Should voters be required to show ID? (1 Viewer)

[DrJ]

I don't think anyone's come up with an analysis, but it doesn't appear all that uncommon for even elections on governors to come down to very few votes. This 1974 article suggests that 5 were decided by less than 5000 votes. One was less than 100, another less than 300, and another less than 600. It's not difficult to imagine those being won by questionable votes.http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19741108&id=nkg0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=7mYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7220,3315336One election is too many if it can be reasonably prevented.

Are we back to the conspiracy thing or now one guy is going around casting 500 votes in a day at different polling places?

No, we'll just use the thousands of illegals votes the non profit in Minnesota found.

 

[DrJ]

It's kind of funny that the people against this happens to be the same group that tried counting "hanging chads" in select parts of Florida while getting absentee ballots thrown out. Damned that confusing butterfly ballot! Yeah, small numbers of votes never mean anything.

 

[The Commish]

Personally, I find the conspiracy idea more compelling. I don't think it would take too many people to amount to a significant number of votes. But that's never been the point. The point is that one fraudulent vote is too many.

To a lot of us this is true. I'm baffled by the "meh, it's good enough as it is" position a lot of folks take around our election process. It's our freaking election process...it's a big deal. It needs to be held to such standards IMO.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Personally, I find the conspiracy idea more compelling. I don't think it would take too many people to amount to a significant number of votes. But that's never been the point. The point is that one fraudulent vote is too many.

To a lot of us this is true. I'm baffled by the "meh, it's good enough as it is" position a lot of folks take around our election process. It's our freaking election process...it's a big deal. It needs to be held to such standards IMO.

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

 

[DrJ]

Personally, I find the conspiracy idea more compelling. I don't think it would take too many people to amount to a significant number of votes. But that's never been the point. The point is that one fraudulent vote is too many.

To a lot of us this is true. I'm baffled by the "meh, it's good enough as it is" position a lot of folks take around our election process. It's our freaking election process...it's a big deal. It needs to be held to such standards IMO.

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

It also seems very likely that there have been numerous elections including primaries that have been determined by very few votes, in many cases as few as 1. A large percentage? No. But enough to make fraudulent votes probably the most important priority.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It also seems very likely that there have been numerous elections including primaries that have been determined by very few votes, in many cases as few as 1. A large percentage? No. But enough to make fraudulent votes probably the most important priority.

I'm not sure how the existence of some close elections makes fraudulent votes the most important priority. In that Jimmy Carter/James Baker election reform study you like to cite it was just one of a zillion reforms suggested. It didn't seem to receive any special attention.

 

[DrJ]

It also seems very likely that there have been numerous elections including primaries that have been determined by very few votes, in many cases as few as 1. A large percentage? No. But enough to make fraudulent votes probably the most important priority.

I'm not sure how the existence of some close elections makes fraudulent votes the most important priority. In that Jimmy Carter/James Baker election reform study you like to cite it was just one of a zillion reforms suggested. It didn't seem to receive any special attention.

So let's implement them. The integrity of the process should rank above people that can't follow directions.

 

[The Commish]

Personally, I find the conspiracy idea more compelling. I don't think it would take too many people to amount to a significant number of votes. But that's never been the point. The point is that one fraudulent vote is too many.

To a lot of us this is true. I'm baffled by the "meh, it's good enough as it is" position a lot of folks take around our election process. It's our freaking election process...it's a big deal. It needs to be held to such standards IMO.

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

It's a big deal to me based on their reason. If it's a genuine hardship, I'd agree, but this is the thread of supposition so I suppose the only reason they don't want to get the ID is because they have something to hide. Therefore not a big deal

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It also seems very likely that there have been numerous elections including primaries that have been determined by very few votes, in many cases as few as 1. A large percentage? No. But enough to make fraudulent votes probably the most important priority.

I'm not sure how the existence of some close elections makes fraudulent votes the most important priority. In that Jimmy Carter/James Baker election reform study you like to cite it was just one of a zillion reforms suggested. It didn't seem to receive any special attention.

So let's implement them. The integrity of the process should rank above people that can't follow directions.

OK, one of the reforms was the immediate restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their sentences. Glad to hear you're with me on that one.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

It's a big deal to me based on their reason. If it's a genuine hardship, I'd agree, but this is the thread of supposition so I suppose the only reason they don't want to get the ID is because they have something to hide. Therefore not a big deal

It's a big deal to me even if their reasoning is that it isn't worth it to go through the trouble of getting an ID just to vote.

 

[DrJ]

People without ID can't enter a federal building to engage with their representatives. Is there evidence that a lot of people enter these buildings under someone else's identity? More than a handful of instances?

 

[The Commish]

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

It's a big deal to me based on their reason. If it's a genuine hardship, I'd agree, but this is the thread of supposition so I suppose the only reason they don't want to get the ID is because they have something to hide. Therefore not a big deal

It's a big deal to me even if their reasoning is that it isn't worth it to go through the trouble of getting an ID just to vote.

Why? Let's say they think it's just not worth the effort. That's their decision. If they are ok with it, why aren't you?

 

[DrJ]

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

It's a big deal to me based on their reason. If it's a genuine hardship, I'd agree, but this is the thread of supposition so I suppose the only reason they don't want to get the ID is because they have something to hide. Therefore not a big deal

It's a big deal to me even if their reasoning is that it isn't worth it to go through the trouble of getting an ID just to vote.

Why is it of greater importance than the integrity of the process?

 

[RCon]

It's not about us thinking that elections aren't a "big deal." It's that we're trying to balancing multiple objectives. Notwithstanding DrJ's suggestions to the contrary, it seems very likely that many people that otherwise would have legally voted will not do so if required to show an ID. That, to me, is a "big deal." I know some of you disagree.

It's a big deal to me based on their reason. If it's a genuine hardship, I'd agree, but this is the thread of supposition so I suppose the only reason they don't want to get the ID is because they have something to hide. Therefore not a big deal

It's a big deal to me even if their reasoning is that it isn't worth it to go through the trouble of getting an ID just to vote.

Yeah, this is the part I don't understand. It's unclear to me why we would want to encourage uninformed voting. Seems like this is the mindset that encourages soundbite politics instead of reasoned debate.

 

[parasaurolophus]

We would still know about the fraud, we just wouldn't know who the perpetrator was. We don't seem to have any evidence of this type either.

Agreed....just wanted to make sure the assertions were kept straight. I know I'm on his ignore, but what he presented is not necessarily a way to "catch" anyone, so DrJ's question lives on. If we don't have measures in place to track this type of fraud how do we know this isn't happening? How would it get caught other than dumb luck?

Well, I think the debate we're having right now is about how often this actually happens. For purposes of that debate, information about people showing up and being told they've already voted would be good evidence that this is taking place. For the purpose of figuring out how much this happens, it doesn't matter if we actually catch the bad guy or not. There's no real luck involved with that -- if two different people show up and try to vote using the same name, we will know that this is happening.Yes, actually catching someone doing this in the absence of an ID requirement would probably require some sort of luck. But that's true of virtually every crime. Sometimes people get away with breaking the law.

Fair enough....can you explain why frequency matters to you? Why isn't it good enough that the potential exists?

Because he is a democrat.

You're a dumb ####

you cant get a job legally without filling out an I9.

 

[DrJ]

Cme to think of it, my fraud of a Rep Joe Walsh won by just 291 votes. Very close elections don't seem all that atypical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Walsh_(Illinois_politician)

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Sorry I'm on the phone now so I'm not going to try to type out my vision of democracy and civic engagement. Maybe later or tomorrow.

 

[DrJ]

It also seems very likely that there have been numerous elections including primaries that have been determined by very few votes, in many cases as few as 1. A large percentage? No. But enough to make fraudulent votes probably the most important priority.

I'm not sure how the existence of some close elections makes fraudulent votes the most important priority. In that Jimmy Carter/James Baker election reform study you like to cite it was just one of a zillion reforms suggested. It didn't seem to receive any special attention.

So let's implement them. The integrity of the process should rank above people that can't follow directions.

OK, one of the reforms was the immediate restoration of voting rights to felons who have served their sentences. Glad to hear you're with me on that one.

Definitely fine with that one. You served your sentence, your debt to society has been paid.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

The number of eligible voters for whom it would be a genuine hardship to acquire a government ID is likely very small — probably only a few orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who would commit voter fraud but for an ID requirement. Neither group is large enough to justify driving our policy on this issue, IMO.But the number of people too lazy or indifferent to acquire a government ID is apparently substantial, and an ID requirement may meaningfully reduce voter turnout among that group.

Reasonable minds can differ about whether we want more lazy and indifferent people to vote. I think we'll generally elect better politicians if more lazy and indifferent people vote, but I appreciate that there are good arguments supporting the opposite view as well.

What I don't get is pretending that voter fraud (of the sort that an ID requirement would prevent) is a serious issue.

 

[The Commish]

Political cartoon.

I'm confused. Does the texas law state that if you don't have an ID the minute the law passes, you can never vote again?

No, but those people who currently lack an ID will have to pass a series of demanding challenges to get one, each more fiendishly difficult than the last, and thenOh wait, I was wrong. They just need to swing by the DMV. So yeah, I guess I'm lost here too.

The number of eligible voters for whom it would be a genuine hardship to acquire a government ID is likely very small — probably only a few orders of magnitude greater than the number of people who would commit voter fraud but for an ID requirement. Neither group is large enough to justify driving our policy on this issue, IMO.But the number of people too lazy or indifferent to acquire a government ID is apparently substantial, and an ID requirement may meaningfully reduce voter turnout among that group.

Reasonable minds can differ about whether we want more lazy and indifferent people to vote. I think we'll generally elect better politicians if more lazy and indifferent people vote, but I appreciate that there are good arguments supporting the opposite view as well.

What I don't get is pretending that voter fraud (of the sort that an ID requirement would prevent) is a serious issue.

There is a segment here that seems to think it IS a serious issue, but I think most of us think there's a very easy exploitation that could occur here and want to close the gap before anything happens rather than wait for something to happen then close the gap. Several folks seem to think that's unnecessary and irrational.I go back to the example of personal finance and some IT guy coming to you and saying "Hey, we know there's this gap in our software that will allow people to impersonate you and get to your bank accounts, but don't worry. They haven't exploited it yet. We'll fix it if they do"

 

[dparker713]

But the number of people too lazy or indifferent to acquire a government ID is apparently substantial, and an ID requirement may meaningfully reduce voter turnout among that group.

Which do you think is more likely, that the turnout of that group is meaningfully reduced by the ID requirement or that such group wasn't going to turnout regardless?Basically, I think there is a large union of eligible voters unlikely to vote and eligible voters without an ID.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

But the number of people too lazy or indifferent to acquire a government ID is apparently substantial, and an ID requirement may meaningfully reduce voter turnout among that group.

Which do you think is more likely, that the turnout of that group is meaningfully reduced by the ID requirement or that such group wasn't going to turnout regardless?

I think both are likely to be true. Of the eligible voters without IDs, maybe only 4% of them would vote without an ID requirement, while about 1% would vote with an ID requirement. The difference, however, could be thousands of people per state — tens of thousands in some.

 

[RCon]

I stand newly corrected in one of my previous posts. I voted this week and the pollster said she needed to see my photo ID. Apparently, they have changed the requirements where I live within the last six months, although I don't remember reading about it. Alternately, perhaps it's possible they required ID because the vote was only concerning town topics (not state or federal), and thus the town set's their own eligibility/ID rules?

 

[The Z Machine]

When can we start to debate the horrible laws that prevent convicted felons that have served their time and are integrated back into society from voting? Those are ridiculous laws.

Do the crime, do the time, but after that, you're a full member of society again.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When can we start to debate the horrible laws that prevent convicted felons that have served their time and are integrated back into society from voting? Those are ridiculous laws.Do the crime, do the time, but after that, you're a full member of society again.

How do you feel about laws that strip felons of the ability to (legally) own a firearm? I believe that in some cases, the SEC hands out lifetime bans for people convicted of securities violations. Those punishments, along with disbarrment for JDs and loss of license for physicians, are ridiculous too, right?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think they should be able to vote even while they're in prison.

 

[DrJ]

I think they should be able to vote even while they're in prison.

They get a vote. Bubba has the right of veto.

 

[The Z Machine]

When can we start to debate the horrible laws that prevent convicted felons that have served their time and are integrated back into society from voting? Those are ridiculous laws.Do the crime, do the time, but after that, you're a full member of society again.

How do you feel about laws that strip felons of the ability to (legally) own a firearm? I believe that in some cases, the SEC hands out lifetime bans for people convicted of securities violations. Those punishments, along with disbarrment for JDs and loss of license for physicians, are ridiculous too, right?

Are those other things (aside from the firearms) fundamental rights of a representative democracy? Since I'm not really a fan of the 2nd amendment anyway, you're not going to find me outraged on gun restrictions.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When can we start to debate the horrible laws that prevent convicted felons that have served their time and are integrated back into society from voting? Those are ridiculous laws.Do the crime, do the time, but after that, you're a full member of society again.

How do you feel about laws that strip felons of the ability to (legally) own a firearm? I believe that in some cases, the SEC hands out lifetime bans for people convicted of securities violations. Those punishments, along with disbarrment for JDs and loss of license for physicians, are ridiculous too, right?

Apples and oragutangsWhat harm are you preventing by allowing felons to vote?

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position. Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When can we start to debate the horrible laws that prevent convicted felons that have served their time and are integrated back into society from voting? Those are ridiculous laws.Do the crime, do the time, but after that, you're a full member of society again.

How do you feel about laws that strip felons of the ability to (legally) own a firearm? I believe that in some cases, the SEC hands out lifetime bans for people convicted of securities violations. Those punishments, along with disbarrment for JDs and loss of license for physicians, are ridiculous too, right?

Are those other things (aside from the firearms) fundamental rights of a representative democracy? Since I'm not really a fan of the 2nd amendment anyway, you're not going to find me outraged on gun restrictions.

Do the crime, do the time, but after that, you're a full member of society again.

"Full members of society" have the right to own a firearm, and they have to right to seek employment from people who are willing to hire them. If you think that ex-felons, or certain classes of ex-felons, should be stripped of those rights, then you don't believe in the paid-your-debt-to-society thing. In that case, we're just haggling over which rights should be taken away and which shouldn't be.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

FWIW, I don't lose sleep over felons being able to vote. If it was on the ballot in my state, I'd vote for disenfranchisement, but if the vote went the other way, that would be okay too. I just find it odd that people claim to not be able to understand why a person might support these laws.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position. Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position. Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

What was Bush convicted of?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position. Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

What was Bush convicted of?

I didn't say he was convicted. Drug posession is a felony.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position. Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

What was Bush convicted of?

I didn't say he was convicted. Drug posession is a felony.

Don't you have to be convicted of a felony to be a felon?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Don't you have to be convicted of a felony to be a felon?

So what? All that means is they got caught.IvanK said that people shouldn't get to vote if they've "shown disrespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey." Obama has confessed to using drugs. It's pretty much a certainty that Bush did too, based on statements he and others have made. Seems like both of them have shown an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey.

 

[Mr.Pack]

Don't you have to be convicted of a felony to be a felon?

So what? All that means is they got caught.IvanK said that people shouldn't get to vote if they've "shown disrespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey." Obama has confessed to using drugs. It's pretty much a certainty that Bush did too, based on statements he and others have made. Seems like both of them have shown an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey.

Actually he said felons should not be allowed to vote.

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position.

Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.

Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Actually he said felons should not be allowed to vote.

Right, he said they shouldn't be able to vote because they've "shown disrespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey." That description would also seem to apply to other lawbreakers, such as the President.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position. Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

I've been talking about this is really broad terms, probably too broadly. When I'm thinking about a felony in this context, I'm thinking of a real crime, like bank robbery or murder or embezzlement, not drug possession. Also, like I said in the "Mitt Romney Bullied Gays" thread, I'd give people a pass for things they did when they were young, although in Bush's case I suspect his drug activities continued well into anybody's definition of adulthood. I strongly supported Clinton's impeachment, so I've been consistent on that one. But yeah, as a general, broad principle, I think people who can't obey the law shouldn't be in a position to rule over others. That definitely includes holding political office, and it also includes voting for people who will hold political office. I also wouldn't want ex-felons to serve as judges, police officers, or prosecutors. These discussions are always interesting, because all of us agree that voting is really important. But that starting point leads us to really different conclusions. I see voting as being important because it's a mechanism by which one person tries to get his way through coersion. As a result, we need to have high standards for who can participate in the process, balancing against other considerations obviously. You and Matthias see voting as being important more as a means, I think, of civic participation and governing legitimacy, so you want voting rights spread as broadly as possible. I understand where you guys are coming from.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I've been talking about this is really broad terms, probably too broadly. When I'm thinking about a felony in this context, I'm thinking of a real crime, like bank robbery or murder or embezzlement, not drug possession.

I think drug related crimes are the most common felony in the United States (although I couldn't confirm with a quick google search). So lots of people are losing their voting rights for something you don't consider to be a "real crime."But even for those that commit bank robbery or murder, I'm not sure what the connection is between breaking that law and being able to vote. What makes you think that such people will use their vote less responsibly than the average voter?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

These discussions are always interesting, because all of us agree that voting is really important. But that starting point leads us to really different conclusions. I see voting as being important because it's a mechanism by which one person tries to get his way through coersion. As a result, we need to have high standards for who can participate in the process, balancing against other considerations obviously. You and Matthias see voting as being important more as a means, I think, of civic participation and governing legitimacy, so you want voting rights spread as broadly as possible. I understand where you guys are coming from.

Well put although I'd also say I think of voting as the mechanism whereby the individual completes the circuit of providing feedback to the society which is coercing him. If something goes to a-kilter, you can vote the bums out as it were. And that's why I think depriving ex-felons of their vote is particularly mean-spirited. These are people for whom the state is particularly coercive in their lives. The state may mandate that they appear at certain times, take certain drug tests, not live in certain areas, and be at particular risk of a high penalty for a relatively minor infraction, among other things. So if you remove them from the feedback loop then you have a pretty one-way ratchet of "getting tough on crime." In the tax threads, I hear a lot of, "everyone needs to pay so that they have skin in the game" but there's other instances, like this, whereby people are voting for consequences (stiff sentences, making things more crime) where they have no skin and we're depriving the vote from the only people who do.

I am going to steal this argument.

 

[parasaurolophus]

These discussions are always interesting, because all of us agree that voting is really important. But that starting point leads us to really different conclusions. I see voting as being important because it's a mechanism by which one person tries to get his way through coersion. As a result, we need to have high standards for who can participate in the process, balancing against other considerations obviously. You and Matthias see voting as being important more as a means, I think, of civic participation and governing legitimacy, so you want voting rights spread as broadly as possible. I understand where you guys are coming from.

Well put although I'd also say I think of voting as the mechanism whereby the individual completes the circuit of providing feedback to the society which is coercing him. If something goes to a-kilter, you can vote the bums out as it were. And that's why I think depriving ex-felons of their vote is particularly mean-spirited. These are people for whom the state is particularly coercive in their lives. The state may mandate that they appear at certain times, take certain drug tests, not live in certain areas, and be at particular risk of a high penalty for a relatively minor infraction, among other things. So if you remove them from the feedback loop then you have a pretty one-way ratchet of "getting tough on crime." In the tax threads, I hear a lot of, "everyone needs to pay so that they have skin in the game" but there's other instances, like this, whereby people are voting for consequences (stiff sentences, making things more crime) where they have no skin and we're depriving the vote from the only people who do.

felons should be able to vote so they can try to keep sentencing laws lighter? don't want all if the law abiding citizens making unfair public policies now right?This is one of your weaker comparisons. Which is saying something since most of them are terrible.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

These discussions are always interesting, because all of us agree that voting is really important. But that starting point leads us to really different conclusions. I see voting as being important because it's a mechanism by which one person tries to get his way through coersion. As a result, we need to have high standards for who can participate in the process, balancing against other considerations obviously. You and Matthias see voting as being important more as a means, I think, of civic participation and governing legitimacy, so you want voting rights spread as broadly as possible. I understand where you guys are coming from.

Well put although I'd also say I think of voting as the mechanism whereby the individual completes the circuit of providing feedback to the society which is coercing him. If something goes to a-kilter, you can vote the bums out as it were. And that's why I think depriving ex-felons of their vote is particularly mean-spirited. These are people for whom the state is particularly coercive in their lives. The state may mandate that they appear at certain times, take certain drug tests, not live in certain areas, and be at particular risk of a high penalty for a relatively minor infraction, among other things. So if you remove them from the feedback loop then you have a pretty one-way ratchet of "getting tough on crime." In the tax threads, I hear a lot of, "everyone needs to pay so that they have skin in the game" but there's other instances, like this, whereby people are voting for consequences (stiff sentences, making things more crime) where they have no skin and we're depriving the vote from the only people who do.

I am going to steal this argument.

The reason why these people have so much government interference in their lives is because they've demonstrated through their own freely chosen actions that they can't live among the rest of us without a lot of supervision. It's not like we're just picking people off the street at random and locking them up and then sticking them with a bunch of parole restrictions when we let them out. They're in the criminal justice system for a good reason. I don't mean to say that I don't care what these people go through. If an ex-con wants to tell his story about why prisons need to be reformed, for example, I'll listen and I think we should consider what he has to say. But he doesn't get to decide. What you're talking about is literally giving the inmates a formal role in running the asylum. There's a reason why that phrase is always used pejoratively.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

felons should be able to vote so they can try to keep sentencing laws lighter? don't want all if the law abiding citizens making unfair public policies now right?

Matthias's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Why shouldn't people involved in using and selling drugs get a say in whether or how such acts should be punished?

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

The reason why these people have so much government interference in their lives is because they've demonstrated through their own freely chosen actions that they can't live among the rest of us without a lot of supervision. It's not like we're just picking people off the street at random and locking them up and then sticking them with a bunch of parole restrictions when we let them out. They're in the criminal justice system for a good reason.

I don't mean to say that I don't care what these people go through. If an ex-con wants to tell his story about why prisons need to be reformed, for example, I'll listen and I think we should consider what he has to say. But he doesn't get to decide. What you're talking about is literally giving the inmates a formal role in running the asylum. There's a reason why that phrase is always used pejoratively.

I see a pretty huge distinction between getting a single vote and "running the asylum." I view felon enfranchisement as a check on our criminal justice system.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position.

Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.

Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

What was Bush convicted of?

War crimes.

 

[Mr.Pack]

I think letting felons vote on policies (or representatives who will enact policies) that affect the rest of us is inherently bad. After all, we're talking about people who, by definition, have shown disprespect for and an inability to live under the laws that the rest of us are expected to obey. It should be extremely easy to see why a person like me would argue for disenfranchising them on those grounds. You might not agree, but it's not a "ridiculous" position.

Guilty of insider trading? Sorry, but you permently lose your right to seek employment in the financial industry.

Guilty of bank robbery? Sorry, but you permanently lose your right to participate in governance.

The last two Presidents of the United States have both committed felonies. Should they be allowed to participate in governance?ETA: The last three actually. Forgot about that whole perjury thing.

What was Bush convicted of?

War crimes.

OK, so he can't vote in Malaysia.

 

[parasaurolophus]

felons should be able to vote so they can try to keep sentencing laws lighter? don't want all if the law abiding citizens making unfair public policies now right?

Matthias's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Why shouldn't people involved in murdering and raping get a say in whether or how such acts should be punished?

Somebody that breaks a law will obviously want to get rid of the law or the punishment.Mathias' point becomes crap when your statement is changed as I did above.

 

[parasaurolophus]

felons should be able to vote so they can try to keep sentencing laws lighter? don't want all if the law abiding citizens making unfair public policies now right?

Matthias's argument makes a lot of sense to me. Why shouldn't people involved in murdering and raping get a say in whether or how such acts should be punished?

Somebody that breaks a law will obviously want to get rid of the law or the punishment.Mathias' point becomes crap when your statement is changed as I did above.

"We shouldn't allow murders and rapists to vote because otherwise murder and rape will become legal."This is the peg you're hanging your hat on? Just checking.

So you werent arguing that criminals should have a say in how their crimes are dealt with?You can try and weasel out of what you said, but it was pretty clear.

but there's other instances, like this, whereby people are voting for consequences (stiff sentences, making things more crime) where they have no skin and we're depriving the vote from the only people who do.

Just be honest already. You are a democrat and you want as many people that will vote in agreement with you to be able to vote.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know that there is a more intentionally obtuse person on these boards

At least I hope it's intentional