Democracy is the worst form of government...

[BPPLEE]

All except the last are not inherently fraud, only things that are not permitted (so if they do vote it would be fraudulent). The last item is exceedingly rare.

Voting using a deceased person’s name is not fraud? Lying about your criminal record is not fraud? Lying about your citizenship is not fraud?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Voting using a deceased person’s name is not fraud? Lying about your criminal record is not fraud? Lying about your citizenship is not fraud?

Of course it is, but none of this has to do with the scope of who is allowed to vote, just those who violate the scope.

 

[BPPLEE]

Of course it is, but none of this has to do with the scope of who is allowed to vote, just those who violate the scope.

Either you edited your post or I didn’t see what you put in parentheses

 

[Pommer]

We need to be protected from fraud

How is a felon voting “fraud”? (c.f. Vermont and Maine where incarcerated felons have the franchise)

 

[BPPLEE]

How is a felon voting “fraud”? (c.f. Vermont and Maine where incarcerated felons have the franchise)

In most states they can’t vote unless they have the right restored

 

[Pommer]

In most states they can’t vote unless they have the right restored

But it’s not universal so maybe your points above are moot?

 

[BPPLEE]

But it’s not universal so maybe your points above are moot?

There are some people who are not allowed to vote. What is moot about that? Maybe you just felt the need to post something.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Then maybe what we need isn't a litmus test for voters, but rather a litmus test for candidates.

I'm up for suggestions if you have any.

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe you have another suggestion ...?

For disenfranchising sections of the electorate? No, I don't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Of course it is, but none of this has to do with the scope of who is allowed to vote, just those who violate the scope.

The problem I think, is that some believe it too easy to violate the scope.

 

[Bradskii]

You do see that the above statement is cognitively dissonant? If suffrage is a legal right for all then there can be no exceptions.

I don't want my grandkids voting. So they're included in the exceptions with which nobody disagrees. Including you.

 

[Bradskii]

Please read all the posts; not just the ones that cheer you up. Reasonable grounds have been posted.

I was talking about what you have posted. I haven't seen a reasonable position yet.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, yes, yes and yes. We do restrict rights which are not absolute and those that are funded by the commonwealth.

One cannot legally lie under oath, one cannot scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, our prisons exist to restrict the freedom of prisoners, some states still allow capital punishment, one cannot pursue advanced education beyond secondary school on the public, and healthcare procedures beyond those approved by the state are not funded by the public.

But none of those things are relevant to only those that you term unequal. Which is the point we are discussing. They apply to everyone. Your specific definition of unequal doesn't allow us to take away any of those rights. Including the right to vote.

 

[BPPLEE]

The problem I think, is that some believe it too easy to violate the scope.

Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?

 

[Bradskii]

Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?

Playing the devil's advocate here...but it's reasonable to take away a person's right to freedom if he has broken the law. But does that mean we can take away other rights as well? There's obviously justification for incarceration. Partly it's punishment. If we take away the right to vote then I see no other reason than it being a further punishment.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?

Uhhhh....specifically?

Politicians promising them or their families something.

 

[BPPLEE]

Playing the devil's advocate here...but it's reasonable to take away a person's right to freedom if he has broken the law. But does that mean we can take away other rights as well? There's obviously justification for incarceration. Partly it's punishment. If we take away the right to vote then I see no other reason than it being a further punishment.

It is a privilege that you lose when you commit certain crimes, just like owning firearms.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Playing the devil's advocate here...but it's reasonable to take away a person's right to freedom if he has broken the law.

Right.

But does that mean we can take away other rights as well?

Yeah, absolutely. Of course. You strip them of a right to bear arms, remove their ability to speak with others under certain conditions....


Generally speaking, a great deal of rights become forfeit as a prisoner.

If we take away the right to vote then I see no other reason than it being a further punishment.

Well there's a reason why you don't see it, I'm sure. You aren't looking.

 

[Whyayeman]

Who benefits from allowing convicted felons to vote?

The people who benefit from universal suffrage.

I have always seen voting as a duty. While nobody is pressing for convicts to have the opportunity to vote there is no articulated reason for them to be prevented. Mainly it is just people throwing up their hands in horror. Perhaps someone could set out the case for the status quo.

 

[Bradskii]

It is a privilege that you lose when you commit certain crimes, just like owning firearms.

It is. But why? I can understand the reason in taking away the right to a firearm if the person has shown that he might be violent. But what reason would there be from taking away the right to vote? Other than being a further punishment.

If you can run for president after being convicted, surely you can vote for one.