Good news and bad news about voting rights

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Good news: former felons in Florida can finally regain their right to vote!

Bad news: Florida leadership has passed a law saying they don't get the right to vote back until they pay lots of fines and fees, essentially initiating another modern-day poll tax
https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/florida-can-restrict-convicted-felons-voting-rights-supreme-court/

Good news again: You can help them get back their right to vote! https://wegotthevote.org/

[Captain Crimson]

Good news: former felons in Florida can finally regain their right to vote!

Bad news: Florida leadership has passed a law saying they don't get the right to vote back until they pay lots of fines and fees, essentially initiating another modern-day poll tax
https://nypost.com/2020/07/16/florida-can-restrict-convicted-felons-voting-rights-supreme-court/

Good news again: You can help them get back their right to vote! https://wegotthevote.org/

I actually live in Florida, and I feel as if I did my part. I'm very hesitant to let ex-cons vote. I understand you could make a strong libertarian argument on how no matter your crime, you deserve to vote. Sure. But remember what physics tells us. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.

Do you imagine convicted felons who are guilty, people who are sadistic monsters, are gonna vote based on a higher ideal, appreciate what it means? Take a serial rapist, or a sex abuser. You'd think he'd vote GOP, right? Given past comments? I suspect he's more inclined to vote democratic since it's common knowledge they are the party trying to get ex-cons the right to vote. A guy who would vote for Mr. Biden because "I've been 'falsely accused' before too! It sucks!" And yet... prioritizing who gets the theoretical right to vote once they're let out of jail, which you could raise as a counterargument, is akin to turning your brain into a pretzel, since if you argue that only those of lesser crimes get it, then what qualifies that? And what if they were wrongly accused?

I generally want to lean more toward "if you hurt society, you forsake the right to partake in civic affairs." And yet that still only applies to a tiny handful of the prison population. But it's actually the unseen monsters that concern me. Yet it's very hard to implement my general viewpoint here since as with all things in the human tribe, there are upsides, and downsides. Plus political agendas which get in the way of any progress. Which leads me into my overarching point. Make no mistake, ex-cons vote democratic because they think they maybe can get more of their buddies freed, or to serve their own interests. And that's why the DNC wants to do this. And it has the potential to draw in among their flanks very questionable people, even if you argue it has to be done. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction...

It's why I generally like to stay uninvolved, except this year pressure from and concern about my family forced my hand. Glech. You seem to like to drink. I prefer cooking. It's so soothing.

Am exhausted. Heading to bed. Night.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Ex-cons deserve human rights because they are human.

Jail time is a finite sentence, so once you've served your time, it is unjust to punish you even
afterwards.

A country that can extract taxes and appoint resources based on how many citizens they have, but can deny those same citizens representation through a vote, now has a vested interest in jailing as many citizens as it feasibly can.

[TGLS]

This just comes off as bonkers to me living in a country where prisoners can vote.

--

I'll concede maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But it ought to be something more focused than "all crimes defined as felonies".

[Draco Dracul]

This just comes off as bonkers to me living in a country where prisoners can vote.

--

I'll concede maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But it ought to be something more focused than "all crimes defined as felonies".

Personally I think it should be primarily focused on white collar crimes as those are crimes of manipulating the system.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

This just comes off as bonkers to me living in a country where prisoners can vote.

--

I'll concede maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But it ought to be something more focused than "all crimes defined as felonies".

Precisely. Making value judgements upon someone's right to agency in the land is incredibly pompous.

This just comes off as bonkers to me living in a country where prisoners can vote.

--

I'll concede maybe some people shouldn't be allowed to vote. But it ought to be something more focused than "all crimes defined as felonies".

Personally I think it should be primarily focused on white collar crimes as those are crimes of manipulating the system.

I mean maybe there is an established hierarchy for the type of criminal path that would deem someone unworthy to vote.

[Captain Crimson]

Ex-cons deserve human rights because they are human.

Jail time is a finite sentence, so once you've served your time, it is unjust to punish you even
afterwards.

A country that can extract taxes and appoint resources based on how many citizens they have, but can deny those same citizens representation through a vote, now has a vested interest in jailing as many citizens as it feasibly can.

What do you define as "human" rights here? Past our species, that is a rather arbitrary definition, my good friend!

If you aspire to the belief that "human rights" are humanity embodied, traits of compassion, mercy, knowledge, and fairness, all that good stuff, then these people have forsaken it, and while the vast majority of prisoners are in there for minor crimes, things that do not warrant such a severe loss of privilege as voting is (which IS a privilege, not a right), you could name many who are, and while in the minority, they do exist. How about those guilty of voting fraud? Should they have it removed or does that only apply to multiple offenses?

Again, since you support the DNC as the lesser of two evils, then how do you justify that viewpoint? An example, serial sex offenders who would vote for the DNC since, assuming you believe Ms. Reade's allegations, they emphasize with Mr. Biden based on said allegations and think he could offer them up protection? And I can understand the argument that just because you "commit X crime," doesn't mean you should lose the privilege to vote, as those in jail on drug trafficking, as an example, I wouldn't say deserve it. Repeat offenders, those who show no remorse, or don't really put in the hard work needed to make up for it? Why do they get the privilege to keep voting? Compassion, mercy, knowledge, and fairness are fine values and traits, but you can take them too far.

It's hard to argue about "human rights" when rights are an abstract concept even to this day, and we still flock into modern-day tribes on an individual and personalized level. I am not take away a murderer's right to vote, mind you. I wouldn't even go that far. I am just saying the DNC pushes this so hard, it's going to have a counter-reaction at some point which needs addressing, or your flank will be filled by criminals who have ulterior motives, don't care about civic participation, and only want a bit more leeway that helps them further benefit themselves.

Remember what Mr. Carlin said about our rights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

That's all we've ever had since the days of the first city-states. Temporary privileges. And I have a right to say that! But if you don't agree, then you have the right to punch me.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Ex-cons deserve human rights because they are human.

Jail time is a finite sentence, so once you've served your time, it is unjust to punish you even
afterwards.

A country that can extract taxes and appoint resources based on how many citizens they have, but can deny those same citizens representation through a vote, now has a vested interest in jailing as many citizens as it feasibly can.

What do you define as "human" rights here? Past our species, that is a rather arbitrary definition, my good friend!

If you aspire to the belief that "human rights" are humanity embodied, traits of compassion, mercy, knowledge, and fairness, all that good stuff, then these people have forsaken it, and while the vast majority of prisoners are in there for minor crimes, things that do not warrant such a severe loss of privilege as voting is (which IS a privilege, not a right),

I don't.

Human rights mean rights that all humans have. Once you decide that criminals don't have basic human rights, then the natural next step is to make anyone you don't like a criminal.

Ex-felons still pay taxes. Ex-felons still count as the population to determine how many representatives a state gets in the House of Congress.

[Captain Crimson]

Ex-cons deserve human rights because they are human.

Jail time is a finite sentence, so once you've served your time, it is unjust to punish you even
afterwards.

A country that can extract taxes and appoint resources based on how many citizens they have, but can deny those same citizens representation through a vote, now has a vested interest in jailing as many citizens as it feasibly can.

What do you define as "human" rights here? Past our species, that is a rather arbitrary definition, my good friend!

If you aspire to the belief that "human rights" are humanity embodied, traits of compassion, mercy, knowledge, and fairness, all that good stuff, then these people have forsaken it, and while the vast majority of prisoners are in there for minor crimes, things that do not warrant such a severe loss of privilege as voting is (which IS a privilege, not a right),

I don't.

Human rights mean rights that all humans have. Once you decide that criminals don't have basic human rights, then the natural next step is to make anyone you don't like a criminal.

Ex-felons still pay taxes. Ex-felons still count as the population to determine how many representatives a state gets in the House of Congress.

I reiterate - rights are an arbitrary concept. At the dawn of city-states, that was subject to the city ruler's decrees, or based on pure, military application. The way of the warrior.

We haven't strayed that far from that mindset in six thousand years.

I agree we should not descend as far as they do, less for them and more the sake of ourselves, since I truly fear anyone who can go so far as the psychopaths do without hesitation, but I also side more with what the others insist.

There are hierarchies of evil in nature. In our society. Or you could call them lesser and greater sins. I think those who commit such horrendous, direct pain to their victims don't deserve that privilege anymore.

In the modern age where you got sophisticated weapons and tools, a civilian insurrection against the government in an area that's not an active war zone over a prolonged period of time is never going to succeed. So in a sense, there's fundamentally no difference between participation in the government system at this stage and if, say, Congress or the statehouses just decided our political leaders. My, with all the divisions today, wouldn't that make for an entertaining clown show?

We certainly don't have access to the insider information those at the top do. Yes, there may have been certain Russian elements that had covert ops going here. The question arises: Why do you think they were caught? Being a third-world country would be my answer, and makes you wonder why we never have been? Could just be media favoritism, or it could be our methods are far more efficient.

Just because you shouldn't sink into the level of crime the worst offenders do, doesn't automatically mean a penalty cannot be enacted to the scumbags who need it. And voting is such a silly little triviality in today's world. The arguments I've seen from the other side are that "you'd appreciate it when it's gone." Would I, really? What difference would that make past judgmental language? We are dealing with a cultural inertia so immense here, it's like trying to fight gravity. Society will go where it goes. And we are caught in the middle, as always.

You might have a valid point on the taxation part, though.

[Madner Kami]

Ex-felons still pay taxes. Ex-felons still count as the population to determine how many representatives a state gets in the House of Congress.

No, it's perfectly reasonable to expect someone to adhere to the rules of a given society and deny them any sort of agency within said society. That totally won't come back and bite you in the arse... *sarcasm-tag*