3 ms·

No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights. For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which retur

No, the State of Florida isn't protecting voting rights, your words. It is attacking voting rights. For example, Florida passed Amendment 4 in 2018 which returned the voting rights of most felons after they'd served their sentences. This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis. The state government wasn't protecting voting rights when it litigated the result. Indeed they are attacking the will of the citizens of Florida as expressed by their votes.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I think you are making biased comments. There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting. Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security. On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility. Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.
- random314 5y ago
  Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors. Type 1 = right people not being able to vote Type 2 = wrong people voting The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.

OrvalWintermute 5y ago

I think you are making biased comments. There are good arguments both for, and against tightening, or loosening up a number of processes around voting. Currently in the US, most voting processes are significantly weaker than processes around getting a driver's license, purchasing alcohol, or buying a gun. This encourages participation at the cost of security. On the other hand, having to be at a certain place in a specific time window, or having to produce a strong identity can reduce voting participation to a minor extent. If this was altered such as by mass mail-in voting then this would reduce security at a benefit of accessibility. Part of the penalties for a conviction can be paying a fine to your victims or to the state. A logical example of your argument would be that you'd permit Bernie Madoff to vote after his release (provided he lived) regardless of whether or not he fully compensated the numerous victims of his financial crimes.

random314 5y ago
Its basic data science to identify what kind of errors the current system introduces. Is it Type 1 errors or type 2 errors. Type 1 = right people not being able to vote Type 2 = wrong people voting The US has massive type 1 errors by far. So far I have only seen one instance of Type 2 error - a Republican voting twice. When I see people pounding on reducing non existent type 2 errors I have to question their intent.