• 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!

Constitutional Amendment Making Voting A Right

Would you support a voting rights amendment?


  • Total voters
    40

pbrauer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2010
Messages
25,394
Reaction score
7,208
Location
Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
There are many people who don't realize that voting is NOT a right granted by the U.S. Constitution. Would you support such an amendment?

Choices: Would you support a voting rights amendment?

Yes
No
Other (Possibly accomplished with a Federal Statute)

Here is what is being proposed by two Democratic representatives:

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.


“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”


The brief amendment would stipulate that “every citizen of the United States, who is of legal voting age, shall have the fundamental right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides.” It would also give Congress “the power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.”

snip

Congressmen Propose Constitutional Amendment To Block Voting Rights Challenges | TPMDC
 
No. No need for it and there are other amendments that have been waiting in the wings for decades that deserve our attention.
 
I certainly would support it. Voting is fundamental to our system of government.
 
Nope. I don't want convicts and illegals voting. We elect enough Democrats as-is.
 
No ID, no vote, period. Prove you are who you claim to be. Get over it.
 
Nope. I don't want convicts and illegals voting. We elect enough Democrats as-is.

What rationale is there for not allowing people who've served their time to vote again? If they're released back as citizens, they should be able to participate as citizens.
 
What rationale is there for not allowing people who've served their time to vote again? If they're released back as citizens, they should be able to participate as citizens.

i always assumed it was because they don"t want them voting against the judges who sentenced them but i understand i may be wrong......
 
i always assumed it was because they don"t want them voting against the judges who sentenced them but i understand i may be wrong......

That's a pretty weak answer.
 
then tell me the answer since you obviously know.......

You mean for why felony disenfranchisement exists in the first place? Actually I don't know, I just assumed it was one of those overly enthusiastic positions that politicians take on to appear tough on crime.
 
You mean for why felony disenfranchisement exists in the first place? Actually I don't know, I just assumed it was one of those overly enthusiastic positions that politicians take on to appear tough on crime.

I have read somewhere that it is because the church community wanted to keep political control and didn't want those who do not agree with them to outvote them and turn the towns into places of wickedness, and that it became the practice, but I still think the judge voting is part of that.
 
I have read somewhere that it is because the church community wanted to keep political control and didn't want those who do not agree with them to outvote them and turn the towns into places of wickedness, and that it became the practice, but I still think the judge voting is part of that.

I just read a couple other reasons, one being that a criminal has broken the social contract and can't be trusted again, another that society feared that criminals would vote against laws/politicians that would be tough on crime (although simply lobbying for your business product or practice to be legal is also pretty straight forward). Along with the two reasons you've mentioned, all we really have here are emotional arguments in favor of felony disenfranchisement, and I'd be curious what studies have been done in other countries where ex-convicts are allowed to vote and whether that has led to any problems. The arguments in favor (at least the ones I've seen) aren't very scientific. One thing that is seen, however, is the effect of voter disenfranchisement on poor black neighborhoods in which a large percentage of people have been incarcerated one or more times: with fewer available votes to offer, that community is less politically potent, and therefore has less power to push for policies that help them.
 
I just read a couple other reasons, one being that a criminal has broken the social contract and can't be trusted again, another that society feared that criminals would vote against laws/politicians that would be tough on crime (although simply lobbying for your business product or practice to be legal is also pretty straight forward). Along with the two reasons you've mentioned, all we really have here are emotional arguments in favor of felony disenfranchisement, and I'd be curious what studies have been done in other countries where ex-convicts are allowed to vote and whether that has led to any problems. The arguments in favor (at least the ones I've seen) aren't very scientific. One thing that is seen, however, is the effect of voter disenfranchisement on poor black neighborhoods in which a large percentage of people have been incarcerated one or more times: with fewer available votes to offer, that community is less politically potent, and therefore has less power to push for policies that help them.

I am not aware of any formal studies but some US states allow it and I am not aware of any problems.
 
I am not aware of any formal studies but some US states allow it and I am not aware of any problems.

For who? The ex-convicts, the communities or the states?
 
What rationale is there for not allowing people who've served their time to vote again? If they're released back as citizens, they should be able to participate as citizens.

are you in favor of them being able to own guns too?
 
Wrong thread, big guy.

no its not. I want to see if those who want criminals to vote (mainly because-according to Stanford Law Professor Pamela Karlan-criminals vote in huge proportions for democrats) are also willing to extend to them other rights they lose after convictions
 
Wrong thread, big guy.

Yeah, this thread is about an amendment to the Constitution, not your personal crusade to get convicts the vote.
 
Yeah, this thread is about an amendment to the Constitution, not your personal crusade to get convicts the vote.

Ex-convicts, and I wasn't aware that this was my personal crusade until...oh, fifteen seconds ago.
 
Yes it is. Here's the thread title: "Would you support a voting rights amendment?"

See? You're in the wrong thread.


I guess you aren't able to fathom the fact that many liberals support restoring rights when the restoration helps the deems
 
Ex-convicts, and I wasn't aware that this was my personal crusade until...oh, fifteen seconds ago.

Yeah, well look how long you've been focusing on this one aspect. This isn't about ex-convicts.
 
I guess you aren't able to fathom the fact that many liberals support restoring rights when the restoration helps the deems

And I guess you aren't able to fathom a thread that isn't about guns.

Not my problem.
 
I guess you aren't able to fathom the fact that many liberals support restoring rights when the restoration helps the deems

Same reason they don't want anyone to require an ID, it's hurts their chances of getting elected.
 
Back
Top Bottom