Firstly if they’ve committed a crime then I think they should be absolved of some basic rights, like the right to freedom and a right to vote. I certainly don’t want prisoners all voting for some crack pot fundamentalist who will give superior rights to all prisoners.
On the other hand, if the law bans someone from voting if they are sent to prison then what is to stop the governement from imprisoning all those that oppose them and forever staying in power? And also, does voting and engaging with outside community assist with rehabilitation?..
There’s a reason for the law in the U.S. The 14th amendment gives states the right to restrict the right to vote in the case of rebellion, or other crimes. After the civil war, we didn’t want people to be able to vote if they engaged in any post-war score settling (which did occur, but not until the radical Republicans lost influence). It makes sense to me that you don’t want people voting in elections if their goal is to undermine your government. For instance, Germany’s constitution requires political parties to be certified by either the Supreme Court or Constitutional Court (can’t which remember off the top of my head). If a political party advocates the undermining of the constitution, then the government can prevent it from being elected. It’s a way to stop the Nazi party from coming back to power.
I forget if felons lose the right to vote only for the time they are in prison, or if they lose it for life, or that it’s restored after a probationary period. If they lose it for life, I think that’s wrong-headed. If they lose it only while in prison, then that may be a punitive consequence that is reasonable, assuming that their imprisonment followed due process of law.
At the same time, I do think prisoners need some kind of representation (perhaps like a tribune) to ensure that their remaining rights are not completely disregarded while imprisoned. Some kind of ombudsman. To some extent their voting rights are represented through families and friends that (presumably) care about them, although of those people are not US citizens, then they don’t get to vote anyway.
As for what prevents the (US) government from imprisoning people and then taking their voting rights away to stay in power. That is still not likely here because 1) imprisonment still requires due process of law, so these people would have to be convicted of something, not simply thrown in jail for being in the opposition party, and 2) there is separation of powers, so the President and Congress would not be able to convict people, and laws that are unjustly arbitrary or so designed to keep the current party or mix in power are likely to be declared unconstitutional or unenforceable by an independent judiciary.
It is possible that over time, a party with sufficient control over the President and Congress could stuff the judiciary sufficiently to create this outcome, but 1) it will take a long time, 2) a party would have to have sufficient control for sufficiently long (in order to replace enough judges). that it would already be firmly in control of the government and so this measure would be unnecessary. Finally, most felony-type laws or statutes are State level, so this would need to be done on a state-by-state basis, and any things that run foul of equal protection would be challegeable at the federal level.
@bchad, it depends on the state. Wikipedia breaks it down that 13 states end disenfranchisement after release, 4 states end after parole, 20 after end of probation, 2 states allow felons to vote whenever. So a total of 39 with 11 circumstantial or requiring petitions.
Didn’t Scotland or someone do this? I actually don’t disagree with this in principle. Maybe 18 isn’t the proper line to draw in terms of making a rational voting decision.
Then you have misinformed individuals making votes that skew the results of the people who care who runs their country.
Also, in my mind, prisoners have lsot their right to be a part of society, and therefore should not be able to vote. Once they are released, they can vote again.
I have no idea where the appropriate age is to draw the line, but I disagree strongly that children should be allowed to vote. It’s incredibly irresponsible to vote without fully understanding the issue and the consequences, and I’m not proud of this but I won’t vote unless I did my due diligence (and sometimes I forget and it’s election day). Highly doubt minors voting would do this–it’ll just be a popularity contest or whatever media garbage is telling them what to do.
They are stakeholders, sure, but until they reach legal age they are the responsibility of their parents and they don’t have same kind of rights. If you’re suggesting moving that legal age… well maybe to a certain extent, but I think 14 is pushing it.
Maybe, though, parents can get voting credit per child.
OK, this explains why I had conflicting recollections.
Voting laws are determined by states, in part because every vote except for President is for some office that is effectively a state or local office. (Senators are representatives of states / representatives are for districts of a state). Even presidential votes are technically votes for the state’s electoral college.
So it does make a certain amount of sense that the states would have control over voting laws and that they might vary by state.
Well put. This also reminds me that we don’t live in a democracy (not that I ever thought we did). We’re a republic damn it. Not one single national issue/office is determined by a straight-up popular vote. Kind of an unsettling thought for some reason.
^Or make it so you can buy as many votes as you want, but the total cost equals the square of the number of votes purchased (maybe make the first free). 10 votes -> $100, 1000 votes -> $1,000,000
That’s basically how it works already (and is why Obama and Romney each spent $1 billion in their 2012 campaigns). So, I guess might as well make it official.