[Korimyr the Rat]

I do not necessarily object to the idea of imposing additional requirements for voting. Government service, as long as it is available to every adult, seems reasonable. Being able to demonstrate a functional knowledge of our system of government is certainly reasonable, though the idea that it might be necessary to test for this is horrifying. I don't agree with either requiring employment or that the voter be a net taxpayer-- if not for students, at least for retirees-- but I can understand the reasoning behind them.

I object in the most strenuous possible terms to the idea that conviction of a crime-- whether felony or misdemeanor-- should disqualify a person from voting. This is a corruption of both the legal system and the political process, as it allows the government, or factions within the government, to disenfranchise large groups of the citizens either through the invention of spurious laws or through the targeted enforcement of existing laws. People who live in and contribute to a society should have their interests represented in that society.

[Dave]

People who commit felonies are irresponsible and generally immoral, and I see no reason why their interests should be represented or why they should have the freedom to impose their political views on law abiding citizens. Democracy is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[Fasces]

Allowing criminals to vote may result in them voting to overturn their sentence. There is a conflict of interest, that is best avoided, even if no one politician wins an election due to the criminal vote. Turning criminals into a group pursued by politicians? The idea is horrifying.

[Korimyr the Rat]

People who commit felonies are irresponsible and generally immoral...

Are you saying that you are in moral agreement with every law currently in place? You might be surprised at the number and kind of offenses which qualify as "felonies" currently.

Allowing criminals to vote may result in them voting to overturn their sentence. There is a conflict of interest, that is best avoided, even if no one politician wins an election due to the criminal vote. Turning criminals into a group pursued by politicians? The idea is horrifying.

You're looking at it backward. Prohibiting criminals from voting leads to politicians trying to turn their political opponents and their supporters into criminals. That is a much more serious conflict of interest-- and abuse of the system-- than the one you are concerned with.

[Dave]

Are you saying that you are in moral agreement with every law currently in place? You might be surprised at the number and kind of offenses which qualify as "felonies" currently.

Not at all, but it's safe to say that the majority people who are convicted of felonies are irresponsible and immoral, even if the law itself is not just. I have no interest in wanking about inclusion, and will hardly lose any sleep about someone being unfairly denied the "right" to vote.

You're looking at it backward. Prohibiting criminals from voting leads to politicians trying to turn their political opponents and their supporters into criminals. That is a much more serious conflict of interest-- and abuse of the system-- than the one you are concerned with.

I see no evidence of this actually happening, unless you think the war on...whatever is a sinister plot to disenfranchise minorities.

[Shayn]

Allowing criminals to vote may result in them voting to overturn their sentence. There is a conflict of interest, that is best avoided, even if no one politician wins an election due to the criminal vote. Turning criminals into a group pursued by politicians? The idea is horrifying.

Agreed on the basics of your point, but I think the argument goes the other way as well. Why should people who work to criminalize behavior be allowed to vote to keep that law in place? A good example is the kids in the US who get criminal records for possession of drugs. Why should they be disbarred from working to overturn their sentences? All the research shows that the majority of people who get convicted of possession are generally law-abiding citizens. This is just one example of "criminals" who are actively pursuing politicians. The problem seems to be in labeling people as "criminal," which is out-dated, when better methods of integrating offenders fully back into society exist. Committing crimes and being convicted is not tantamount to being a danger or detriment to society per se.

[froggo]

A good example is the kids in the US who get criminal records for possession of drugs. Why should they be disbarred from working to overturn their sentences?

If you're in possession you are a criminal.

All the research shows that the majority of people who get convicted of possession are generally law-abiding citizens.

They don't abide the law if they break it.

The problem seems to be in labeling people as "criminal," which is out-dated, when better methods of integrating offenders fully back into society exist. Committing crimes and being convicted is not tantamount to being a danger or detriment to society per se.

If you knowingly break the law and are charged then you are detrimental to society for laws are in place for the maintenance of society, law does not serve the purpose of "justice" as so many people seem to think. If you possess drugs, you are committing a crime. Even if you were simply holding it for a friend. Do you really believe that these people who view specific situations as being above the law by viewing it as inconsequential at the time to be able to have the proper judgement to make appropriate decisions in regards to elections?

If someone handed me a bag of drugs I'd flush them down the toilet. Anyone else should do the same if they'd want to have the priviledge to vote.

[Shayn]

Do you really believe that these people who view specific situations as being above the law by viewing it as inconsequential at the time to be able to have the proper judgment to make appropriate decisions in regards to elections?

Simply, yes. There is nothing that connects ones regard or disregard for non-violent, non-economically detrimental crimes with their ability to make sound political judgments. Someone who is a heavy drug addict? That's different. Same thing with alcoholics.

You seem to have some sort of insane reverence to the law. If I took power and made insane laws that were nearly impossible to follow (on Sundays, everyone has to write an essay on how much they love me in their left hand in perfect calligraphy, or they get shot), people wouldn't follow them, and I would be crucified on a telephone pole within days, deservedly so.

The same applies to archaic laws that dictate what people can and cannot put into their bodies. I think it should be illegal to sell people fast food that kills them, but I would never vote to make that happen because people have the right to eat shit if they want. That is far more important of an issue (economically, ecologically and morally) than the use of recreational drugs.

Kids going to jail for years because they were holding a few grams of pot is unethical and insane. If they choose to disregard the law that makes possession of recreational drugs illegal, it is a reprehensible, repressive culture that prosecutes them through misleading the ignorant public into believing these drugs should be illegal and upholding unjustifiable law.

The law isn't something to "obey" it is a tool to ensure justice and equality. When this tool is used against these goals, it is in every citizen's right and their duty to disobey them if it is in their best interest to do so. But this is only appropriate if these people are also working to use legal methods to overturn these laws. I fault the millions of recreational drug users who do not support the good people who work tirelessly to ensure the freedom of their own bodies.

[Oxymoron]

I would also limit the voting age up to 65.

[Demosthenes]

Though in the blog section I generally prefer to let my original comments speak for themselves and let the debate be amongst those who have read it, I have to say I'm very pleased this topic engaged so many of you.

I really like a few of the ideas presented and really hate some of the others.

Because in a later entry I will address "drug laws" and the "The Prison system" the idea of not letting criminals vote doesn't bother me that much as long as we're talking about my ideal system, and not the current one.

Anyone who takes the war on drugs seriously is not my kind of political thinker. If you know nothing of Martin Luther King's stand and comments on just and unjust laws, and think you are so rigid that you draw the line on what is moral by what the law currently reads; with no thought whatsoever given to understanding the vast political and social impact of laws like the current drug prohibition that now exists; well... I don't know what to say to you other than that to comment that I think people who think like you do are part of the problem, and not the solution. That said, I'd prefer to keep the drug law discussion for the appropriate future entry.

I do not agree at all that employment should have anything to do with voting. It's just far too dicey. This current economy should prove that. Should former GM workers, right now, be unable to vote? I don't think you can ever make that just.

I do like the age suggestion that Shayne made to a degree. I like the idea of say, meeting all the requirements I had in place from the beginning, and then have a graduated voting system where you first are eligible for local voting, then state, then federal. It's not bad, though I'd have to really think about it to decide how exactly I'd articulate it.

Anyway, I'm enjoying reading the comments on both sides.

[Fasces]

Even if you disagree with current laws, one asks themselves about the nature of the people breaking these laws. Drugs are not a necessity to living life, by any stretch of the imagination, and even if they are considered repressive and unfair, they are still laws. If a person is able to rationalize breaking one law, they would be able to do so to any law, as it shows they hold themselves above the system. A person who sees themselves as above the system cannot belong, and thus should not participate in it.

[Demosthenes]

Even if you disagree with current laws, one asks themselves about the nature of the people breaking these laws. Drugs are not a necessity to living life, by any stretch of the imagination, and even if they are considered repressive and unfair, they are still laws. If a person is able to rationalize breaking one law, they would be able to do so to any law, as it shows they hold themselves above the system. A person who sees themselves as above the system cannot belong, and thus should not participate in it.

You just aren't considering all possiblities here I don't think. Roll back the clock to the days of slavery or enforced institutionalized racism. Slaves broke all kinds of laws, yet in a perfect world they should have been able to vote.

Plus, laws simply aren't enforced universally, never have been and never will be. The wealthy get away with more. Cops don't patrol wealthy neighborhoods. It's an obvious paradigm that a slavish devotion to the law simply ignores. One prosecuter will absolutely hold the law over one citizen's head, while arbitrarily forgiving the offenses of another.

Unless you can make the statement that "All laws are always just" I think it's just crazy to apply your rules to voting. I'm only referring to misdemeanor voting here though. I do understand the part about felons losing their voting rights. Still, in a world where true rehab is attainable, some measure that might be enacted to restore voting rights eventually would be desirable.

Of course, my hope is that, with some of the coming entries I will be posting, many inroads to criminality will be dealt with before the pattern ever emerges in an individual. In the modern world we simply have far too many instances where good people with little opportunity are being locked away. Speaking only for the US, 2 million prisoners more reveals Draconian policy as opposed to an over abunadance of "bad eggs".

I am very comfortable saying "All violent felons lose their voting rights for life", however.

If a person is able to rationalize breaking one law, they would be able to do so to any law,

Nonsense. This statement is not only unprovable, it's not even intuitive.

All this said, I want to make sure it's well understood that I do not advocate drug use in any way.

[NYYS]

I take Fasces' line of thinking. A lot of (daresay "most," but I have nothing to back that up at the moment) drug users are simply degenerates who are going to vote for degenerate causes. Why we would encourage these people to give their input on how society should be run is beyond me.

[Demosthenes]

I take Fasces' line of thinking. A lot of (daresay "most," but I have nothing to back that up at the moment) drug users are simply degenerates who are going to vote for degenerate causes. Why we would encourage these people to give their input on how society should be run is beyond me.

And I say, that while there will be some drug use no matter what, there are plenty of degenerates out there whose vices aren't illegal. I could make a case against gamblers, adulterers, liers, and just about any other negative aspect of humanity. That drug users are singled out and silenced is an injustice.

Anyway, since there is some acceptance of drugs as a health problem, why not limit the vote of diabetics, those suffering from sickle cell anemia, pregnant women, heart conditions, eating disorders...the list goes on forever. The severity of the drug problems is exaggerated, and made worse by the illegality of it all. Dare I say that those with the concerns above wouldn't vote the same way I would?

[Fasces]

I am talking of major, not minor, laws. Not cleaning up after your dog, for example, is not the same as making a conscious decision to distribute heroin, or steal from your neighbor.

[NYYS]

I could make a case against gamblers, adulterers, liers, and just about any other negative aspect of humanity.

It's not nearly as easy to track those people. You can test for drugs, you can't test for sleeping around or being a liar.

Anyway, since there is some acceptance of drugs as a health problem, why not limit the vote of diabetics, those suffering from sickle cell anemia, pregnant women, heart conditions, eating disorders...the list goes on forever.

Because nothing in those necessarily means the person is an idiot.

[Fasces]

On the subject of drug use, in this day and age, I would say most youth know the risks associated with illicit drugs, from a health and legal perspective. To use regardless is an exhibition of extremely poor judgment, and that is hardly the type of person who should be permitted to vote.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I am very comfortable saying "All violent felons lose their voting rights for life", however.

I've got a very simple solution for this. If you believe that a person cannot be trusted with the vote, or with a gun, or to live within 1000 feet of a school, they shouldn't be walking loose in society in the first place. Put a bullet in them.

[Demosthenes]

It's not nearly as easy to track those people. You can test for drugs, you can't test for sleeping around or being a liar.

The only reason any drug offenders are locked up is because the cops patrol the hood. Start having them patrol casinos and cheap motels, they'll find criminals exercizing bad judgement if we make these things illegal.

Because nothing in those necessarily means the person is an idiot.

So then everyone who uses drugs is an idiot? Really? Are you sure you want to make that claim before I go searching the net for every famous person/world leader who can be tied to some drug use or other?

[froggo]

Sorry a bit of a delayed response to Shayn...

There is nothing that connects ones regard or disregard for non-violent, non-economically detrimental crimes with their ability to make sound political judgments.

You are quite right. But being in possession of drugs is in support of violent activities that drugs produce, it is in support of those who become addicts and live off welfare they do not deserve, thus economically detrimental.

You seem to have some sort of insane reverence to the law. If I took power and made insane laws that were nearly impossible to follow (on Sundays, everyone has to write an essay on how much they love me in their left hand in perfect calligraphy, or they get shot), people wouldn't follow them,

I do not see how the crime of being in possession of drugs can be considered insane. Yes insane laws are terrible, laws that serve no purpose. However, laws that protect the structures of society from destruction are not insane. Drugs are counterproductive to a society. They allow people to waste billions of dollars a year that go towards criminals and criminal activity. They create people who do not contribute to society and mooch off of it. I do not understand how you can view this as not being in poor judgement to allow people like this to have a voice in the way in which their society is ran.

I think it should be illegal to sell people fast food that kills them

Fast food does not create filthy addicts that can't work. Nor does it take away jobs and income from the citizens.

Kids going to jail for years because they were holding a few grams of pot is unethical and insane.

If the person is of an age where they can be prosecuted, and they know what the possession will lead to than they deserve to face the consequences.

The law isn't something to "obey" it is a tool to ensure justice and equality.

The law is something to obey as it ensures the maintenance of a society. There is no justice in the law, there is simply legislation that ensures the society can function as best as it can. The law has Never been about justice. It originated form Religious morals which were best for society at the time and it has adapted itself to more modernised cultures, ensuring that the Society itself will be sustained.

I am not saying laws should not be challenged. If a law is detrimental to the modern society it should be revised, but in regards to drug use, it should not be revised as drugs are detrimental to society. And if the people are breaking these laws that harm society... than they should not have a right to vote, for it is self-evident that they do not know what is best for the society.