5 ms·

If I had my 'druthers, disenfranchisement for felonies is anti-democratic nonsense, so people in prison should retain voting rights. The only ethically-hard pr

by Terr_ 1y ago

If I had my 'druthers, disenfranchisement for felonies is anti-democratic nonsense, so people in prison should retain voting rights. The only ethically-hard problem is which jurisdiction their vote should count in, since they cannot demonstrate it by choosing where to live. Perhaps a choice between: 1. The location of the prison, if their main interest is the conditions of their detention rather than anything outside. 2. The location of their property or close family, because they're still paying property-taxes or school levies etc. and they will be returning there later.

Taek 1y ago
You could also just use the last place they lived in before prison.
- sfilmeyer 1y ago
  That makes sense along the lines of their second proposal, but doesn't address the concerns of the first. Part of democracy means voting for the folks who govern you, but a prisoner might be left unable to vote in an election for the local state or municipal governments.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    Fore example, someone with a 10+ year sentence has a compelling interest in local candidates that have different platforms that will affect the parole-rules and phone-call-costs next year.
- smelendez 1y ago
  You could let them choose between that and where they're locked up. I think that's generally how it's worked for college students, although some states are now trying to keep them from voting in their college towns.
dylan604 1y ago
I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated. Does serving time really mean you should not get the same say in leaders as everyone else? As if being incarcerated isn't punishment enough, but disenfranchising on top just seems over the top. Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another. They are even able to vote without having to return to their registered polling place. Allowing inmates to vote could just as easily be handled the same way.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  > I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated. The bulk of felony-disenfranchisement laws have a clear causal connection to preventing newly-freed slaves from voting, as they were enacted alongside terrible laws ("Black codes") which did a lot of blatantly-evil stuff to force former slaves either into a shadow of their old servitude or into jail. The problem is some people imaging voting is a prize you get for making the government happy, which can be clawed-back. Instead, votes in a democracy are something we are owed due to the control that government exercises over our lives. If the government exerts extra control to lock you in a cage, that increases the moral necessity of a vote, rather than decreasing it.
  - nyolfen 1y ago
    if somebody defects against society very seriously, damaging others, i have no problem with stripping them of legal rights. this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment. constitutional rights are granted by men, not god, in service of shared prosperity; democracy is good insofar as it produces good results, not because it is the intrinsic source of good. there is no higher construct to appeal to, like this platonic ideal of democracy you're gesturing at
    - dylan604 1y ago
      Okay so now you’ve set an arbitrary limit with “very seriously” yet you do not define what that means. Is grand theft auto worthy of striping someone’s vote? Is conviction of marijuana possession? Is shop lifting? Is embezzlement? Where’s the line of very serious for you? It won’t be the same for someone else. Do you see the issue inherent with your proposal?
eloisius 1y ago
Or the same thing that happens when you move abroad: you vote in your last place of residence
jszymborski 1y ago
Probably the location they were last registered to vote? If they've never been registered to vote, then the place they were last domiciled? If we're on the democratic reforms train, then this is all a silly discussion we're forced to have because the US doesn't have proportional representation.
xracy 1y ago
There would certainly be more incentive to be seen as rehabilitating, rather than just 'tough on crime'. Since 'False Positives' in the legal system could come back to bite you as a representative.

by Terr_ 1y ago

Taek 1y ago

You could also just use the last place they lived in before prison.

sfilmeyer 1y ago
That makes sense along the lines of their second proposal, but doesn't address the concerns of the first. Part of democracy means voting for the folks who govern you, but a prisoner might be left unable to vote in an election for the local state or municipal governments.
- Terr_ 1y ago
  Fore example, someone with a 10+ year sentence has a compelling interest in local candidates that have different platforms that will affect the parole-rules and phone-call-costs next year.
smelendez 1y ago
You could let them choose between that and where they're locked up. I think that's generally how it's worked for college students, although some states are now trying to keep them from voting in their college towns.

dylan604 1y ago

I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated. Does serving time really mean you should not get the same say in leaders as everyone else? As if being incarcerated isn't punishment enough, but disenfranchising on top just seems over the top. Many people live in an area, but keep their voting registration in another. They are even able to vote without having to return to their registered polling place. Allowing inmates to vote could just as easily be handled the same way.

Terr_ 1y ago
> I've never understood the not allowing felons to vote, even while incarcerated. The bulk of felony-disenfranchisement laws have a clear causal connection to preventing newly-freed slaves from voting, as they were enacted alongside terrible laws ("Black codes") which did a lot of blatantly-evil stuff to force former slaves either into a shadow of their old servitude or into jail. The problem is some people imaging voting is a prize you get for making the government happy, which can be clawed-back. Instead, votes in a democracy are something we are owed due to the control that government exercises over our lives. If the government exerts extra control to lock you in a cage, that increases the moral necessity of a vote, rather than decreasing it.
- nyolfen 1y ago
  if somebody defects against society very seriously, damaging others, i have no problem with stripping them of legal rights. this is in fact exactly the principle underlying imprisonment. constitutional rights are granted by men, not god, in service of shared prosperity; democracy is good insofar as it produces good results, not because it is the intrinsic source of good. there is no higher construct to appeal to, like this platonic ideal of democracy you're gesturing at
  - dylan604 1y ago
    Okay so now you’ve set an arbitrary limit with “very seriously” yet you do not define what that means. Is grand theft auto worthy of striping someone’s vote? Is conviction of marijuana possession? Is shop lifting? Is embezzlement? Where’s the line of very serious for you? It won’t be the same for someone else. Do you see the issue inherent with your proposal?

eloisius 1y ago

Or the same thing that happens when you move abroad: you vote in your last place of residence

jszymborski 1y ago

Probably the location they were last registered to vote? If they've never been registered to vote, then the place they were last domiciled? If we're on the democratic reforms train, then this is all a silly discussion we're forced to have because the US doesn't have proportional representation.

xracy 1y ago

There would certainly be more incentive to be seen as rehabilitating, rather than just 'tough on crime'. Since 'False Positives' in the legal system could come back to bite you as a representative.