NationStates

After they serve their sentence, they should be allowed to vote and run for office, is that really so hard?

Frazers wrote:

Galloism wrote:Yes, I'm sure wanting to make sure everyone has a vote is my sekrit way of creating a dictatorship.

...somehow.

Everyone*

*except those you don't deem fit i.e. voter fraud convicted

Ok, almost everyone.

Galloism wrote:

Frazers wrote:
Everyone*

*except those you don't deem fit i.e. voter fraud convicted

Ok, almost everyone.

DICTATOR!!!!!!

Galloism wrote:

Bari wrote:If they "deliberately" do this, then that implies they go out and vote with the intention of increasing crime. Otherwise, they do none of that deliberately.

They deliberately create the conditions.

They may be blind to the effects. They may be stupid. They may think they can win.

However, they deliberately create the conditions that lead to more violence - an underground drug trade.

If they are "blind to the effects," then it is not deliberate. "Deliberate" is intentional and conscious. It means they are aware, and they do it intentionally.

They may deliberately vote for those positions, but they more likely than not do not deliberately create or attempt to create conditions conducive to crime, even though those positions have an effect on that.

Galloism wrote:

Bari wrote:Simply because I do not want a democracy does not mean I deny its existence. I acknowledge its existence, and I acknowledge the fact that people desire suffrage. We can use that for the advantage of the state.

By taking away suffrage, you use the suffrage that people desire for the state.

Makes perfect sense.

What?

Frazers wrote:

Galloism wrote:Ok, almost everyone.

DICTATOR!!!!!!

I think we should take driver's licenses away from people who drive drunk and/or terribly stupidly as well - because that's a direct response to the exact problem being addressed.

Bari wrote:

Galloism wrote:They deliberately create the conditions.

They may be blind to the effects. They may be stupid. They may think they can win.

However, they deliberately create the conditions that lead to more violence - an underground drug trade.

If they are "blind to the effects," then it is not deliberate. "Deliberate" is intentional and conscious. It means they are aware, and they do it intentionally.

Are you suggesting that someone who votes that a drug should be illegal is not deliberately creating an underground drug trade?

Like it's an accident that they voted that way? Are they from Florida?

Bari wrote:

Galloism wrote:By taking away suffrage, you use the suffrage that people desire for the state.

Makes perfect sense.

What?

That's exactly how I felt reading your post.

Galloism wrote:

Frazers wrote:
DICTATOR!!!!!!

I think we should take driver's licenses away from people who drive drunk and/or terribly stupidly as well - because that's a direct response to the exact problem being addressed.

So we're saying that a vote fraudster couldn't repeat their crime if their individual vote was removed?

Interesting. Could you explain how that works exactly?

Frazers wrote:

Galloism wrote:I think we should take driver's licenses away from people who drive drunk and/or terribly stupidly as well - because that's a direct response to the exact problem being addressed.

So we're saying that a vote fraudster couldn't repeat their crime if their individual vote was removed?

Interesting. Could you explain how that works exactly?

Well, I mean you have a point there - that's true, and I don't think "take the vote away" is the only thing you should do to a vote fraudster. Prison seems appropriate for subverting the democratic process.

Just like taking a driver's license away from someone doesn't mean they can't repeat their crime of drunk driving.

Galloism wrote:

Bari wrote:If they are "blind to the effects," then it is not deliberate. "Deliberate" is intentional and conscious. It means they are aware, and they do it intentionally.

Are you suggesting that someone who votes that a drug should be illegal is not deliberately creating an underground drug trade?

Like it's an accident that they voted that way? Are they from Florida?

I am not only suggesting it. I am explicitly stating it.

Prove to me that they deliberately want to attempt to create crime. A vote for a certain position is not prima facie evidence that they want to create crime, because, for all we know, they may believe that it is for the better of society.

Deliberately creating crime does not equal, in any way, deliberately voting for a position that may indirectly lead to more crime.

Bari wrote:

Galloism wrote:Are you suggesting that someone who votes that a drug should be illegal is not deliberately creating an underground drug trade?

Like it's an accident that they voted that way? Are they from Florida?

I am not only suggesting it. I am explicitly stating it.

Prove to me that they deliberately want to attempt to create crime. A vote for a certain position is not prima facie evidence that they want to create crime, because, for all we know, they may believe that it is for the better of society.

Well, here's the thing, if a person votes for drug prohibition, and thinks there will be no underground drug trade, they're no longer in the "blind" category. They've moved over to "stupid".

Deliberately creating crime does not equal, in any way, deliberately voting for a position that may indirectly lead to more crime.

I didn't say they voted to deliberately create crime.

I said they deliberately voted to create conditions which lead to more crime. Do try to keep up.

The Grey Wolf wrote:After they serve their sentence, they should be allowed to vote and run for office, is that really so hard?

Well? The current political parties probably don't like having people that were not smart enough to avoid getting caught.

Bari wrote:As for the first sentence, then do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote in a U.S. election if they have reached the age of majority?

I don't understand how that follows from what I said, or how it is relevant in this thread?

Bari wrote:For the second sentence, is it not true that criminals surrender some of their rights to the state once they commit a crime? Is that not how we are allowed to incarcerate them, fine them, seize their property and execute them?

The state takes specific rights from them according to the sentence they are given (I live in the UK so we always respect their right to life). To me I don't see why if two people commit the same crime, but one of them receives a custodial sentence and the other doesn't. why one of them should be disenfranchised and the other not. I really don't see why loss of the vote should be tied to only a prison sentence. This leaves either any one found guilty loses their voting rights or nobody loses their voting rights; I believe the latter is preferable because it gives an incentive to the state not to imprison too high a percentage of the population. If the prison population is so large it becomes a significant voting power bloc if they had/have the vote, then the government is probably in the wrong.

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Bari wrote:As for the first sentence, then do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote in a U.S. election if they have reached the age of majority?

I don't understand how that follows from what I said, or how it is relevant in this thread?

Bari wrote:For the second sentence, is it not true that criminals surrender some of their rights to the state once they commit a crime? Is that not how we are allowed to incarcerate them, fine them, seize their property and execute them?

The state takes specific rights from them according to the sentence they are given (I live in the UK so we always respect their right to life). To me I don't see why if two people commit the same crime, but one of them receives a custodial sentence and the other doesn't. why one of them should be disenfranchised and the other not. I really don't see why loss of the vote should be tied to only a prison sentence. This leaves either any one found guilty loses their voting rights or nobody loses their voting rights; I believe the latter is preferable because it gives an incentive to the state not to imprison too high a percentage of the population. If the prison population is so large it becomes a significant voting power bloc if they had/have the vote, then the government is probably in the wrong.

Like say the 1 in 13 African Americans who cannot vote because they've been disenfranchised?

Galloism wrote:

Bari wrote:What?

That's exactly how I felt reading your post.

I will state this as simply as possible. If a person does not have the ability to legally cast a vote, he more likely than not want that ability. If given the opportunity, he will attempt to obtain the ability. A U.S. state has been legally authorized by the U.S. Constitution to disenfranchise and enfranchise criminals, however it sees fit. Therefore, a U.S. state may disenfranchise a criminal upon his conviction. The same U.S. state may also set requirements that, when satisfied, allow for the same criminal to be enfranchised. Those requirements may be whatsoever the U.S. state wants. If the U.S. state requires the no further criminal activity misdemeanor takes place of the aforementioned criminal, then enfranchisement may be employed to cut down on recidivism. If the U.S. state requires that all legal fines and court fees be paid off, then enfranchisement may be employed to collect any debts. Suffrage may be restored to first-time felons, whereafter they may be disenfranchised, again, used to cut down on recidivism. The U.S. state may allow for a petition from the felon to have his suffrage restored; the U.S. state can then require good behavior (i.e., no DWI, no violent crimes etc.) from the felon for a given period of time.

The U.S. state has options. It is not only, "Felons are disenfranchised forever," or, "Felons are not disenfranchised forever."

Galloism wrote:Like say the 1 in 13 African Americans who cannot vote because they've been disenfranchised?

Exactly.

Bari wrote:

Galloism wrote:That's exactly how I felt reading your post.

I will state this as simply as possible. If a person does not have the ability to legally cast a vote, he more likely than not want that ability. If given the opportunity, he will attempt to obtain the ability. A U.S. state has been legally authorized by the U.S. Constitution to disenfranchise and enfranchise criminals, however it sees fit. Therefore, a U.S. state may disenfranchise a criminal upon his conviction. The same U.S. state may also set requirements that, when satisfied, allow for the same criminal to be enfranchised. Those requirements may be whatsoever the U.S. state wants. If the U.S. state requires the no further criminal activity misdemeanor takes place of the aforementioned criminal, then enfranchisement may be employed to cut down on recidivism. If the U.S. state requires that all legal fines and court fees be paid off, then enfranchisement may be employed to collect any debts. Suffrage may be restored to first-time felons, whereafter they may be disenfranchised, again, used to cut down on recidivism. The U.S. state may allow for a petition from the felon to have his suffrage restored; the U.S. state can then require good behavior (i.e., no DWI, no violent crimes etc.) from the felon for a given period of time.

The U.S. state has options. It is not only, "Felons are disenfranchised forever," or, "Felons are not disenfranchised forever."

Very few states do anything of the sort you describe.

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Galloism wrote:Like say the 1 in 13 African Americans who cannot vote because they've been disenfranchised?

Exactly.

It's also worth noting that, in Florida (which is one of our swing states very important to choosing the president), over 10% of the population is disenfranchised.

L Ron Cupboard wrote:

Bari wrote:As for the first sentence, then do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote in a U.S. election if they have reached the age of majority?

I don't understand how that follows from what I said, or how it is relevant in this thread?

Bari wrote:For the second sentence, is it not true that criminals surrender some of their rights to the state once they commit a crime? Is that not how we are allowed to incarcerate them, fine them, seize their property and execute them?

The state takes specific rights from them according to the sentence they are given (I live in the UK so we always respect their right to life). To me I don't see why if two people commit the same crime, but one of them receives a custodial sentence and the other doesn't. why one of them should be disenfranchised and the other not. I really don't see why loss of the vote should be tied to only a prison sentence. This leaves either any one found guilty loses their voting rights or nobody loses their voting rights; I believe the latter is preferable because it gives an incentive to the state not to imprison too high a percentage of the population. If the prison population is so large it becomes a significant voting power bloc if they had/have the vote, then the government is probably in the wrong.

Did you not say, "I think everybody who has reached the age of majority should be able to vote?"

Perhaps because the person who received a lighter punishment was a first-time offender, while the other has committed the offense for the third time. And simply because the U.K. ties disenfranchisement to a prison sentence does not mean it necessarily has to be done that way. Theoretically, a person may be convicted of a crime, receive no tim in prison and still be disenfranchised.

Galloism wrote:

Frazers wrote:
So we're saying that a vote fraudster couldn't repeat their crime if their individual vote was removed?

Interesting. Could you explain how that works exactly?

Well, I mean you have a point there - that's true, and I don't think "take the vote away" is the only thing you should do to a vote fraudster. Prison seems appropriate for subverting the democratic process.

Just like taking a driver's license away from someone doesn't mean they can't repeat their crime of drunk driving.

So when I want to imprison and disenfranchise someone because they attempted to subvert the democratic process (through terrorist activities) i'm different to you and your view of vote fraudsters how?

Frazers wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, I mean you have a point there - that's true, and I don't think "take the vote away" is the only thing you should do to a vote fraudster. Prison seems appropriate for subverting the democratic process.

Just like taking a driver's license away from someone doesn't mean they can't repeat their crime of drunk driving.

So when I want to imprison and disenfranchise someone because they attempted to subvert the democratic process (through terrorist activities) i'm different to you and your view of vote fraudsters how?

Hmm, if the goal of blowing someone up was to subvert the democratic process, then I'm sort of on board with disenfranchisement.

But if the goal of blowing someone up was that an italian/chinese eatery should never ever have existed in the first place, I'm less ok with disenfranchisement.

Galloism wrote:

Frazers wrote:
So when I want to imprison and disenfranchise someone because they attempted to subvert the democratic process (through terrorist activities) i'm different to you and your view of vote fraudsters how?

Hmm, if the goal of blowing someone up was to subvert the democratic process, then I'm sort of on board with disenfranchisement.

But if the goal of blowing someone up was that an italian/chinese eatery should never ever have existed in the first place, I'm less ok with disenfranchisement.

So what in particular about your disenfranchisement limits makes them better than others?

Frazers wrote:

Galloism wrote:Hmm, if the goal of blowing someone up was to subvert the democratic process, then I'm sort of on board with disenfranchisement.

But if the goal of blowing someone up was that an italian/chinese eatery should never ever have existed in the first place, I'm less ok with disenfranchisement.

So what in particular about your disenfranchisement limits makes them better than others?

Well, for one, it doesn't disenfranchise a significant percentage of the electorate.

For two, it only targets those who would corrupt the democratic process itself, which is a proportionate response.

Bari wrote:
Did you not say, "I think everybody who has reached the age of majority should be able to vote?"

You might need to re-read my reply.