those who can't do not want to in the first place.

[The Great Hippo]

Felons given the choice will vote for the person who is soft on crime. It is in the same way as people who are poor voting for the welfare canidate, and the rich voting for the pro-buisiness canidate. Why would you hold the opinion of a man who has no respect towards the government equal to the person who took the effort to be a law abiding citizen?

Wait, the reason we don't let felons vote is because they'll vote in their own best interests? Okay, so who's best interests should we be concerned with?

If you commit a felony chances are you have commited other crimes (maybe your only crime was 1 felony, sorry the system isn't perfect) and will commit more if circumstance permits. Felons hurt other people, given the choice to vote they will hurt everyone.

How does voting in my best interest hurt everyone? It clearly doesn't hurt people who's best interests align with my own. Your assumption is that the only people who benefit from felons voting are felons; maybe there are other groups who would benefit, too. Maybe it would turn out that felons are very pro-religious, so social conservatives would benefit. Maybe it would turn out that felons are very liberal, so progressives would benefit. Maybe it would turn out that felons are a mixed lot, and the result would be mostly negligible.

[Fire Brns]

Felons given the choice will vote for the person who is soft on crime. It is in the same way as people who are poor voting for the welfare canidate, and the rich voting for the pro-buisiness canidate. Why would you hold the opinion of a man who has no respect towards the government equal to the person who took the effort to be a law abiding citizen?

Wait, the reason we don't let felons vote is because they'll vote in their own best interests? Okay, so who's best interests should we be concerned with?

If you commit a felony chances are you have commited other crimes (maybe your only crime was 1 felony, sorry the system isn't perfect) and will commit more if circumstance permits. Felons hurt other people, given the choice to vote they will hurt everyone.

How does voting in my best interest hurt everyone? It clearly doesn't hurt people who's best interests align with my own. Your assumption is that the only people who benefit from felons voting are felons; maybe there are other groups who would benefit, too. Maybe it would turn out that felons are very pro-religious, so social conservatives would benefit. Maybe it would turn out that felons are very liberal, so progressives would benefit. Maybe it would turn out that felons are a mixed lot, and the result would be mostly negligible.

The best interests of the people who have decided to respect the laws of their nation. One cannot make assumptions that felons will vote in anybody's interest but their own. And let us quickly define "voting in the interest of felons", it does not mean making life easier when they get out prison but rather making crime easier for repeat offenders.

[mister k]

The felon will vote to hurt everyone's interests? What do you mean by this? Can't they be reformed by prison? If they are not reformed by prison, why are we releasing them?

I do not feel you are addressing my arguments, merely spewing empty phrases such as "harming society". We are not even talking about people who are currently in jail, but people who have been released from it. Apparently there is a magic switch in felon's brains that, once triggered by being succesfully caught and prosecuted for a felony, means they are an "unreliable voter".

Why is a section of the vote being "soft on crime" a bad thing? Do you truly believe that with felons getting the vote that the police will be dismantled? Perhaps some over sight from those who have experienced the judicial system first hand might be a good thing?

Your brother is a felon and is turning his life around. He will never be allowed to vote again. Why is this fair? Why should he bother if society does not believe that he will ever turn his life around?

[The Great Hippo]

The best interests of the people who have decided to respect the laws of their nation. One cannot make assumptions that felons will vote in anybody's interest but their own. And let us quickly define "voting in the interest of felons", it does not mean making life easier when they get out prison but rather making crime easier for repeat offenders.

This is silly. How many candidates do you think are running in America on the platform of 'let's make crime easier for repeat offenders'? Of those who do believe that we should re-evaluate our criminal justice system, how many do you think are actually working in the interests of allowing felons to commit more crimes--rather than attempting to create a criminal system that produces a safer society?

For the whole notion of 'felons using their votes for evil' to work, we'd have to have evil candidates for those felons to vote for. Those candidates don't exist. And if you're really worried, just prevent felons from running for office. They can still vote, but they can't try to get into a position where they'll pardon all the criminals--or whatever nonsense it is we're worried about.

EDIT: Seriously, if we come to a point in our society where felons represent a voting bloc large enough to elect felon-friendly candidates into office, I think we have a lot more problems on hand beyond 'oh shit, the new President is a card-carrying member of the CRIME PARTY!'.

[Fire Brns]

The felon will vote to hurt everyone's interests? What do you mean by this? Can't they be reformed by prison? If they are not reformed by prison, why are we releasing them?

I do not feel you are addressing my arguments, merely spewing empty phrases such as "harming society". We are not even talking about people who are currently in jail, but people who have been released from it. Apparently there is a magic switch in felon's brains that, once triggered by being succesfully caught and prosecuted for a felony, means they are an "unreliable voter".

Why is a section of the vote being "soft on crime" a bad thing? Do you truly believe that with felons getting the vote that the police will be dismantled? Perhaps some over sight from those who have experienced the judicial system first hand might be a good thing?

Your brother is a felon and is turning his life around. He will never be allowed to vote again. Why is this fair? Why should he bother if society does not believe that he will ever turn his life around?

it seems that prison's purpose is not reform but detainment as punishment. A politician will not be evil that the felon's may support but be in favor of programs and regulations that will make it easier to commit crimes or harder for police to do their job.
My brother bothers because he wants a better life for himself, he isn't looking for society's approval or support. Self interest is a pretty strong motivator.

Furthermore the revoking of the right to vote is not an assumption of criminality but rather a safeguard.

[Shahriyar]

The best interests of the people who have decided to respect the laws of their nation. One cannot make assumptions that felons will vote in anybody's interest but their own. And let us quickly define "voting in the interest of felons", it does not mean making life easier when they get out prison but rather making crime easier for repeat offenders.

If there's a big enough chunk of society that is interested in changing the law, then the law should be changed. That's what democracy is. Actually, that's what all government is, democracy is just a way of doing it little by little and without chopping heads off. If felons are so numerous that their voting would considerably affect society's functioning, then perhaps society's definition of what a felon is and what being a felon entails should be reworked.

[The Great Hippo]

A politician will not be evil that the felon's may support but be in favor of programs and regulations that will make it easier to commit crimes or harder for police to do their job.

And this is a bad thing because...?

Politicians who support programs and regulations that make it easier to commit crime--or harder for police to do their job--often have a purpose in mind. "We want to make it harder for police officers to seize evidence without proper authorization", or "We want to make it harder for them to seize and detain you without charging you for a crime". Yes, felons might support these programs because they make life easier for criminals--and I might support a tax rebate because I want extra money. That doesn't mean that the politicians who support these things are wrong.

Look, you seem to oppose felons voting because you're worried about some sort of 'voting static'--this idea that felons will support candidates for terrible reasons and muck everything up. But just about everyone supports candidates for terrible reasons. Last Presidential election in America, we had people voting against Obama because he thought he was a non-American Muslim! Should those people be allowed to vote? The guy who thinks Obama is some sort of Islamic sleeper agent sounds like he's going to be making poorer voting decisions than the lady who jacked a car ten years ago. Why not ban them both?

[natraj]

The best interests of the people who have decided to respect the laws of their nation. One cannot make assumptions that felons will vote in anybody's interest but their own. And let us quickly define "voting in the interest of felons", it does not mean making life easier when they get out prison but rather making crime easier for repeat offenders.

Leaving all other things aside, why should we just accept this as the definition of "voting in the interest of felons"? Because you said so? Because anyone who has ever committed a crime is, forever afterwards, going to be wholly committed to committing more crime and will exercise their voting rights based on what will make it easier for them to do so?

By the operations of our current justice system they have been deemed acceptable to be a part of society again; if we as society are really that concerned with them being that dedicated to continuing a life of crime, why did we release them?

I don't see why we should accept your definition of a felons' interest as if it is going to be some universal thing for all released convicted felons, many of whom probably have overlapping interests with much of the rest of society, such as figuring out how to keep a job and a home and eat etc.

[Fire Brns]

The best interests of the people who have decided to respect the laws of their nation. One cannot make assumptions that felons will vote in anybody's interest but their own. And let us quickly define "voting in the interest of felons", it does not mean making life easier when they get out prison but rather making crime easier for repeat offenders.

Leaving all other things aside, why should we just accept this as the definition of "voting in the interest of felons"? Because you said so? Because anyone who has ever committed a crime is, forever afterwards, going to be wholly committed to committing more crime and will exercise their voting rights based on what will make it easier for them to do so?

Can no one on this site understand context? I was defining the "voting in the interest of felons" that was being argued previously and seemed to be taken in the wrong way. And apears to still be:

Politicians who support programs and regulations that make it easier to commit crime--or harder for police to do their job--often have a purpose in mind. "We want to make it harder for police officers to seize evidence without proper authorization", or "We want to make it harder for them to seize and detain you without charging you for a crime". Yes, felons might support these programs because they make life easier for criminals--and I might support a tax rebate because I want extra money. That doesn't mean that the politicians who support these things are wrong.

Making the job harder for police doesn't mean allowing abuse of law, it means laws where police can't do their jobs for example because they will face a wall of litigation over something as simple as grabbing a criminals collar when the put the in the back seat of the police cruiser. I'm certainly not advocating for a police state.

[The Great Hippo]

Can no one on this site understand context? I was defining the "voting in the interest of felons" that was being argued previously and seemed to be taken in the wrong way.

Yes, and natraj was countering your definition on the basis that felons aren't a homogeneous group who are going to throw their support behind candidates who push for making it harder to arrest criminals. Some of them might be more concerned with taxes, or with the safety of their children, or just having the means to put food on their table. Even if you can somehow produce evidence that statistically, felons support bad policies, this is not sufficient data to thereby prevent felons from voting. How many groups support bad policies in America? How many of those groups should we ban from voting?

Making the job harder for police doesn't mean allowing abuse of law, it means laws where police can't do their jobs for example because they will face a wall of litigation over something as simple as grabbing a criminals collar when the put the in the back seat of the police cruiser. I'm certainly not advocating for a police state.

How many candidates actually run on a platform advocating these sort of reforms? What sort of people support and vote for them?

Look, let's put it another way: Let's pretend all felons represent a special interest group (this is nonsense, of course; felons are no more of a special interest group than people who have been in car accidents. The descriptor "Felon" does not tell us nearly enough about a person to make such broad generalities as you're making. But let's pretend it does). You're saying that because you don't like what this special interest group aims to gain, we should prevent them from voting. Do you also believe that because there are communists who want to overthrow our government (peacefully, through the electoral process) that we should ban them from voting? What about anarchists, or libertarians? They certainly want a radically different society; should we prevent them from voting, too?

What sort of ideas about how society should work do I need to hold to 'win' the right to vote? What sort of ideas exclude me from that right?

[Fire Brns]

What sort of ideas about how society should work do I need to hold to 'win' the right to vote? What sort of ideas exclude me from that right?

I have stated already, those who respect their government enough to not commit a felony should be allowed to vote. If we have issues with this we should figure out what should be a felony rather than letting all felons vote. I'm a libertarian so I understand your point about what groups may or may not vote as I would never advocate the restriction of any law abiding citizen.

[The Great Hippo]

I'm a libertarian so I understand your point about what groups may or may not vote as I would never advocate the restriction of any law abiding citizen.

You're a libertarian and you're comfortable with the government deciding who can and can't vote?

I have stated already, those who respect their government enough to not commit a felony should be allowed to vote. If we have issues with this we should figure out what should be a felony rather than letting all felons vote.

Wait, what? Why redefine what 'felon' means just to satisfy your desire to ban some undefined group of people from voting? Why is it important that we ban anyone from voting? What benefit do we gain from this?

It's not just that you can't prove that felons make 'poor voting decisions'; it's that you have absolutely no idea what 'poor voting decisions' even means!

If all the felons in the USA got the right to vote and immediately voted for Obama in the next election, would you describe that as a poor voting decision? What if they all voted for Romney? Is that a poor voting decision? What if they somehow put the Ronpaul in office? Would they be making a poor voting decision then?

[CorruptUser]

I'm a libertarian so I understand your point about what groups may or may not vote as I would never advocate the restriction of any law abiding citizen.

You're a libertarian and you're comfortable with the government deciding who can and can't vote?

That isn't inconsistent; government doesn't have the right to punish until after you have done something wrong.

[The Great Hippo]

Libertarian-Consequentialism; government doesn't have the right to punish until after you have done something wrong.

Okay; how does barring felons from voting maximize or otherwise increase prosperity? Particularly the prosperity of felons themselves?

[yurell]

Felons given the choice will vote for the person who is soft on crime.

And this is quite clearly a problem because the US has such a lovely penal system, one aimed at preventing recidivism and helping these felons that are rigging the vote and not the business interests of the owners of the prisons.
The felons may, in theory, vote for someone who is soft on crime, they may in actuality vote for someone who is soft on crime, it is empirically not making much of a difference when you compare how horrid the US penal system is (with a full 3% of their population under 'corrective supervision'). It must be because of all the felons voting for the law to be easy on themselves that the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world.

Or maybe most criminals come from socio-economic backgrounds that promote crime due to huge imbalances in social and welfare systems within the United States and the prisons promote recidivism, and given the chance to vote these people may vote for the person who is doing the best to help prevent the cause of crime. And maybe the cause of some of this crime is because the US is too harsh with former convicts, and so the felons may indeed vote for someone who is softer on crime in the sense they see a prison sentence as an attempt at redemption instead of penalising for the rest of their lives even if they attempt to reform.

But no, clearly that's ridiculous — all felons are 2D that will vote on the candidate that's easiest on crime out of their own self-interest. Especially since the US is renowned for having a large number of choices when it comes to voting, so they should also have no problem finding someone who is actually soft on crime.

[CorruptUser]

Okay; how does barring felons from voting maximize or otherwise increase prosperity? Particularly the prosperity of felons themselves?

First of all, voting rights are zero-sum; reducing anyone's right to vote increases the value of everyone else's vote by the same amount. So by moving the rights from felons to non-felons, assuming that non-felons will vote for things that cause greater total prosperity than things felons vote for, it will increase total prosperity.

[The Great Hippo]

First of all, voting rights are zero-sum; reducing anyone's right to vote increases the value of everyone else's vote by the same amount.

That doesn't address my question: How does removing the right of felons increase our overall prosperity, particularly in the case of felons themselves? Why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? No one's offering anything beyond vague, meaningless platitudes. They'll make poor voting decisions--what the hell is a poor voting decision? They'll vote in people who are soft on crime--so should we ban anyone who consistently votes that way?

So by moving the rights from felons to non-felons, assuming that non-felons will vote for things that cause greater total prosperity than things felons vote for, it will increase total prosperity.

Replace 'felons' with 'Democrats' and 'non-felons' with 'Republicans' and you have the same argument.

Prove that this will increase prosperity.

[Fire Brns]

I'm a libertarian so I understand your point about what groups may or may not vote as I would never advocate the restriction of any law abiding citizen.

You're a libertarian and you're comfortable with the government deciding who can and can't vote?

I have stated already, those who respect their government enough to not commit a felony should be allowed to vote. If we have issues with this we should figure out what should be a felony rather than letting all felons vote.

Wait, what? Why redefine what 'felon' means just to satisfy your desire to ban some undefined group of people from voting? Why is it important that we ban anyone from voting? What benefit do we gain from this?

It's not just that you can't prove that felons make 'poor voting decisions'; it's that you have absolutely no idea what 'poor voting decisions' even means!

If all the felons in the USA got the right to vote and immediately voted for Obama in the next election, would you describe that as a poor voting decision? What if they all voted for Romney? Is that a poor voting decision? What if they somehow put the Ronpaul in office? Would they be making a poor voting decision then?

I believe a government has a purpose, primarily it defends it's citizens from foreign and domestic threats and enforces law to maintain a just society. In a just society, law abiding citizens are rewarded and criminals are punished. Rediefining felony means making only real crimes felonies: we don't need the federal government deciding jaywalking is a felony if it is on an interstate.
It would probably be a bad decision if they voted the Ronpaul in(don't assume all libertarians like him). There is a reason the law was put in in the first place. Political opinion is one thing but disregard for the rules that a government that protects you puts in place is not opinion. And what is your reasoning for letting everyone vote besides them being in the country?

[The Great Hippo]

I believe a government has a purpose, primarily it defends it's citizens from foreign and domestic threats and enforces law to maintain a just society. In a just society, law abiding citizens are rewarded and criminals are punished. Rediefining felony means making only real crimes felonies: we don't need the federal government deciding jaywalking is a felony if it is on an interstate.
It would probably be a bad decision if they voted the Ronpaul in(don't assume all libertarians like him). There is a reason the law was put in in the first place. Political opinion is one thing but disregard for the rules that a government that protects you puts in place is not opinion.

So your reasons for keeping this rule can be summed up as 'Because it's old, and we should punish felons somehow'?

And what is your reasoning for letting everyone vote besides them being in the country?

Because I believe we all have a right to self-determination and representation in government.

EDIT: And because no one has yet provided an adequate reason to not give felons the right to vote. When we're denying someone a right we give to everyone else--and no one can provide a reasonable explanation as to why that is--I tend to fall on the side of 'then why the hell are we doing it that way?'.

[Fire Brns]

So by moving the rights from felons to non-felons, assuming that non-felons will vote for things that cause greater total prosperity than things felons vote for, it will increase total prosperity.

Replace 'felons' with 'Democrats' and 'non-felons' with 'Republicans' and you have the same argument.

Prove that this will increase prosperity.

Republican and Democrat is defined by thought while felon is defined by action.

So your reasons can be summed up as 'Because it's old, and we should punish felons somehow'?

No, I said it had purpose; the age is irrelevent. I could argue it has stayed in practice so long because it is a good idea.

Because I believe we all have a right to self-determination and representation in government.

The government should only recognize a man who recognizes his government. It's a two way street.

You seem more to me as a moral relativist, or a felon. :)

[CorruptUser]

First of all, voting rights are zero-sum; reducing anyone's right to vote increases the value of everyone else's vote by the same amount.

That doesn't address my question: How does removing the right of felons increase our overall prosperity, particularly in the case of felons themselves? Why shouldn't felons be allowed to vote? No one's offering anything beyond vague, meaningless platitudes. They'll make poor voting decisions--what the hell is a poor voting decision? They'll vote in people who are soft on crime--so should we ban anyone who consistently votes that way?

1)

So by moving the rights from felons to non-felons, assuming that non-felons will vote for things that cause greater total prosperity than things felons vote for, it will increase total prosperity.

2)It doesn't increase the prosperity of felons, but it increases everyone else's prosperity more than it reduces felons'. As for why it is ok to sacrifice the few for the many, it's because "fuck them, they are a menace to society anyway". Assuming the law actually was fair*, I really don't have a problem with that even as a quasi-Libertarian.
3)Poor voting decision would be something that harms society. Like, cutting the police force. It's an argument against felon voting, because again, assuming the law is fair*, fuck felons.

So by moving the rights from felons to non-felons, assuming that non-felons will vote for things that cause greater total prosperity than things felons vote for, it will increase total prosperity.

Replace 'felons' with 'Democrats' and 'non-felons' with 'Republicans' and you have the same argument.

Prove that this will increase prosperity.

1)Democrats didn't break the law, at least not for being Democrats.
2)Again

So by moving the rights from felons to non-felons, assuming that non-felons will vote for things that cause greater total prosperity than things felons vote for, it will increase total prosperity.

*It isn't.

[Qaanol]

And what is your reasoning for letting everyone vote besides them being in the country?

The precepts of democracy and the will of the people. One person, one vote, no exceptions, and no taxation without representation. Everyone who lives in the country should have the option to become a voting citizen, without any difficulty or delay. The legal voting age should be lowered to equal the legal working age.

If somebody can be disenfranchised, then anybody can be disenfranchised, and I believe nobody should be disenfranchised, so everybody must be allowed to vote. This is a question of equality, of freedom, and of doing the right thing.

Additionally, citizens of Washington DC need to be represented in congress, and allowed to vote in presidential elections—which ought to go to the national popular vote winner (and also ought to be converted to Approval Voting instead of FPTP).

[Fire Brns]

And what is your reasoning for letting everyone vote besides them being in the country?

The precepts of democracy and the will of the people. One person, one vote, no exceptions, and no taxation without representation. Everyone who lives in the country should have the option to become a voting citizen, without any difficulty or delay. The legal voting age should be lowered to equal the legal working age.

If somebody can be disenfranchised, then anybody can be disenfranchised, and I believe nobody should be disenfranchised, so everybody must be allowed to vote. This is a question of equality, of freedom, and of doing the right thing.

Additionally, citizens of Washington DC need to be represented in congress, and allowed to vote in presidential elections—which ought to go to the national popular vote winner (and also ought to be converted to Approval Voting instead of FPTP).

1) US = Republic. Different than democracy; put all 310+million of us in a forum and have us solve something before you say we can even be a democracy.
2)What gives the government the right to regulate the legal working age to begin with. (also just wondering what is your reasoning for voting to be the same as working age?)
3)Disenfranchisement is the government removing the rights of the people; felons waive their right when they commit a felony.

[The Great Hippo]

No, I said it had purpose; the age is irrelevent. I could argue it has stayed in practice so long because it is a good idea.

Okay, I'll bite: What purpose is that? Because I haven't seen an actual purpose explained here beyond some nebulous notion that felons are going to vote in a way that isn't in our best interest.

2)It doesn't increase the prosperity of felons, but it increases everyone else's prosperity more than it reduces felons'. As for why it is ok to sacrifice the few for the many, it's because "fuck them, they are a menace to society anyway". Assuming the law actually was fair*, I really don't have a problem with that even as a quasi-Libertarian.
3)Poor voting decision would be something that harms society. Like, cutting the police force. It's an argument against felon voting, because again, assuming the law is fair*, fuck felons.

Let's not even get into the fact that you can't actually prove that felons would all vote to cut police funding, or vote for candidates who want to do the same. Let's just address the fact that you consider cutting police funding to be a poor voting decision.

Okay. So, anyone who votes to cut police funding has made a bad voting decision. Why not ban them from voting? "They haven't done anything wrong!"--Yes, they have. They voted to cut police funding. And that's a 'poor voting decision' by your own words; decisions like that are why we aren't letting felons vote.

So let's just take this to its logical conclusion: Anyone who votes to cut police funding has made a poor voting decision, and is, by definition, someone who shouldn't vote: I.e., a felon. So let's make voting to cut police funding illegal. Anyone who votes for it--or runs on that platform--will be immediately made into a felon.

Problem solved.

3)Disenfranchisement is the government removing the rights of the people; felons waive their right when they commit a felony.

No. We do not strip your rights away the moment you commit a felony in America. If we did, it would be permissible to inject felons with crack-infused steroids and throw them into televised death-cage matches for sport.

We violate your rights to protect the rights of others. Your rights still exist, but we're selectively violating some of them for the sake of protecting everyone else. How does stripping you of your right to representation protect other people's rights? The burden of proof is on you; you want to take rights away. Prove that what we gain is worth it.

[Fire Brns]

No, I said it had purpose; the age is irrelevent. I could argue it has stayed in practice so long because it is a good idea.

Okay, I'll bite: What purpose is that? Because I haven't seen an actual purpose explained here beyond some nebulous notion that felons are going to vote in a way that isn't in our best interest.

2)It doesn't increase the prosperity of felons, but it increases everyone else's prosperity more than it reduces felons'. As for why it is ok to sacrifice the few for the many, it's because "fuck them, they are a menace to society anyway". Assuming the law actually was fair*, I really don't have a problem with that even as a quasi-Libertarian.
3)Poor voting decision would be something that harms society. Like, cutting the police force. It's an argument against felon voting, because again, assuming the law is fair*, fuck felons.

Let's not even get into the fact that you can't actually prove that felons would all vote to cut police funding, or vote for candidates who want to do the same. Let's just address the fact that you consider cutting police funding to be a poor voting decision.

Okay. So, anyone who votes to cut police funding has made a bad voting decision. Why not ban them from voting? "They haven't done anything wrong!"--Yes, they have. They voted to cut police funding. And that's a 'poor voting decision' by your own words; decisions like that are why we aren't letting felons vote.

So let's just take this to its logical conclusion: Anyone who votes to cut police funding has made a poor voting decision, and is, by definition, someone who shouldn't vote: I.e., a felon. So let's make voting to cut police funding illegal. Anyone who votes for it--or runs on that platform--will be immediately made into a felon.

Problem solved.

3)Disenfranchisement is the government removing the rights of the people; felons waive their right when they commit a felony.

No. We do not strip your rights away the moment you commit a felony in America. If we did, it would be permissible to inject felons with crack-infused steroids and throw them into televised death-cage matches for sport.

We violate your rights to protect the rights of others. Your rights still exist, but we're selectively violating some of them for the sake of protecting everyone else. How does stripping you of your right to representation protect other people's rights? The burden of proof is on you; you want to take rights away. Prove that what we gain is worth it.

The purpose has been stated, you refuse to recognize it.

Budgetary issues are hardly criminal. Suppose every department of the government needs to be cut by 5% then every good intentioned politician is a felon, you immediately go to an extreme or very conditional statement to make your arguement as if the world can be managed on a case by case basis.

The right to vote is conditional; and quite possibly is -since you need to be 18 to vote- a privelage. Violate the condition and it is no longer yours; It is not still yours and simply being violated.

[distractedSofty]

1) US = Republic. Different than democracy; put all 310+million of us in a forum and have us solve something before you say we can even be a democracy.

This again?

From the OED:

democracy, n.
A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.

republic, n.
A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy.

They mean almost exactly the same thing, except that "republic" has one additional connotation. And "Not having a monarch" seems an irrelevant distinction.

[Fire Brns]

1) US = Republic. Different than democracy; put all 310+million of us in a forum and have us solve something before you say we can even be a democracy.

This again?

From the OED:

democracy, n.
A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.

republic, n.
A state in which power rests with the people or their representatives; spec. a state without a monarchy.

They mean almost exactly the same thing, except that "republic" has one additional connotation. And "Not having a monarch" seems an irrelevant distinction.

2 things: not a monarchy and representatives. The people don't have a voice, they chose someone to be their voice who quite often disagrees with the people.
In a democracy no one can be held accountable for a bad decision.

[The Great Hippo]

The purpose has been stated, you refuse to recognize it.

Can you provide any evidence to your claim that felons are going to decrease our prosperity by voting? Even a smidgen? Or is this just the point where I go 'citation needed' and you just throw up your shoulders in a big ol' shrug?

Budgetary issues are hardly criminal. Suppose every department of the government needs to be cut by 5% then every good intentioned politician is a felon, you immediately go to an extreme or very conditional statement to make your arguement as if the world can be managed on a case by case basis.

Yes, that was kind of my point. Cutting police funding isn't always a poor decision; maybe some of the felons voting for it are doing so because it's in our country's best interest.

The right to vote is conditional; and quite possibly is -since you need to be 18 to vote- a privelage. Violate the condition and it is no longer yours; It is not still yours and simply being violated.

Conditional rights are not actually rights.

[Fire Brns]

The purpose has been stated, you refuse to recognize it.

Can you provide any evidence to your claim that felons are going to decrease our prosperity by voting? Even a smidgen? Or is this just the point where I go 'citation needed' and you just throw up your shoulders in a big ol' shrug?

Budgetary issues are hardly criminal. Suppose every department of the government needs to be cut by 5% then every good intentioned politician is a felon, you immediately go to an extreme or very conditional statement to make your arguement as if the world can be managed on a case by case basis.

Yes, that was kind of my point. Cutting police funding isn't always a poor decision; maybe some of the felons voting for it are doing so because it's in our country's best interest.

The right to vote is conditional; and quite possibly is -since you need to be 18 to vote- a privelage. Violate the condition and it is no longer yours; It is not still yours and simply being violated.

Conditional rights are not actually rights.

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement. Stating opinions is far different and if he really cares so much he can try to sway other people's opinions who can vote.
If it is a good idea non-felons will support it too. It's not as if Felons will save our country if they are given the right to vote.
Being 18 is conditional so through reasoning you have just stated voting in the U.S. is not a right.

[The Great Hippo]

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement. Stating opinions is far different and if he really cares so much he can try to sway other people's opinions who can vote.

So no actual evidence?

Being 18 is conditional so through reasoning you have just stated voting in the U.S. is not a right.

Pardon, by 'rights are not conditional' I mean there are no actions you can take that cause you to lose your rights. A right that evaporates the moment I do the 'wrong' thing was never a right in the first place.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement.

But we don't forbid all people with poor judgment from voting, so there must be some additional qualities felons have that justifies taking away their vote. What are those qualities, and why do they justify disenfranchisement?

[CorruptUser]

Pardon, by 'rights are not conditional' I mean there are no actions you can take that cause you to lose your rights. A right that evaporates the moment I do the 'wrong' thing was never a right in the first place.

I have some macabre news for you; there are no such things as rights. We make all that up to feel secure in an insecure world.

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement.

But we don't forbid all people with poor judgment from voting, so there must be some additional qualities felons have that justifies taking away their vote. What are those qualities, and why do they justify disenfranchisement?

They broke the law, and were ostensibly convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a judge?

[Fire Brns]

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement. Stating opinions is far different and if he really cares so much he can try to sway other people's opinions who can vote.

So no actual evidence?

Being 18 is conditional so through reasoning you have just stated voting in the U.S. is not a right.

Pardon, by 'rights are not conditional' I mean there are no actions you can take that cause you to lose your rights. A right that evaporates the moment I do the 'wrong' thing was never a right in the first place.

I can't go case by case and show you how every felon has poor judgement. So through your extreme requirements no, no evidence.

You can accumulate/earn rights but cannot lose them? Freedom from slavery is a right in the constitution unless as punishment for a crime. Likewise voting -if it shall be considered a right- can be taken away as punishment for a crime.

[Fire Brns]

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement.

But we don't forbid all people with poor judgment from voting, so there must be some additional qualities felons have that justifies taking away their vote. What are those qualities, and why do they justify disenfranchisement?

Disregard for the laws of the country that allows your rights?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

They broke the law, and were ostensibly convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a judge?

Yeah. That's what defines a felony. But note the second part of my question: why does this matter when deciding who votes?

Fire Brns, same question: why is "disregard for the law" a deal-killer on voting?

[The Great Hippo]

I have some macabre news for you; there are no such things as rights. We make all that up to feel secure in an insecure world.

Yes, I'm aware. My point is that if you give someone a right, then take that right away the moment they do something you don't like, you never really gave them the right in the first place.

A felon has proven through action that he has poor judgement.

But we don't forbid all people with poor judgment from voting, so there must be some additional qualities felons have that justifies taking away their vote. What are those qualities, and why do they justify disenfranchisement?

They broke the law?

What other rights should we take away from people who break the law? Should we also take away their right to free speech?

I can't go case by case and show you how every felon has poor judgement. So through your extreme requirements no, no evidence.

All I'm asking for is hard evidence--any hard evidence--to back up your claim that allowing felons to vote will directly impact our prosperity.

You can accumulate/earn rights but cannot lose them? Freedom from slavery is a right in the constitution unless as punishment for a crime. Likewise voting -if it shall be considered a right- can be taken away as punishment for a crime.

What about your right to due process? Can we take that away as a punishment for a crime? Now, if you're a felon, I have the right to immediately arrest you and throw you into prison without bothering with any pesky details like a trial?

[CorruptUser]

They broke the law, and were ostensibly convicted by a jury of their peers and sentenced by a judge?

Yeah. That's what defines a felony. But note the second part of my question: why does this matter when deciding who votes?

Because voting isn't a right, it's a liberty?

What other rights should we take away from people who break the law? Should we also take away their right to free speech?

Right to freedom of movement is taken away. Sometimes right to life. Restrictions on all sorts of other rights. Perhaps I'll try another approach with you; the government does this because the people in power and the people supporting those in power don't want this to change.

Like I said, no such thing as rights, all imaginary. Just rules we set up and hope are followed.