450
Convicted of drug crime? Should never lose right to vote.
Convicted of violent crime? Should regain right to vote upon release.
Convicted of trying to overturn an election? Never get to vote again.
They should all be able to vote. From prison, too. The punishment never needs to be to take their voting rights away. If they commit fraud, stop them from committing fraud again.
I think if you're overthrowing the government, you're basically tapping out of the democracy. That's literally the only crime I could see not being allowed to vote. I also think they should be removed from the country they tried to destroy. But then I have no idea how would they remain detained in that situation.
If they are not allowed to vote then by all rights they shouldn't be taxed as well.
Yup. I'm good for that. Prisoners shouldn't be making enough to be taxed.
load more comments
(7 replies)
I'd prefer compulsory voting from all able people of voting age. Prisons should have full in-person voting locations with private voting booths. Mail-in ballots should be a freely available option for all.
It doesn't guarantee good results, but I feel it is the most straightforward way to rid ourselves of voter suppression campaigns, which I think are fundamentally evil.
load more comments
(11 replies)
I disagree with this approach without even touching the morality aspect.
There should be no way to lose your voting rights once you are of age and a citizen of the US for the very simple reason of limiting the bureaucratic overhead of elections. If every citizen above the age of 18 can vote, you can just completely remove the ridiculous notion of "voter registration".
Just register everyone based on their legal address (which the government should have anyway because taxes). Just like a real democracy.
I agree with this.
Even people who make mistakes should be entitled to vote. Even while paying for their mistakes frankly. They may have lost their freedom, but they are still citizens of the Republic.
The only compelling argument I know of is that voting in local elections is a mess because there would be counties that'd suffer from the over representation due to the location of the prisons. I would just consider those to be absentee voters myself, and they just keep the last address they had before going in or next if kin instead.
Just my thoughts
But muh rights?
load more comments
(9 replies)
What third world shit is that? You can't vote if you've been convicted of a felony? That's some medieval thinking right there, god the US is a hopeless barbaric mess only thinly disguised as a democracy.
It gets worse. Many of the felony disenfranchisement laws originate from the civil war era. Combine that with the 13th amendment still allowing slavery as a punishment for crime and you can take a guess who was overwhelmingly targeted.
13th amusement
This sounds like fun.
You can run for president but you can't vote
load more comments
(2 replies)
If the person has paid by doing their sentence and are in good faith trying to integrate into society, they should be able to vote.
Except traitors and or domestic terrorists, they can go fuck themselves.
Honestly even those should be able to vote. If there are enough to actually win an election, then the area in question has a problem regardless, and if not, then the only actually consequencential effect of forbidding it would be that unscrupulous political groups could try and declare their enemies traitorous to try to disenfranchise them.
No taxation without representation.
Democracy is a social contract. If you break the terms of the contract by attempting to overthrow democracy, you lose the rights afforded by that contract, like voting.
The problem with that reasoning is that the vast majority of felonies aren't trying to overthrow a democracy. Punishments should fit the crime.
A DUI shouldn't stop you from voting, nor should a conviction for being a prostitute. Burglary shouldn't either. The punishments for each of those felonies should be different and determined case by case. None of them have anything to do with voting.
You were responding to someone who was talking about traitors.
My friend got busted for an ounce of weed when he was 18 and got a felony (intent to distribute...as if the pothead wasn't just gonna smoke it all himself).
He's very politically-conscious and always pushing people to vote. I wasn't thinking and asked if he wanted to go with me and man...I've never seen a smile turn to a frown so fast.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Even people in jail should be allowed to vote. Wtf!
What rational argument is there for citizens to lose their right to vote?
Say you lose your right to vote over possession of drugs. Why? You shouldn't you have representation?
While in prison you become slave labor. For profit prisons get money for housing and feeding you. They get money from the contracted work you do. They double and triple dip profits. There's all kinds of under the table deals being done on your back. But why did you lose your right to vote? It all goes back to controlling certain groups of the population. That's where it started, that's where it still is. Sure, restrict gun ownership for felons, that's a constitutional right that has long needed overhaul for so many reasons, but the right to vote, why??
Losing the right to vote is dangerous especially because then you could imprison people who vote against you and swing the vote. Wait...
The cynic in me points to the demographic makeup of those who are in prison or have a criminal record. This is continued systemic racism and the cruelty is the point.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Problem is, that would be for federal crimes ionly. But, the biggest problem is that states write the rules for all elections, not the feds
load more comments
(1 replies)
In late 2022, approximately 4.6 million people were unable to vote due to a felony conviction
Holy shit America! WTF??? That's over 2% of the adult population!
You're off by a bit. But what's 10x between us friends?
258.3 million adults, so more like 1.7%. (Still too high, though)
I suck at math obviously.
Thanks for the correction.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Of what country? Canada?
(that math gives America ~23 million adults; I think you mean 2%)
Yup. Corrected now.
Yeah, it gets worse when you start looking at demographics.
Good. It is unlikely that there would be enough criminals, guilty of any crime actually worthy of being such, to successfully legalize that crime even if they wanted to (and for any reasonable crime most probably wouldn't even want such, even theives don't want to be stolen from). As such, there isn't any particular risk in letting felons vote. However, not letting them do so allows laws to be weaponized to disenfranchise people
I'm fine with incarcerated felons not voting. But they should have a pathway to voting when they're released. Maybe immediately upon release, or after probation. Something.
Let them vote in prison too!
They actually have the time to get politically informed.
Esp. because if you have enough people in prison that the results of elections would regularly depend on their votes your main problem is not prisoners voting or not, its having too many prisoners.
load more comments
(1 replies)
new demographic launched LEZZZ GO
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
450 points (97.5% liked)
News
21860 readers
3805 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS