5.3 million American adults are not allowed to vote??

[CaptainPanic]

I'm puzzled what the following text means.

... Some states [in the USA] bar convicted criminals, especially felons, from voting for a fixed period of time or indefinitely. The number of American adults who are currently or permanently ineligible to vote due to felony convictions is estimated to be 5.3 million...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_States#Eligibility

 

Can someone explain what this means? I thought that "eligible" meant that you are available for a political position, and other people can vote for you. But I seem to understand from the quote above that 5.3 million people are not allowed to cast their vote at all? Can someone explain the text in more simple words? I don't seem to understand.

 

(I found this bit of information when searching for the answers to the questions in the post I put up just a minute ago. It seemed too much off topic to include it in that post.)

 

I'm hoping that these people just cannot be elected themselves, but that they can still cast their vote.

If not... normally to change the voting ystem, you need to change the constitution. It's a big thing. But now, all you need to do is change a small law that gets people convicted of something, and *whoop*, some people are not allowed to vote anymore!

[Saryctos]

The wording is correct, if you are a convicted felon you are unable to vote. Felonies are usually more serious crimes. The reasoning being that if someone can't follow the current laws why should they be a part in the creation process of something they themselves won't abide by.

[jackson33]

Think you could have well used the first thread, since both questions have basically the same answer...

 

As your 'Wiki' site mentioned, beyond some simple requirement (age etc) the Constitution allows States the right to choose who is qualified or eligible to vote. In Maine/Vermont for instance, sentencing for a felony does NOT disqualify you for voting. Others have time limits and means to be dropped from the disqualified. Each State also has no laws for persons convicted in other States or may maintain them. Most States however have some means to contest ineligibility and court system can remove them. Governors and/or the President can also pardon a person, which also make the person eligible.

 

In ALL cases, its the process to register in any State, where the person is/is not eligible. Since ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, its the person registering who is responsible, with many other reasons involved (age/citizen, etc). In some States you can be heavily fined, spend up to five years in prison or both.

 

As mentioned all States, have different policy on who is qualified to vote in primaries. Many require no more than being at the voting booth, registered or not, to allowing a vote only if registered in the party the primary is intended for...not even if independent.

[iNow]

CP - It's an additional punishment. The state is saying that the crime was so bad that the person will lose their voting rights for a while... as if "what you did was really wrong, so wrong that we've decided you're going to lose some basic rights as a citizen until some time has elapsed."

 

It's like being ostracized from the group, but you're allowed back in later if you behave.

[npts2020]

In some states you have to go so far as to petition the governor for re-enfranchisement and may still be turned down then.

[CaptainPanic]

Hmm... I'm a bit shocked to read that apparently about 1 in every 40 adults have committed a crime that has put them in jail for a year or more (that's sort of the wikipedia definition here - good enough for me, I am not going to study US law). Are Americans such evil people??

 

I think it's plain wrong if 1 in every 40 adults in a country cannot vote because of actions they have done in the past. I understand if people are put in prison, because they cannot be trusted walking around in freedom, or if they get a fine so they learn that something is not tolerated. But there is no danger for society to let these people vote. There is no way that they can disrupt the voting system.

 

p.s. the reason I made a separate thread for this is that in the other thread there will be little discussion, just a list of facts. Here, I am hoping for some discussion.

[Phi for All]

Are Americans such evil people??

No, we're evil capitalists. Prisons make a lot of money in the US.

[npts2020]

Americans just have lots of laws. Most felonies are drug related and the majority of them never go to trial as the offender will "cop a plea" or agree to plead guilty to a lesser offense without a trial, eg. a drug dealer may agree to plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute instead of going to trial for running an ongoing criminal enterprise (the penalties vary state to state but the later will recieve a harsher sentence in almost every case). In other words you take a lighter sentence or take your chances on a trial. Considering well over 80% of adult Americans have done an illegal drug sometime during their lifetime........well you get the idea. IMO the "war on drugs" is far more about making money than helping anyone. Kinda makes you wonder why the rate isn't more like 1 in 10 huh?

[swansont]

Hmm... I'm a bit shocked to read that apparently about 1 in every 40 adults have committed a crime that has put them in jail for a year or more (that's sort of the wikipedia definition here - good enough for me, I am not going to study US law). Are Americans such evil people??

 

I think it's plain wrong if 1 in every 40 adults in a country cannot vote because of actions they have done in the past. I understand if people are put in prison, because they cannot be trusted walking around in freedom, or if they get a fine so they learn that something is not tolerated. But there is no danger for society to let these people vote. There is no way that they can disrupt the voting system.

 

My vote counts, but 5.3 million of them won't?

[CaptainPanic]

Americans just have lots of laws. Most felonies are drug related and the majority of them never go to trial as the offender will "cop a plea" or agree to plead guilty to a lesser offense without a trial, eg. a drug dealer may agree to plead guilty to possession with intent to distribute instead of going to trial for running an ongoing criminal enterprise (the penalties vary state to state but the later will recieve a harsher sentence in almost every case). In other words you take a lighter sentence or take your chances on a trial. Considering well over 80% of adult Americans have done an illegal drug sometime during their lifetime........well you get the idea. IMO the "war on drugs" is far more about making money than helping anyone. Kinda makes you wonder why the rate isn't more like 1 in 10 huh?

 

That's another shock to me. You can really go to jail for a year without ever having had a trial?? Wow. That's weird. I'm not 100% sure anymore now about the system here, but I think that over here you always get a trial. Haven't been into contact with that system too much myself, and I also didn't study law, so I'm not exactly an expert. Anyway, interesting stuff, this.

 

My vote counts, but 5.3 million of them won't?

 

Of course they count. That's the whole point! Why shouldn't they vote?? How bad can it be when someone casts his/her vote in a democracy?? I mean, that's the whole idea, isn't it?

[swansont]

Of course they count. That's the whole point! Why shouldn't they vote?? How bad can it be when someone casts his/her vote in a democracy?? I mean, that's the whole idea, isn't it?

 

So they could disrupt the voting system. People vote for judges, sheriffs and district attorneys. The integrity of that process is important.

[Pangloss]

Yes, it's possible, and that would likely not matter if people paid more attention to the voting process with lower-tier candidates. I don't think absolutes really work very well in this argument, for either side. No matter what you do, you lose somewhere along the line. Any action is a compromise, and so we have a compromise -- some criminals lose their right to vote; others do not, based on the severity and nature of their crimes.

 

Way it goes.

[Riogho]

We should just hang criminals, then they wouldn't want to vote at all.

[iNow]

I just found this nice article on the subject from 2006 (lol... it's vintage):

 

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1553510,00.html

And don't fall for the line that the nation's original plan called for denying felons the vote. In 1800, no state prohibited felons from voting. On the eve of the Civil War, 80% of the states did, largely to block African Americans, who though rarely allowed to vote were disproportionately represented among felons. Today, the impact of these laws still falls disproportionately on poor, minority males, a fact that seems to have skewed more than a few elections. Anyone familiar with the details of the deadlocked 2000 presidential race will recall that tens of thousands of likely Democratic voters were disenfranchised because of Florida's laws against voting by felons. A relative handful could have made Al Gore president.

 

So here's the thing: Felons who are out of prison have largely served the punishment prescribed by the judicial system. Shouldn't that be enough? Penalizing them further by taking away their right to vote is not just unfair to them, it's bad for us. We'll be lucky if 40% of eligible voters cast a ballot on Nov. 7. What kind of a democracy is that?

 

We should be finding ways to get more voters to the polls, not looking for excuses to keep them away.