Recently, I was listening to CNN where they were discussing the states where convicted felons are not allowed to vote and whether that was right.

Is voting a right or a privilege? But there's a third word that used to be applied, though one seldom hears it anymore.

When I was a kid voting wasn't a right or a privilege. It was a duty of every citizen in the democracy to participate in the electoral process.

As to felons. They are in prison to work off their debt to society.

Or not?

When they come out, are they citizens again or are they less than citizens?

Your thoughts?

Views: 543

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

If you live in a country that does not have a transparent electoral system then you would probably look to countries that do and think that it is a privilege to have the right to vote. Usually that privilege has not been won easily. Someone has fought and died in order that we have such rights.

Would it be an idea to give prisoners the right to vote if they are due for release within the term of the new government? That way it would be seen as an earned privilege and remove any alienation that might otherwise be created without the right to vote.  If you are a lifer then maybe not as you have forgone the same rights as everyone else in that society.

One thing that bugs me – people who complain about politicians but it turnst out they never bothered to vote! So if we live in societies that allow us to vote we should do so.

I think some people find little to choose between the Democrat and Republican rivals and thus don't vote, though they could vote for a minority candidate. Futile, of course, but it makes a statement.

Not much of one, when you consider the media ignores Third Party candidates outright (How often has Ron Paul been mentioned since the election season came into its full swing?). They might run the numbers the first week (two or three days to be realistic), but after that? Nothing.

It's all a crock of shit anyway. Your vote means, nothing; not because you don't have a say in which of the two wins, but rather because they're identical in everything but the face they wear in public.

Ron Paul will be recognized when he becomes competitive. The plain fact is that, rightly or wrongly, he doesn't appeal to most people and thus doesn't stand a chance. His ideas don't appeal to most people and his holier than thou personality doesn't help much. Speaking for myself, whenever I hear him talk it reminds me of my high school principal complaining about kids not putting their lunch trays away. 

As for the Dems and GOP being the same below the surface, then why has it been so hard for Obama to get anything done? If they were alike, they'd be spewing out legislation like crazy. They're not.

It's more profitable to game the system while everyone's focusing on Red V. Blue. It's more profitable to see that nothing major gets done, and keep feeding the public on the idea that its the fault of "The Other Party".

Taking the name off the ballot would help a lot. Anyone studying elections in the United States soon discovers the irrational advantage of having a surname that's Irish/Scottish, Italian, or Anglo-Saxon.

Which is very reminiscent of blacks once being counted as 1/4 of a person.  I'm actually a Youth Rights advocate.  There has been, for over a decade now, a push by the YR movement to lower the voting age to 16.  It's our biggest and strongest issue (and also the one most likely to come to pass in the near future).  You should look into the issue more if you're interested.  I won't spam a link here, but you can Google the "National Youth Rights Association" if you want.

A fourteen year old isn't considered competent to drive a car. Vote? Even fractionally? No. At least grownups understand rudimentary economics of running a home, paying rent and utilities. I know when I was a teen I was very "pie in the sky." Sorry, I don't see the upside.

We have trouble correctly tallying current election votes and you want to throw fractions into the debacle?   

:^ )

I think anyone over 12 should be allowed to vote. Maybe a test could be required,but I don't see any reason for these restrictions. The laws affect them, too, so it doesn't matter how "ill-advised" their opinions are, I think. There are people over fifty that think like five year olds. Everyone is different.

A 12 year old isn't even really ready for serious babysitting. 

Since you tacitly admit that their views are likely to be ill-advised (let's add ill-informed, naive, and often childish), and since they have almost no sales resistance, much less impulse control, I don't think giving children the vote would be a wise idea. Adults can be equally irresponsible, but at least they are paying taxes.

At the least, I'd want to see the results of some "moot" elections. For example, if Justin Bieber or Jeremy Lin had been on the ballot for the 12 year olds, I wonder how many votes Justin or Jeremy would have got. I think the result would be pretty convincing that a 12 year old isn't ready to vote.

Sadly, it might be that we already have this voting policy. I remember the amount of time I spent before the last election to research the issues and candidates. I think I finally decided to use a list of recommendations from a liberal political group I 'trust'.mostly..?

I quess if I was 12 and was obcessed with Pokemon, I might have used the commercials and carton plots to make an 'informed' decision. Pick your 'source' of twisted insight, and make you mark!     


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service