Bernie's sort of the Ron Paul of the left. He's a nutter, but his beliefs are sincerely held. I doubt it's a ploy for votes. You don't do that in public debates. You'd do that by having Pelosi sneak it into a military budget bill or something.

1/10

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

In response to your question - very. Team Donkey is VERY desperate for voters.

Well ... so long as they vote Donkey. If, for example, they happen to be members of the military, on deployment, in service of their Nation, then Team Donkey is more than happy to exclude those absentee ballots. But, votes of recipients and potential recipients of ObamaPhones are certainly counted ... sometimes twice!

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

nice job ducking and hiding in a non-Trump thread. Safe space only

you know in some states felons can vote, even while incarcerated. It is a state by state thing, whether or not felons can vote, or for how long after they serve their term they can vote again. Personally, in a national election, if any incarcerated felon is allowed to vote, I think they all should be allowed, or make it a federal policy that none can or all can, whatever, but it should be evenly applied to all states. in local elections, then each state should be able to what it wants.

i am far more outraged at the continual crappy turnout of eligible voters, so I am not in a hurry to not let any citizen vote who actually wants to.

^^^This^^^ I am more of the opinion none of them should be allowed to vote while serving time, or on parole. Once that time is over you've paid your debt so you should be allowed to vote then.

Maine and Vermont.

In 14 states and DC, they lose the right the vote while incarcerated and automatically get it back upon release. In 22 states, there is a waiting period after release. In 12 states they lose it forever.


I agree completely.


Ditto. Personally, I don't think felons should be able to vote while incarcerated. However, once they are released, I do not see why they should continue to be barred from voting.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

Inmates should not be allowed to vote, but desperate? Hardly even with the worst candidate in Party history they still got more votes than Trump and as stated the real concern should be how to get people out to vote, the last election had one of the lowest voter turnouts in over 30 years.

Why? What is this infatuation people have with getting people who are disinterested in the process into the process?

It's simple. If you want to vote, go vote. We're not going to beg you.

That's how they roll in Vermont. Bernie has always thought that. There is a legit pro/con argument regarding prisoner voting (part of prison sentencing is a curtailing of basic rights/freedoms, should voting be one of those?). I will grant that you have a point if you can convince me of the virtue of lifetime voting bans for all convicted felons. That is a far more common issue that impacts far more people. Seems like a certain segment of the population has always been desperate to disenfranchise voters.

Let me begin by saying IMO, felons should not be able to vote while incarcerated, but, should have voting rights restored once released. That's just my opinion, not an argument about how it should be.

But, as a thought experiment, let's consider something. The Right to vote is not guaranteed by the Constitution. Yes, there are protections against discrimination in voting, but, it is well established that there is no specific Right to vote in the Constitution. On the flip side, there is a clear Right to bear arms specifically delineated in the Constitution. Now, we strip individuals of their Right to bear arms once they are convicted of a felony, even after their release. Most agree with this prohibition. So, why are many so quick to restore voting "rights" to convicted felons when that "right" isn't even a delineated Right?

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

i don't think that stand up to scrutiny. you're right, nothing in the original text of the constitution grants a right to vote. but there are at least 5 amendments that explicitly enfranchise groups who can't be kept from voting by states, and there is both statute and SCOTUS rulings that further enfranchise voters. meanwhile, 2A, only half that amendment exists. the other half is the unmentionable phrase of the constitution.

we have a *rich* history of disenfranchising voters. the south systematically chipped away at reconstruction, and we have never rebounded from that. blacks were more enfranchised in 1868 than they are today.

there's a history of voter suppression that weighs on this topic, and the only voter fraud of note in the last election belonged to the other party.

i agree with you that you should lose your right to vote when incarcerated. i agree you should get it back when you're out. i don't agree that bernie sanders is hoping to get the vote of prisoners. i'm not a bernie voter. but he takes stands that are unpopular, like this one, because he speaks his principles.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I basically agree. There is a fundamental logic of prison as a necessary abridgement of many freedoms, which could include voting rights. Likewise, there is a basic tenet of rehabilition and re-entering society which argues for resumption of voting rights once a debt is paid. Those who choose a much harsher or more lenient approach are largely unconvincing (as shown recently in Florida).

Regarding "rights", I find an implicit "right" in the protection against discrimination. Notice I don't capitlize it like you do. Many "rights" exist outside of specifically enumerated ones in the Constitution, and many of those "rights" can be abridged. Regarding gun ownership by felons, I would only restrict it for certain classes of violent felons. Besides, the comparison is rather unequal: although "the pen is mightier than the sword", the gun can be much deadlier than the ballot box. When talking about public safety, there is a much stronger correlation between guns and violent crime than there is between voting and violent crime.

One the better arguments I have seen.

FWIW, I don't have an issue with restricting firearms for convicted felons. As I said earlier, I would reinstate voting rights upon release. But, it is an interesting balance of rights and Rights.

When it comes to voting, the lack of a specifically delineated Right to vote is important, because it is a reminder that the Constitution does not GRANT Rights; rather, it limits the government's ability to infringe upon Rights. When you look at 2A, it doesn't grant the Right to bear arms; rather, it says the Right shall not be infringed. So, when several areas of the Constitution prohibit means of suppressing voting, it sure seems to imply voting is an inherent Right that should not be infringed upon rather than a Right that need be granted.

---

If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went. - Will Rogers

Emery's Third Coast Triathlon | Tri Wisconsin Triathlon Team | Push Endurance | GLWR

OH GOOD GOD HERE WE GO AGAIN.. there is no National election. Its a state election, You are voting a representative into the electoral college where THEY get to vote for the President..

I really thought people on this forum would have understood how our election process worked by now.

---

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.

Damn you guys! You know you ruined the circle jerk gphin wanted by bringing reasoned arguments to the forum.

I agree felons should not have voting rights while incarcerated but should gain them back when released. I'm inclined to think they shouldn't get them back until they are off parole.

---

_____
TEAM HD
Each day is what you make of it so make it the best day possible.

I'm not a toker myself. But I think a joint might round off your edges. Whaddyu think?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

wow, you really are triggered, aren't you?

Maybe they should just conduct voter fraud, North Carolina style. Or maybe just gerrymander the hell out of districts. Everyone is desperate to get voters. You got got.

From what I've been able to tell, only two states.....Vermont and Maine allow incarcerated felons to vote. And California allows felons in local jails.....not state or federal felons. See any commonality with these three states? It seems to be all over the place based on the state if felons get this right back after they serve their time. And now Kamala Harris seems to be jumping on this train. Personally, I don't have a problem getting this right back after they serve their time, but with Bernie apparently wanting to extend his ridiculous state's policy nationwide, it might appear these leading Dem candidates just keep making it easier for another DJT win in 2020.

They do, the general election is 51 simultaneous state/district elections, just like our "democracy" is in fact a representative republic. It's a semantic shorthand, pointing out the obvious shortcomings doesn't really make you that much smarter than everyone else here ;).

To your point, there is a fairly good argument that once a strong consensus is reached among states, it may be a good idea to sync up said state laws on a federal level. Your thread on states' rights (which I missed) hinged on the tendency of states in many instances to tighly hold on to obvious "wrongs" in the name of states' "rights", and use that as the sole rationale for maintaining them. Federal/state/local governments are not intrinsically better/worse, but only can be judged by the particular laws that they enact. Should anti-sodomy laws still be enforced on a state or local level? Bringing it down to the lowest governing size can lead to large disparities in regulations, and can lead to a destructive form of majoritarianism in some instances (i.e. segregation).

oh my fuck, pull the stick out of your ass. yes there is no "National election" its just shorter than saying an election in the state which has national consequences because we are voting for the president of the united states. i am so glad your glass house is so fucking perfect.