"Disenfranchised" Voters
 

linky-dink

I am not a "conservative" per se, but if you commit a felony, I think you should forfeit your right to vote.

I personally have no problem with denying criminals the right to vote nor do I see any issue with requiring people to prove that they are who they say they are in order to vote...we dont need another election rife with mistakes and fraud. These rules should be consistent, however, and not applied arbitrarily to constituencies based upon demographic profiles.

I do think that it is wrong to arrest people for other charges or delinquent payments while trying to vote is unacceptable and un-American.

My concern about the legitimacy of the 2004 election results grows daily...especially with the inaccuracy and opaqueness of the new electronic voting machines being adopted around the country...(see picture)

Hell, the CEO of Diebold (one of the leading makers of touch-screen voting machines) is a heavy contributor to the Bush campaign and even publicly stated that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.”
http://www.economist.com/images/20040918/CUS926.gif
Scary stuff.

I believe that the flyers threatening arrest for those behind on bills, etc are a hoax designed to keep voters away from the polls. As far as I know, it's not a crime to be behind on your phone bill. Anyway, what's troubling about this piece isn't that felons are blocked from voting but rather that there is apparently an organized effort to disenfranchise black voters throughout the country. This makes all of the cries of foul-play that came out of Florida in 2000 even more relevant. Speaking of Florida, just htis year the state government released the names of felons who would be barred from voting and, just as in 2000, there were thousands of falsely accused voters on the rolls, the majority of which were black. Given what happened there in 2000, I have to accuse them of intentional negligence for letting this happen again. I could believe in accidents the first time, but again? It's worth noting that the "felon" list doesn't exclude many Latinos, who happen to vote Republican in Florida (Cuban exiles).

That's interesting, but it sounds anecdotal to me....is there any proof of this?

Its a lie of the left to 'scare' blacks into voting.

Never any proof, never any substance, never anything but lies.

It gets old.

Thanks Pacifer...

Florida better get their shit straight before November. I dont want to field even more questions while I am travelling about why the "model" democracy cant seem to get its elections to work correctly.

And, by the way, does anyone know if Colorado will actually proportionally split its electoral votes this year??? I wish all states would adopt this method. It is the only fair way of retaining the Electoral College.

From Alternet:
http://alternet.org/election04/19917/

Never anything but lies, huh? I'd be insulted if you weren't so wrong.

link

more power to 'em! It is time that everyone's vote is counted...how could this possibly be a bad thing?!

More partisan BS. Both sides are guilty of trying to discourage votes from core constituents of their opponents. It goes on in every election. There's voter fraud as well. Plenty of dead people somehow voting and plenty of cases of people being paid to vote.

How about the pastors in black churches who get hefty donations to push their congregations to vote for the Dem candidate?

If you want to talk about the questionable tactics coming from one party it's only fair to discuss the tactics used by the other.

As far as felons being able to vote, I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. I lean more heavily toward them being allowed to vote if they've "paid their debt to society" but there may be a good reason that I'm not aware of for denying them this right. To blame this fact solely on Republicans is partisanship of the highest order. Why haven't the Dems changed these laws if it's so important? Perhaps because it's so much easier to keep using it as a dagger against Republicans in every race.

As far as a citizen being arrested at a polling place when they cast their vote, you're damn right that should be an option. If they're wanted and the police think they're going to be somewhere (whether it's voting or having a drink in a bar) it's proper for them to arrest them and they should be put into the system to deal with the charges against them. Of course, rents not being paid or whatever have nothing to do with this as that's a private matter for the landlord and tenant or phone company or whichever institution at issue. If that company wants to hire someone to serve papers on a citizen when they go to vote, again, I see no foul.

By all means go ahead. I'm sure that there is Democratic fraud in some places, so feel free to post some examples. We are talking about specific cases of disenfranchisement, not just partisan conjecture.

No one blamed Republicans for the fact that 14 states do not allow felons to vote. We are talking about people who are erroneously placed on felon lists. The most galling aspect of the Florida situation is that they seem to be repeating the same mistakes from 2000. To have the same situation forming again stinks of negligence.

As I stated above, no one is actually getting arrested at polling places. The original article references disinformation flyers that falsely threaten those behind on their bills with arrest, an obvious intimidation move.

Disenfranchisement of African Americans has been a far to common occurence throughout American history. The practice is so heinous and antidemocratic that members of any party should be outraged.

I do not find it surprising that democrats want felons to vote.

I'm sure rapists, murderers, thieves, and lairs are all welcome with open arms. Maybe they could form groups like 'Killers for Kerry', or 'Rapists for Truth'.

My arguement about not allowing felons to vote is quite simple, society has proved their judgement is suspect and as such they should have no say in the government.

For the third time, no one is questioning the laws that prevent felons from voting. We are speaking of citizens who are mistakenly (?) put on felon lists. Lump me in with killers and rapists if you wish, but please read the postings before you reply.

Do you not recall the challenge of military absentee ballots in Florida? If you want to talk about the specific cases rather than conjecture, how about producing the fliers you stake such belief in? And how about tying those fliers to members of the Republican party? Unless you can do that this whole thread is "partisan conjecture" as I stated in the very first sentence of my response.

The way the article is written it clearly implies that Republicans (Conservatives and Republicans are virtually interchangeable) are responsible:


I am not defending the action I am simply pointing out that outrage directed at only one side when the other side implements similar tactics is completely disingenuous.

Discouraging voters from voting is abhorent and people should be outraged about it. The outrage should be directed at all who do it rather than only those who disagree with you who do it.

personally i find it kind of strange that felons should not be allowed to vote (in some cases it might be OK, but in the USA it seems to be normal). A citizen is a citizen and should have the right to vote. But then again in the USA you have no right to vote

Are you serious?

about what?
the right for felons to vote?
in most nations felons are allowed to vote, in germany the right to vote is only revoked in certain cases (politically motivated crimes for example).

I never claimed that those fliers came from Republican party operatives. Besides, the fliers are only one point in a larger issue. An easily provable point is that people have once again been incorrectly placed on the felon list.

Read it however you want, but no one has explicitly claimed that orders came from Republican HQ. There is a difference between conservative and Republican.

As I stated earlier, you are more than welcome to broaden the conversation. Let's hear how Republicans have been intimidated or wrongfully prevented from voting. Thankfully, the attempt to discount the military ballots was not succesfull, unlike some of the examples that we are mentioning. I'll happily complain about the disenfranchisment of any voter. Of course, it should be noted that diesnfranchisement seems to occur most heavily to poor members of minority communities.

Don't assume that everyone that disagrees with you is a partisan hack. I am not too fond of the Democratic party myself, but I agree with them more then the Repubs. Regardless of that, I do try to see both sides.

I have no problem with disenfranchising felons, but I've always been disgusted with the other political nonsense that both sides have demonstrated when it comes to influencing the vote.

Does anyone remember the famous Chicago elections in which Daley had the support of the living...and the dead?

Yep, Richard Daley Sr. had the strong support of the zombie community. Some would even say that it was Daley that delivered Illinois, and the nation, to Kennedy.

Edit: of course, voter fraud is a seperate issue from disenfranchisment.

My favorite story from the 2000 elections is the black guy who was denied voting because he commited a fellony in 2007! Damn minority report!

People should not play politics with voting. I don't mind taking away a felons right to vote but if problems like what is happening in florida keep happening i'm totally against it. I'd rather have 1000 felons get to vote then 1 non-felon denied.

So it is acceptable to remove a person's right to participate on the basis of your call on whether or not their judgement is sound?

As far as I'm concerned, there are many things that can bring one's judgement into question, but I don't take away someone's vote because of it.

When a person is incarcerated, it is to protect society from their presence, and to punish them by seperating them from being able to participate in that society. A judge sentences the convict to an appropriate period of time based on the crime, that will provide appropriate punishment. When that time is over, their sentence is complete, and they are no longer to be prevented from participation in society.

Now maybe you are not a fan of letting felons ever get out of prison, but I certainly believe that not all felonies are worthy of a life sentence. So why would we automatically pass lafe sentences on every felon in regards to voting?

Some people are not opposed to going back to literacy tests and limiting voting to those people considered to be 'of responsible character'. Personally I think that is bollocks. I certainly consider myself to be a voter of above-average awareness of the issues, and to be one who takes voting seriously and puts thought and intelligence into my choice. But I don't see this as giving me the rationale to block others from voting because I think they may not have the same level of intelligence/responsibility/knowledge/whatever that I do.

Commiting a felony is a sign of bad judgement, true, but so is becoming a problem gambler, drinking and driving, cheating on your spouse, or over-spending on your credit cards.

Felons are not 'equal' once released. They can not work in some jobs, they can not own firearms (at least in my state), they are looked on more harshly if they are arrested again (3 strikes you are out). If I were convicted of a felony I would lose my license as a health provider. Why should they have a right to vote? They have willingly violated the laws of a society so why should they be trusted with that society? There are a lot of people that should not vote, but that is subjective opinion. On the other hand felons are people who were proven in a court of law to willingly violate the laws of the land. They have no respect for the laws we all agree to adhere too and should have no say.

you could argue that the logic of the judicial system obtains in fact--if you commit a crime you serve x amount of time as a sentence you have "paid you debt to society" and your basic rights are restored to you.

the right to vote is more basic that your right to conduct a professional service. the two are, in fact, unrelated to each other.

as for the earlier posts about the democrats and felons, they really are beneath contempt. were they more substantive, they might rise to the level of a low blow--but as they are wholly arbitrary, they do not even achieve that exalted status.

it seems the the discursive bottom can always be located by looking for where the right is feeding.

Ustwo,

It doesn't take too much imagination to conjure up scenarios where stripping the right to vote from a felon seems overly harsh. How about a 17 year old busted for marijuana? If that is the only crime that they ever commit then should they be denied the right to vote their entire life? Therre are mechanisms for felons to have their voting rights restored in some states, but according to your view, felons do not deserve to have said rights restored. To take your example further, how serious does disrespect for the law/society have to be before someone's rights are stripped? Many of us willingly violate the traffic laws of society on a daily basis...should we also be disenfranchised? I know that the analogy is a bit ridiculous, but so are hard-line statements that tar every former felon as a societal malcontent that deserves no say.

Yes, obviously pointing out similar behavior from the party dealing out the race card in this election is wholely inappropriate. :rolleyes:

Similar behavior? What are you talking about? Roachboy was referring to Ustwo's quip that the Democratic party is the party of muderers, rapists, etc.

Also, is it "playing the race card" to try to prevent the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters? Shouldn't you be accusing Florida election officials of playing the race card?

Perhaps I misread it then as it seemed to be a blanket statement about all posts who brought up Democrats. If that's not the case then I apologize and please ignore my off the mark comment.

Yes it is playing the race card because they are associating it with intimidation of only blacks. Was it only blacks who ended up off the voter rolls? I think not. Are blacks the only felons not allowed to vote? Obviously not. Yet the article clearly makes race a dividing point. Why not make the whole case about the fact that this happened or is happening rather than it being targeted at blacks? Obviously it's because they are trying to motivated blacks, who are more likely to vote Democratic, to get to the polls.

The fact that blacks are vastly overrepresented when it comes to disenfranchisment in Florida makes their race relevant. Should we ignore the implications that blacks were mistakenly identified as felons by the thousands whereas only a handful of latinos were? This issue isn't about "motivating blacks" but about preventing their disempowerment. Even if you think that the race numbers are pure coincidence, you have to admit that it seems damn suspicious. Obviously, whoever created the felon lists is the one that made race a dividing line.

Why? Do you have evidence that this list was purposefully manipulated? How do the errors in Florida compare with errors in other states? There are tons of assumptions being made on this issue with very little evidence.

By disproportianally targeting blacks, whether intentionally or not, they made race an issue. I don't need numbers from other states to know that what is happening/happened in Florida is wrong and needs to be seriously addressed.

So you have evidence that this was intentional then?

Anyone have any proof of this?

Moveon.org just accused Bush of causing the hurricanes, so I'd hope it comes from a real source.

If you commit a crime and are found guilty, you serve a sentence. When you come out, are you not supposed to have a second chance? Why should everyone who ever made a mistake be a second class citizen forever?

I see where you are going with your analogy, but you are listing examples of misdemeanors, not felonies. It makes your argument emotional but not relevant. If it were restated using actual felonies (i.e. ADW, battery, spousal abuse, rape, murder, embezzelment, extortion, etc., etc.) it would have a completely different effect.

Losing your right to vote because of a felony conviction is known end-result. Just like going to jail for committing a felony is a known end-result. Don't want to go to jail, don't commit a crime. Don't want to lose your right to vote, don't commit a felony.

That being said.....the list must be accurate and all sides should fight for that, regardless of political persuasion.


As to Colorado: I am 100% against the Proposal and will vote against it. It comes across from partisan from the Democratic side when these proposals are brought up in states that are in the red column. As far as I know, I don't see any of the blue states with this proposal. If I am wrong, please correct me, but it comes across like the Democrats want to pull electoral votes from the Republicans but they don't want to risk losing any of their own.

1) I am not familiar with your "second chance" theory. The slate is not wiped clean once you are released from jail regardless of the crime. Your criminal record stays with you.

2) Your last statement is a gross over-generalization.

People are, and must continue to be, held accountable for their actions.

Hey! This is a thread dedicated to criticizing Republican efforts to "steal" the election. Get that hokey Democrats doing the same thing stuff out of here.

:D

Sorry, just couldn't resist. :thumbsup:

I think everyone can agree that attempts to disenfranchise voters, which has been done by both sides, is unacceptable. Regardless of the strenght of one's convictions, in a Democracy we must give people the right to vote.

The concept of allowing felons to vote is difficult. I think that while you are serving your sentence for a felony conviction, you most certainly should not have the right to vote. I think that once you have "paid your debt", this right should be restored. I think exceptions could be made for those convicted of violent crimes, multiple offenders and recidivists and for crimes against the United States, such as treason.

I have a neighbor who is 19 years old. He was driving intoxicated while his underage brother was in the car. In my state, DUI with a minor in the car is a felony. He can no longer vote. Apparently he is looking into ways to get this right restored, but it is difficult. Do we think that when this young man is 50 years old, he should still be prevented from voting?

Has he looked into ways to be pardoned? A pardon basically throws the conviction out and I would assume the right to vote would return upon pardon.

EDIT: Hmmmm, now that I think about it that could be a good political strategy. Pardon everyone with the undeclared understanding that they vote for you.

But a man who drove irresponsibility under alcohol can still be president? strange nation... :hmm: ;)

The speeding analogy was admittedly ridiculous (as I mentioned before) but was used to illustrate the point that not all crimes are a sign of societal malfeasance that should immediately result in disenfranchisment. I was replying to a previous post that used language that implied just that.

A much better example is the marijuana example that I made earlier. Should a young person be stripped of the right to vote because of a victimless crime? The crimes that you list definitely seem geared to elicit an emotional reaction, as a large percentage of felons in this country are non-violent drug offenders, not rapists, murderers, etc.

Notice the phrase "intentionally or not" in my earlier sentence. Since we have no way of knowing if it was intentional, the suspicious disbursement of mistakes on the felon rolls forces race into the issue. This is particularly galling given that the exact same thing happened four years ago.

Simple possession is usually not a felony, especially in the case of marijuana. Arguable about being vicitmless, but I at least agree on that part.

Felony possession is usually tied with intent to sell, far from victimless.

I would guess that it would be a royal pain in the butt to separate out the felonies as to whether the priviledge of voting should be retained or not.

I stand on my original point. If you are committing a felony then you are probably aware of the reprecussions, but don't care. Simple way to keep your right to vote: don't commit a felony, any felony.

Simple versus felony possession is only a small difference of quantity and the amount differs from state to state. Also, if one friend buys pot from another, is he a victim?

Well, thankfully only 14 states agree with you and believe that committing any felony at all deserves lifelong punishment. Hopefully you live in one.

I don't care what the crime is... that's why there's FELONY and MISDEMEANOR... here in NYC it's a MISDEMEANOR for pot possession up to 1 ounce...

don't do the crime if you can't do the time. PERIOD. Youth, ignorance, etc, is no excuse. Accept responsibility for your actions, when I found myself on the wrong side of the law, I made sure that I didn't get a felony conviction and just a misdemeanor because I understood what a felony would do to me. Some people don't care about their future. I care about mine.

cthulu23,

huh?!?

Doesn't a criminal record stay with a person for their entire life in all 50 states? Isn't that a form of punishment....having a record that follows you wherever you go? Should we get rid of that too?

I guess I just have a hard time defending someone who has committed a crime. I think we should be more worried about preventing crime and punishing criminals then whether or not a convicted felon gets to vote or note.

Criminal records may follow you but "extra" punishment above and beyond the prison sentence is up to the states (I think). No one is arguing that we should throw away criminal records, so we can put that straw man aside.

If anyone here thinks that an ounce of weed should equal a lifetime punishment than I have to respectfully disagree with them. Thankfully, it seems that the majority of the states aren't quite so draconian in viewpoint.

Do you remember food eater lad? I hear echos of his presence.

gawd the straw man comment is really getting overused here.

First, carrying a criminal record is a punishment. Carrying an ounce of marijuana, in any state, is a crime. This is not draconian, it is the law.

2 + 2 = 4

Loss of voting priviledges is only one of the many reprecussions of committing a crime. The "lifelong punishment" comments are being used to elicit emotion. This is not an emotional issue. It is a personal responsibility issue.

There are only two answers here:

1) Don't commit a crime, specifically a felony.

or

2) Work to change the law.

Until then, everything else is just blather.

Cynthetiq said it best.

Unless you are forced to commit a felony, you commit the act of your own free will. Any rights lost because of this action are only the fault of the person committing the crime and I won't lose any sleep over it.

/this doesn't negate the point that the felony list must be maintained and accurate.

Incidentally, people who get out of prison vote 9x% democratic, so the democratic party DOES have an interest in allowing felons to vote.

A documentary that pertains to this is called "Unprecedented." It is about the 2000 election fiasco and it has a decidedly anti-Bush bias, but if you awtch it with a discerning eye, you can see that both sides tried to "steal" the election in their own ways, such as Gore only wanting recounts in counties where it would likely give him MORE votes, but not wanting recounts over the rest of Florida where he may have taken a hit.

KMA-268,

The straw man comment was perfectly acceptable given that you were bringing up a non-related issue into the discussion and foisting it upon me.

I never claimed that possession of marijuana isnt a crime, nor did I claim that 2 + 2 != 4 (thanks for the math refresher). I mention "lifelong punishment" because that is exactly what disenfranchisement amounts to and that is what I was referrring to as draconian. You can react emotionally if you wish.

By pointing out the flaws in a law, am I not, in a sense, doing something to change it? Anyway, if you want to ban "blather," than I suspect that the tfproject will be not be long for this world, particularly the political forum. "How can you complain about [issue x]? Go out and change it!"

All in all, this is not the most important idea that was being discussed in this thread. I find the disenfranchisement of innocent people much more compelling. What do you think?

Although I am definitely curious about where you got that number, if it is accurate than you could just as easily say that the Republicans have an interest in NOT letting felons vote.

Let's forget party here, though. Issues of civil rights and citizenship are much more important. Do I have to mention that I'm not a registered Democrat and I organized for Nader last election? I only mention that because this thread has been littered with accusations of democratic propaganda from moment 1.

Wha? Where? When? I dont see that on their site...

This is very true and I don't disagree one single bit. I got this number from one of two places (I don't remember PRECISELY). It was either mentioned IN the documentary that I pointed out in my previous post, which I watched in one of my poli sci classes, or it was mentioned in the discussion afterwards by the poli sci teacher who had as watch the documentary. I'm pretty sure it was IN the documentary though. Nonetheless, I can't see any reason why she'd provide us with that statistic one way or another if it were incorrect, considering that she is self-described as far left of even the democrats and is also a major political statistics junkie (we spent the entire first week of class simply looking at various government statistics).

I'm not defending or disproportionately accusing either side here. I think both sides try to do what they can to unjustly "obtain" elections, and it sickens me.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I don't see how it would be difficult to verify the criminal record of someone on the list. That information is easily available to law enforcement agencies.

Are there any legitimate numbers on this issue?

that's where the flaw is...from disenfranchising them to death penalty...that's why there are so many appeals etc because if there isn't reasonable doubt then a conviction must happen, even if the person is truly innocent.

there's people who say to work to change it... well those people who got disenfrancised are the ones who need to spread the word, to make those ignorant people less ignorant and to be wary of their position and what can happen to them. But as far as I'm concerned the dice have been cast and they don't get another chance, they should make it known and use their plight to scare people straight.

IMO that still won't work because of the apathy people have towards getting involved in the government.

Cynthetiq,

There is always the question of what rights can the government legitimately strip away from a citizen. As mentioned by another poster, most other western industrialized nations have no such law, not to mention that neither do a majority of the US states. Is this a reasonable state power? Citizens are forced to abide by the social contract no matter what so shouldn't the rights that are implicit within our social contract be inalienable from us? But we are drifting far afield from the original topic of this thread.

One last point: expecting the least powerful in a society to radically alter it is a bit unfair.

A government either recognizes or does not recognize a right. It can not remove the right, but only fail to respect it.

As for your last point, it is unreasonable to expect rapid radical change except in response to drastic emergencies. However, it is not unreasonable to chart goals that may be radically different than today's position, but which we can begin to take steps toward achievement of.

From the alternet article linked earlier in this thread:

Those numbers apply to this year. I'm having a hard time dredging up exact numbers from the 2000 election, but here's a link to the US Commission on Civil Rights report on the election in Florida:

http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/main.htm

Their conclusion? therer wre many irregularitites and actions by the state of Florida that resulted in the disenfranchisement of many citizens. To focus on those wrongfully accused of being felons, the state required that the IT firm that searched their voting databases for felons need an accuracy rate of 90%. The firm countered that it could increase accuracy to 99.9%, but Florida demured. A 10% error rate is not acceptable in matters such as these. Why would florida drop the ball so badly and so negligently?

I am a complete believer in the possibility of social change, but expecting change to be accomplished solely by the poor/ignorant (not my word) may be expecting too much.

no. if they broke laws and harmed others, they why should their rights triumph over those they harmed? If there is no teeth to back it up then what's the point?

That's why IMO the Three Strikes Laws are fine... 3 chances.. you can't figure that out by the third time, then that's a shame even if the third time was petty compared to the first two... it's still 3 times.

back to the thread.

Well, I hate to continue threadjacking, but.....

The "teeth" in law enforcement are jails, prisons or the death penalty (as well as community service, fines, etc). There is a reason that the phrase "inalienable" was used to describe our rights as citizens in the Declaration of Independence. Stripping someone of their most meaningful method of influencing government is a scary proposition, and one the seems downright un-American. What about unjust laws or miscarriages of justice? Seeing the world in black and white terms may simplify things but it in no way reflects reality.

As for the 3 strikes laws, it's nonsense such as them that has turned America into the greatest jailer in the world. Along with mandatory minimum sentences, 3 strikes is taking away a cornerstone of any reasonable legal system; judicial discretion.

As soon as Ann Coulter writes about, I'll be sure to post it for you.

Why would you vote on something based specifically on a partisan methodology instead of the issue itself?

If you do not support electoral vote splits, you should vote against it and oppose it in all other states (start with the Red if you like). If you do support electoral vote splits, you should vote for it - and then support it in all other states (start with the Blue if you like).

But to just vote against something because someone from a different political party suggested it is an obscene affront to the concept of voting.

So ... if you commit a felony before the voting age of 18, you feel you're still liable for the rest of your life?

If you're not old enough to be given the right to vote - how can you be old enough to understand what it means that a crime you are committing is going to eliminate your right to vote?

How did you ensure your conviction was just a misdemeanor? Do you mean when you carried you were always sure to have less than an ounce, or that when you got caught with more than an ounce you struck a deal for misdemeanor, like informing on your dealer?

you're kidding, right?

Your response to my post has nothing to do with what I said. You might want to re-read my post and edit yours or post again.

Let me recap:

1) From what I can tell, it is only being proposed in states that Kerry is losing in or that Gore lost in 2000.

2) It should be all or none. I would not vote for this measure AS I MENTIONED IN MY POST.

3) The fact that this measure is proposed in a state like Colorado and not even considered in California reaks of partisian politics. Obviously the Democrats want to take from the Republican column but will not even consider the reverse.

You are right, you should be 100% for it or 100% against it in all states, but that is not the issue here.

Where did I say I would vote on it based on "partisan methodology instead of the issue itself"?

Again, you're kidding, right?

Any crimes committed while a minor are null and void after your 18th birthday. They have no bearing on your ability to vote unless you did something so severe that you are tried as an adult.

how is letting them vote allowing their rights to triumph over those they harmed?

Actually, the age of legal adulthood as far as the criminal justice system in most states is concerned is 17. Some states go lower (really), but I can't think of any that go higher. does anyone else know any details about this?

No.
The issue is, you have an opportunity to support either splitting the electoral votes or not splitting the electoral votes. Instead of voting based on that issue, you have decided to vote anti-Democrat.

If you support states splitting their electoral votes, you should vote for it because there is not other method for you to cast a vote for states splitting their electoral votes.

If you do not support states splitting their electoral votes, you should vote against it.

You have not claimed either position - but you have, twice now, mentioned your displeasure with the "fairness" of Democrats.
Where did you say you were not going to vote for it because you do not support it at all?

Again, no.

We're talking about felonies. In general, they are severe. If severity has a bearing here - maybe we need to judge the seriousness of any given election in order to determine how old one must be in order to partake. But we don't - we set an absolute cut-off of 18 or older. We do not apply that same logic to "trying someone as an adult". Apparently, someone under 18 can "prove" their adulthood by commiting a crime - but they can never prove their adulthood in order to vote. And yet we still apply the same disenfranchisement by virtue of their proof of adulthood via crime.

That's ridiculous.

Here is what I originally wrote.

This is what you wrote. And I know this because I already quoted you once on it.
Your explanation for voting against it is that it is only coming up in a Blue state.

That's you voting on an issue because it benefits Democrats in this case - not because of the issue itself.

maybe it would have made more sense if I added a paragraph, but the last part of what you quoted is not my reasoning about why i am against it. I am stating that I don't like the way it is being presented. It is bogus in its nature.

You are ignoring the games behind this proposal.

yes. there are things that I did in my youth that I am liable for today...from cheating on tests to getting suspended in school for fighting. May not be the magnitude, but the idea is still the same.

If you get AIDS before you are 18 should you be given a second chance??? It's VERY simple....maybe it fits better if it's in bold...

Accept responsibility for your actions.

There is no real analogy that can be made between AIDS and the criminal justice system. Hell, I hope you have a lttile sympathy for AIDS victims. Anyway, see my earlier post about a black and white perception of the world.

And yet I still have no clue if you support splitting electoral votes or not.

But I do know that you do not support splitting electoral votes in a Blue state if it is an initiative of Democrats.

I see very little difference between what you are doing and what you accuse the Democrats in your state of doing. Political manipulation for specific partisan ends instead of benefits to society.

I'm going to start another thread, because this would be going way off-topic - but this AIDS/responsibility/disenfranchisement thing is too much to just let pass.

But I will say that you are not making your case by repeating the apparently magical phrase "accept responsibility for your actions". Are all mistakes inexcusable? Apparently, they are - if making one mistake is enough to eliminate your right to vote forever. Why not just lock up anyone convicted of a crime forever? Being imprisoned is the punishment for a serious crime, it is a punishment that typically has a time limit - where is the connection with perpetual disenfranchisment?

Criminal sentences are not handed down by God. They are meted out by humans. Saying that someone should be punished doesn't mean that any type of punishment whatsoever is justified. What if the US government wanted to reinstitute stoning or crucifixion? Should we just "accept responsibility" then and lie back?

I was asked my opinion. That's what it is. I'm not making a case for changing your mind. I'm saying ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS.

Whatever the consequences of your actions bear, that's what that means. Simple, if it happens to mean in 1950s that you are ostracized from the community, or in 2000s where the community is more permissive and forgiving. Or in the 1800s where marijuana or cocaine possession was legal, to the current past 20 year war on drugs. Times change. Viewpoints change. Laws change.

I have a few friends that died of AIDS. How did they contract it? A permissive gay lifestyle. Simple. They did not ask for it, it's what was a possible consequence for the lifestyle they lead and they lived very full lives up until their deaths.

Even a 14 year old who impregnates a girl may not fully understand the ramifications of the actions, but there is a consequence that must be accepted along with a responsibility. The concept I am trying to express is simple, we may not know what ALL the consequences are for all our actions, but we must be willing to accept the responsibility that there are some consequences to our actions, good or bad, temporary or permanent.

If you did nothing to combat it, then yes, lie back and accept the responsibilty of your actions, in this case inactions. The US government does not do things in a vaccum. There's time to discuss, implement, execute, study, and sometimes upon discovering new things not working return to previous methods. Since the governement is composed of humans, it's safe to say they will make mistakes, and humans will then have to correct them.

As a believer in survival of the fittest, life is not fair. Plain and simple. Is that black or white? No it's not, there's many factors that come into play, but ultimately each day the lion has to run faster than the slowest antelope, and
conversely the fastest antelope only has to run faster than the slowest lion.

Well said, opie. The same thing was going thru my mind.

Can someone, anyone give me a good reason why splitting electoral votes proportionally in accordance with popular vote is a bad idea? I can see why the argument would be made that this shuld not be done in select states, but unfortunately that is exactly how our Union works. It is up to the states in this matter to make a decision how they allocate their electoral votes, be that "winner-takes-all" or proportionally...technically it is none of the Federal Government's business which method a state adopts.

If a few states start making changes, more will come on board, be those "Red" or "Blue" or "Green" or whatever. Partisan politics may or may not be behind the current discussions in Colorado, I am not 100% sure...however, I know that there should be a change made in the way that elections are run in the US or else we are going to continue to lose face on the world stage and run into farcical election results just as we did in 2000.

I wish this thing was a landslide either way, but then again I wish that there was at least a viable 3rd party in the US. Maybe this is the year for the Libertarians or the Greens or someone else to make themselves more than just a blip on the radar...I hope so.

Simply becuase something is a precedent does not make it correct or applicable to present times.

The electoral college is still a bad idea, and, partisan politics aside, one of the easiest ways that I can see of fixing it is to start divvying up votes proportionally.

The electoral college is a very GOOD idea. Ask the majority of people who understand it and political statistics regarding the effect of the outcome of the election. Some of the reasons why I have posted in a thread about it here. Yes, it has problems, but there is nothing better that anyone has come up with. You think 3rd parties would still support the electoral college if it were such a bad idea? It's the reason Perot got 0 electoral votes despite nearly 20% of the popular vote, yet most 3rd parties still support the existence of the electoral college.

What needs to change has nothing to do with the electoral college and everything to do with how we count votes. That's why, rather than fight against the electoral college, most third parties support an alteration in how we count votes to something such as Instant Runoff Voting or Approval Voting.

Then you're using the phrase "accept responsibility for your own actions" as a cop out to avoid having to deal with changing a law?

If society constantly changes, the consequence of disenfranchisement due to felony is not necessarily an ultimate consequence - it is simply a consequence which may or may not be appropriate. It is one thing to accept responsibility for ones' actions, but it is another thing to suffer a consequence which is essentially arbitrary.

As for your AIDS/Pregnancy analogies - they're weak. Neither of those two scenarios offer an alternative to dealing with the consequences. You have AIDS. You have a child. Disenfranchisement can be removed with the stroke of a pen. Or you can shrug your shoulders and pout and "accept responsibility" (read: accept that society says you cannot vote).

And I'm not asking you to change my mind - I'm asking you to support your case because I want to hear it.

Social darwinism is a discredited 19th century idea. By that logic, I should be able to take what I want from you if I am able to.

I'm all for IRV too, but the electoral college nedds to go. It was put into place as insurance against the "mob" making a "bad" decision and is inherently undemocratic. Can anyone give a reason why it should still exist?

These sound interesting...what are they?

Wouldn't an easier way of changing the counting of votes be to proportionally allocate electoral votes, though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_college

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

and finally, I think Michael Badnarik sums it up well:

As to the electoral college being "undemocratic," that's EXACTLY what it is. America is not a democracy and the founding fathers disdained democracy. Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

Neither of those two scenarios offer an alternative to dealing with the consequences.

I'm confused by this... are you saying then that because there is no alternative that there shouldn't be an alternative? The disenfranchisement argument has an alternative because we can change it via laws, so thus people should not need to be responsible for their actions?

Is the person who is being disenfranchised for no reason? Just because? If that's the case, then that is not fair. An innocent person being disenfranchised? Not right, not fair. But that's not how our system works...and that's something that I would be willing to lend my support in changing.

But in this case, commit felony, lose rights. Pretty simple cause and effect.

As far as using it as an excuse to NOT CHANGE the law, I don't see a need to change the law. It's not a cop out. I firmly believe that if you do something wrong you pay the price for it. I consider that to be one of the line items in that price.

As I grew up I learned about consequences. Each action that I made, had a reaction. Each reaction spurred off another set of actions ad infinitum. When I got to be old enough to learn about law and civics. I learned about the rights that I have, not the rights that I think I have.

I took responsibilty for learning about my rights. It is my civic duty to know my rights and abide by them. The penal system has lots of cause and effect written out within it's own code. When I did something wrong my moral compass weighed it out against the consequences. I don't find it unreasonable to expect someone else to learn.

I check each election to make sure that when I go to the voting polls that I am properly registered. I missed it once because of "paperwork" that shuffled me to another preceinct suddenly and I wasn't going to make it to the other precinct. Since that time I make sure that each and every election that I need to vote, if I haven't gotten my voter card, or sample ballot, I enquire.

My support for my position is simple, again, it's my opinion. In this case I don't have precedent cases or sample thesis. My facts are just what I did in my own life, I don't think things I did were extraordinary, but my duty as a citizen.

Thanks Secret...

Approval sounds like a great idea, actually...

The major advantages I can see are (from wikipedia)
After Florida in 2000, it is obvious why this is needed...I think everyone knows that the issues persist well beyond the borders of the state of Florida.

Voter turnout in the the states is appaling. Anything that encourages people that their vote actually does count is a good thing in my book. The fact that people thought that the election was over before the polls even closed in 2000 was very sad...this would eliminate this possibilty (and the possibility for exit polls, as I see it)


amen!


In the case of Approval Voting, if there were multiple candidates within a certain threshold of each other, I would think that this should trigger an automatic run-off in order to dertermine the actual winner?

So, my question is, will the US ever reform their voting procedures?

I think it will take at least another contested election (or maybe 3) before anything is ever done.

:(

Even with the electoral college in place, candidates still have to pander to the handful of states with huge populations and, consequently, the most electors. I'm not sure that I understand how the electoral college "protects" the political voice of Peoria.

As far as I understand it, America is a republic, or representative democracy.

According to the CIA World Factbook, America is a Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition

Let's put it this way. Currently, in order to win Ohio's electoral votes (I use them because it's a battleground state) you must appeal to the whole state. Columbus and Cleveland cannot dwarf the rest of the state. However, all the urban and suburban areas of the NATION can easily dwarf all the rural areas, thus eliminating the power of rural areas almost entirely. As it stands, the electoral college effectively limits the power of cities so that they are, for the most part, surrounded by a comparable electorate. For example, the 3 major cities in Ohio add up to about 6 million - the population of Ohio is about 11 million. So, the electoral college limits the contest to winning the state and allows for the needs of the 6 million outside of the urban areas of Ohio to have theoretically as much weight as the 6 million IN urban areas. If voting was done by strictly popular vote, the interests of the urban in Ohio (which are distinctly different than that of the rural) would be joining forces with every other urban and suburban area, thus dwarfing out the rural and, incidentally, entire states such as Montana. As it stands, sure, a candidate could theoretically focus on only places like California, but if they really started to ignore the interests of the large patch of rural states in the midwest the combined electoral votes would be a major loss. This way, since the number of electors is still based on population, it still works to represent the overall interests of the American people while at the same time preserving the interests of the people who are more spread out.

And, yes, America is a republic, which is very different from a flat-out democracy which is what the founding fathers were so much against.

EDIT: Oh, in regards to the US ever changing voting procedures, I don't see it happening anytime in the next decade at least sad to say. The fact is, the current voting system is what helps hold the two "major" parties in power according to Duverger's law. And, since the two major parties control the laws of election....well, you see where I'm going ;) Frankly, at the moment, there are only two reasonable (and unfortunately unlikely) ways I see change happening. First, through the rise of a third party that, after gaining power, will not turn bad. I think, because of their principles, the Libertarians are pretty benign in that regard and would be able to be trusted that if they were to gain enough power they would stick to their fight for a new voting standard and enact change. The second possibility is for the American people to collectively take a stand and fight for a change - and with enough people we can bypass the bipartisan legislators on the capitol and pass an amendment to the constitution. Neither are things I think are likely to occur anytime soon. In order for the people to collectively start to rise up for change, they need to be educated enough to realize that change is needed and that there is something better. And with the two "major" parties controlling government, which, in turn, controls education, that is not going to happen except for the few mavericks such as myself who like to seek information on their own and have no qualms about rejecting the "system."

To be honest, I think we need a couple constitutional amendments regarding elections and parties. First, we need to get rid of this idea that campaign contributions are a form of speech and, second, we need to get rid of this idea that corporations are, legally, like people. Corporations should not be allowed to donate to campaigns. They already get their vote through all their employees who, if they like who they work for, will already care about the well-being of the company. We need a constitutional amendment that states that all states must count votes in a single method - and one which is statistically fair to up-and-coming parties. They can then decide how to distribute their electoral votes as they choose. I don't really care WHICH method so much as I care that there is a fair method. Secondly, we need a constitutional amendment strictly limiting the rights and abilities of parties. The founding fathers disliked political parties so much that they didn't even acknowledge their existence in the constitution. Well, they exist here now, and we need to get something IN there to strictly limit their power so that they are, once again, only a means of quickly identifying a candidates general ideals and nothing more.

Of course, there's one problem with all this: enough people need to be educated regarding all of this to have enough force to bypass the bipartisan federal government and get these amendments which would cut into their control. And, like I said, with them being the ones educating us, I'm not sure it will ever happen.

the analogy is faulty---the legal system is set up to replace the victim of a crime by the state, which prosecutes as injured party--and it is set up with the assumption that the degree of guilt is adequately represented in a sentence passed. the social/legal expiation process is the serving of a sentence. after that sentence, the account should be wiped clean.
responsibility is accepted and acted upon by the serving of a sentence.
that's it--all she wrote on the matter.

it is the basic principle of the existing justice system.

this has nothing to do with the contracting of a disease. the analogy is false.

this process was set up explicitly against the notions of:
endless guilt like those outlined in cyn's post (and he is not alone, simply the most explicit);
against notions like heriditary guilt (so dear to athenian tragedy);
and, as an aside, the translation of state for victim and time/money for criminal act was set up early on to shortcircuit what was a logic of feud. the logic comes from lombard law, and has become basic to every modern judicial system.

you would think this stuff would be basic, would not be still up for debate.

what is also not really up for debate is that herbert spenser was a complete crackpot, that there is nothing descriptively or normatively functional about social darwinism---- this despite the absurd conflation of it with the mythology of "Free markets"---it is a rationalization for social barbarism.

the conflation of the social world with a version of nature, rewritten around the logic of the market, is also absurd, despite the efforts of years of right ideology to claim otherwise.

as a political ideology, it has not been functional since the earliest period of capitalist development--from the first limitations on the length of the work day onward, law has functioned to inflect the "law of the jungle" and capitalist bararity, however rationalized, has been understood as self-defeating in practice.
it is not functional now.
it will never be functional.

but then there are people who confuse ayn rand with a philosopher, george w bush with a competent president and fox with a news outlet.

go figure.

I'm not going to get into the disenfranchised debate, I view some of the opinions within this thread as wildly misinformed and twisted.


As far as the electoral college goes, I posted this in another thread as to why the EC is proportional voting:


-- http://fortnow.com/lance/complog/20...al-college.html


I support the Electoral College (despite the current advantage it gives the Republicans) and would like to see changes in two areas:

1) proportional awarding of electoral votes, from the state level as Colorado is considering

2) Instant run-off voting


I have read that another way to make the EC more representative (which I do not have a problem with) would be to raise the number of speakers in the House. One issue I have with that, however, is the cost of adding a few hundred more legislatures. Possibly this is the cost of 'democracy.'

I'm not convinced that the semantic corrections between using "Republic" versus "Democracy" serve much purpose. Everyone who is a citizen of this nation within these discussions knows the political reality in which they live. Democracy is not a single concept--there are many flavors of democracy around the world. When people speak to the country being a democracy, or that it ought to be more democratic, I find that they are usually speaking about empowering the electorate. Saying that we are a Republic or Representative Government does not undermine the claim that voters deserve or need to be more empowered, to my mind.
__________________

Ok, I can see all of your points about the EC, but there is still one aspect of it that is anti-democratic and was put there as a safety mechanism against the will of the people...namely, that electors do not necessarily need to vote for the candidate that the population that they represent chose. This is the my major objection to the EC and why I previously derided it as undemocratic.

Anyway, we have all threadjacked this discussion. Does anyone want to talk about voter intimidation in Florida again :)

No threadjacking at all. The original post also talks extensively about voting methods which led to discussions about the EC.

The discussions on the EC have been much more productive, in my opinion! :)

So what baout electronic voting? Do you trust your vote to a Diebold-made, glorified ATM?

sorry for the double-post

Smooth, an excellent and substantive post, which I agree with a lot of as well.

I am a whole-hearted supporter of the EC, although I do think that like all good things, it can be improved. The basic premise may have originally been protection of smaller states from being overwhelmed by large ones, and that is partially true today. However, I think it is more important that we not allow candidates to merely curry favor among population centers, and instead be supported by broad based popular will.

I don't necessarily think that new moves, such as Colorado's new plan, are really the right way to go. Granted, it is up to each state to make its own game-plan, but I do think that the winner-take-all approach to a block of EVs is the key to the EC. I do however, support apportioning EVs on the basis of population versus number of Congressmen. This would not change the fact that one would need broad support as opposed to merely strong support amongst a limited, but populous set of states.

The proplem with breaking up the EVs of states is that it becomes simply then a more granularized popular vote, losing some of the moderating effect of the EC's current situation.

Hmmm, let's see....it runs on Microsoft Access, I just read an entry in Bugtraq (the preeminent security vulenrability mailing list) yesterday that revealed that authenticated users on the central tabulation machines can change vote totals, it's other security mechanisms are laughable and there is no paper trail to verify that it's returns are accurate. Given all of that, I think that I have to answer F**K NO!

electronic voting is evil, and jb2000's post outlines some of the reservations of I have with measure's such as those proposed in Colorodo. I fear the EC could become, as he put it, a "granularized popular vote." I think the majority of the problem would be fixed simply by changing the voting style, rather than changing the fact that a state's winners gets all the state's electoral votes.