• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

6 Million Americans Without a Voice

Interesting. So you would agree that it's acceptable to ban guns so long as it's the state making that decision?

No, that is not what I said at all. Restricting rights after due process, whether to vote or keep and bear arms, is definitely constitutional and within the right of any state.
 
1. We do not - thank God - live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.
Standard semantic nonsense. A republic is a type of democracy, but not a direct democracy. Squares and rectangles, and whatnot.

2. The ability to exercise the franchise is not the single fundamental right. If you were going to argue for one, that one would probably be self-defense, or speech. You do not have a right to vote. You have a right not to have the vote taken from you for a variety of explicitly and narrowly defined reasons.

It's the single fundamental right to a democracy because without voting it isn't a democracy. Democracy can exist without the right to free speech or self defense, although without free speech it's probably not a very useful model of government. Like voting, both are also taken away under the right circumstance.

And in every one of those cases, the burden is on others to justify restricting a right, not on me to justify why I should have it in the first place.
 
Standard semantic nonsense. A republic is a type of democracy, but not a direct democracy. Squares and rectangles, and whatnot.

No, it's a distinction with a difference.

It's the single fundamental right to a democracy because without voting it isn't a democracy.

There is not, nor has there ever been a Republic that doesn't/didn't have exemptions to their voting "rights".
 
While some countries do in fact give their felons the right to vote, that is for a different debate. The operative word in this thread is ex-felon, as in, those who have already served their sentences and paid their debt to society.

Time served is not the only form of a debt to society. Losing voting rights is also a debt.

John Locke talked about the social contract to society in exchange for rights. Breaking the contract equals losing some of those rights, permanently.
 
Last edited:
Time served is not the only form of a debt to society. Losing voting rights counts as one of those debts.

And it's unjust. It makes a mockery of no taxation without representation and the bar is set ridiculously low for for how easy it is to strip a person of their voting rights besides.
 
And it's unjust. It makes a mockery of no taxation without representation and the bar is set ridiculously low for for how easy it is to strip a person of their voting rights besides.

I of course disagree on both points. They had full representation before they committed the felony (in some states, multiple felonies). And to a large extent still do even while their vote is suspended. And no, I don't know of any state where the bar is set too low in this.
 
Let me ask you, Maggie: do you believe that it's acceptable that someone who's served their sentence and repaid their debt to society should never be allowed to vote again?

It really depends on what they did. What if they were convicted of voter fraud?

If so then what if they were denied gun ownership because they used one in a robbery.

Or denied the ability to come within so many feet of a school because they molested children.

It's not cut and dried.
 
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.

That is true. But it is the way democracy works. If the delegate does, what I voted for? Let the egoistic bastard have the job.
 
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.

That's fine. It would help push the need to simply execute these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen who commit Felonies instead of incarcerating them. THEN they can vote (but only in Chicago).
 
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.


Well, that's certainly the easier way to look at it. Another way, and the correct one if not necessarily the sexier one, is that rehabilitation over purely punitive/life-long exclusive measures is consistently a liberal position.
 
While some countries do in fact give their felons the right to vote, that is for a different debate. The operative word in this thread is ex-felon, as in, those who have already served their sentences and paid their debt to society.

There's no such thing as an ex-felon.
 
Standard semantic nonsense. A republic is a type of democracy, but not a direct democracy. Squares and rectangles, and whatnot.

Squares are different from rectangles - and this sort of thing is important, not least for reasons pertaining to the subject under discussion. Our form of government is not set up to, and will not benefit from, extending the vote to as many individuals within it's borders as possible as a priority in and of itself.

It's the single fundamental right to a democracy because without voting it isn't a democracy.

That is incorrect. Without voting directly on policy, a Democracy is not a Democracy. So, for example, the budget couldn't be passed by Congress, but by referendum.

And in every one of those cases, the burden is on others to justify restricting a right, not on me to justify why I should have it in the first place.

Well, no. Voting can be restricted except for certain reasons. "You committed a felony" being pretty good justification.
 
That's fine. It would help push the need to simply execute these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen who commit Felonies instead of incarcerating them. THEN they can vote (but only in Chicago).

If a person is convicted of making and using drugs (without giving it to anyone else), you think they should be executed? For a crime consisting only in endangering their own health? Do you not see the absurdity of that?
 
Considering most felonies are non-violent, victimless crimes, and in some cases, frivolous, I tend to agree.
 
Should ex-cons be allowed to own guns?

Yes, they should. If a person has served his time and done his probation, he should be allowed to vote, carry a gun, and have the same rights as everyone else. If they are too dangerous to vote or carry a gun, they shouldn't be out of prison IMO.
 
That's fine. It would help push the need to simply execute these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen who commit Felonies instead of incarcerating them. THEN they can vote (but only in Chicago).

Apply that to authoritarians and you got a deal. Authoritarians are worthless pieces of flesh as well.
 
Apply that to authoritarians and you got a deal. Authoritarians are worthless pieces of flesh as well.

So you want the government to kill authoritarians?
 
Do you believe that people who've served their sentences should lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives, or are you more concerned that ex-felons might vote Democrat?

I tend to agree that anyone who has been convicted of a crime, and who has fulfilled his sentence, should regain all of his full rights. If he's “paid his debt to society”, then I see no basis for society to demand more from him.

I would be much more sympathetic to the idea of felons being treated more harshly, even after completing their sentences, if being a felon meant what it used to—someone who has willfully committed a particularly serious crime. But our body of laws has become so complex and convoluted, that the average American unwittingly commits three felonies per day. Under our corrupt legal system, the only legal difference between you and I and someone who has been convicted of a felony is that we haven't been caught.


Now, having said all that, I'll say this as well. Anyone who thinks that Mr. Holder's motive in proposing that ex-felons be given their voting rights is anything but blatantly partisan is an ignorant fool. The Democratic party is the party of criminals. Voting rights for convicted criminals means more Democratic votes. Mr. Holder knows damn well that convicted felons, allowed to vote, will vote overwhelming in favor of the Democrats; and that is why he favors it. If criminals were more likely to vote Republican, you know that he would be solidly opposed to allowing them to vote, as long as he could claim any rational justification for denying that right to them.
 
Former felons who successfully complete their probation or parole should have their right to vote restored. Being denied the right to vote is not a deterrent to crime. Having the right to vote restored can help an ex-con feel like they are part of society, which is likely to somewhat reduce the chance of committing another crime. Also, some crimes, particularly drug laws, are an attack on people holding certain world views, in other words, they are largely thought crimes or political crimes. A legitimate democracy (democratic republic) does not disenfranchise people for holding an unpopular worldview.
 
So you want the government to kill authoritarians?

No, that was in response to Tigger, who is a self-proclaimed authoritarian who believes using alcohol should be under the death penalty. Just throwing it back at him.
 
Former felons who successfully complete their probation or parole should have their right to vote restored..
Sen. Rand Paul, who has been trying to attract liberal DEMs with his NSA and drone policies,
is set to introduce legislation denying voting rights to violent offenders .
 
Last edited:
Former felons who successfully complete their probation or parole should have their right to vote restored. Being denied the right to vote is not a deterrent to crime. Having the right to vote restored can help an ex-con feel like they are part of society, which is likely to somewhat reduce the chance of committing another crime. Also, some crimes, particularly drug laws, are an attack on people holding certain world views, in other words, they are largely thought crimes or political crimes. A legitimate democracy (democratic republic) does not disenfranchise people for holding an unpopular worldview.

I can say with certainty that Nevada will restore your civil rights on completion of your sentence. The only exception will be possession of a firearm.
 
No, that was in response to Tigger, who is a self-proclaimed authoritarian who believes using alcohol should be under the death penalty. Just throwing it back at him.

Something tells me that if Tigger's concept of law and order were in place, it would cause people to drink more, not less.
 
Back
Top Bottom