Carlos says that felons should not be able to vote. By breaking the laws of society they were incarcerated for a reason and they must pay the price for their crimes. If that means not being able to vote then so be it. If they were so worried about the right to vote then they shouldn’t have done the crime.

Carlos also thinks that kids should not be able to vote. Most people under 18 (in some cases even older people) aren’t mature enough to vote or understand what the issues are. Granted there are some students under the age of 18 who would understand but most probably do not. Why should a 16 year old who can?t go to war be allowed to vote and directly influence a war? Carlos says it isn?t fair.

DiClerico emphasized voting to be a fundamental right, but when it came to felons, it was downgraded to a privilege. The reason for this shift in terms, I imagine, is because it is much more difficult to justify the revocation of a right. I think it is clear that voting is a right (like freedom of expression) and not a privilege (like being licensed to drive), so I won’t argue this point.

So, why should we revoke this right from felons? I would imagine if we are going to revoke some fundamental human right, the reason should be clear. What other fundamental rights are revoked from felons? Don’t they still retain their rights to freedom of expression, medical treatment, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment?

Not all rights are retained, though—they must, of course, lose their rights to freedom. But this seems necessary considering what is at least one of the purposes of imprisonment: isolation from society. Is the revocation of voting rights necessary to maintain the effectiveness of imprisonment?

Furthermore, in addition to having no clear benefit, revocation of this right may actually be harmful to society. As Dr. Ryan suggested, revoking this right may harm political activists that use civil disobedience as a tactic for social change.

Finally, it seems like if enough citizens are imprisoned for some crime that they would actually even affect the elections of representatives, perhaps that law SHOULD be reversed. If too few are imprisoned to affect the elections, then no harm done, right? Either way, maintaining felons’ voting rights is clearly the right thing to do.

in my opinion: anyone that wants to vote should have the right, no matter of age gender race or if they are considered a criminal.

Issues that politics govern apply to people with felonies etc as well as those without, why should they not have a say?

Kids under 18 that wanted to vote should maybe have to write a paper (supervised so that no one could help them of course.)
that would state why they wanted to vote, what issues etc, to show that they have an understanding on what they are voting on.

A pivotal issue in allowing minors to vote is that a large number of them are legally employed. Every paycheck is taxed by the federal government, regardless of whether its recipient is a minor. Since minors can’t vote, this amounts to taxation without representation. The clearest remedy is to allow citizens age 16 and up to vote, since it is far less likely that laws will be enacted to bar all minors from the workforce.

First off my belief is that the system is effective currently. The argument that minors should have the right to vote is flawed because although minors are taxed for their work few of the will make enough annually to exceed the federal minimum income and will have their withholdings refunded when they file with the IRS as for Medicare and Social Security taxes those go helping current Medicare and SS recipients. In Susan Welch’s book American Government the author the argument that as dependants minors are likely to develop political views based on parental example. As such it can be surmised that lowering the voting age to an age where parents have greater control over the minor, that the minor’s vote would serve simply as an extra vote for the parent rather than an informed vote on the part of the minor. Additionally 18 is the age of consent and responsibility in most states and lowering the voting age to 16 and implying adulthood at 16 would erode the juvenile justice system which differentiates adult criminals from minors.
As to the revocation of voting rights for Felons. Felonies are a breach of the implied social contract that is an integral part of the basis for a functioning society. As such it stands to reason that if you care so little for your society and the rights of others as to breach them, then your rights should likewise be revoked. A parallel to that would be while driving you violate the traffic code in a way that causes your license to be revokes (and in some instances it is possible to have you license revoked permanently) you should not be allowed to continue to drive.
The argument made by Anonymous “Finally, it seems like if enough citizens are imprisoned for some crime that they would actually even affect the elections of representatives, perhaps that law SHOULD be reversed. If too few are imprisoned to affect the elections, then no harm done, right? Either way, maintaining felons? voting rights is clearly the right thing to do.” is flawed.
If we follow their argument, Murderers would potentially be able to push legislation that legalizes murder. Forgive me but that logic just doesn?t stand up to common sense.

As to the abolishment of the electoral college for a direct democracy I believe again that this is a flawed argument. The Electoral College was put in place by our founding fathers to give a fair chance for less populous states to matter in elections. Abolishing the Electoral College in favor of direct voting would lead to national elections decided by large populous states like California and New York and would lead to total mitigation of states like West Virginia. As it stands the Electoral College gives a representational sample that allows for fair distribution among all states. It was the intention of the founding fathers to ensure that every state had a say in national elections. Additionally using a direct democracy it would remove all incentive to politicians to campaign in small states.

Kids should have the right to vote. I believe kids 14 and older should be able to vote. Fourteen year olds should be able to vote because you come of age when you are 18 and this way when you turned 18 you would know you helped shape the world you now have full rights in. Before they could vote, they would have to take a test to prove that they could understand the issues and understand the candidates views on the issues. Prisoners should not have the right to vote. If you are in jail, laws are a lot less likely to affect you. Ex-felons, like kids, should have to take a test and they should have to wait 10 years after they were out of jail to be able to vote. This would be adequete time to prove that they would most likely stay out of trouble. We should get rid of the electoral college. It allows politicians to focus on big states and some areas of the country are completely ignored.

Specifically addressing the question of whether we should do away with the electoral college: I would have to argue that we should not.

The major benefit of the electoral college is to force presidential candidates to campaign in states where the population may be significantly lower than in the major urban centers of the U.S. If we were to switch to a popular vote, we would see candidates campaigning in New York, Los Angeles, D.C., Seattle, etc., and nowhere else. While we might be tempted to say, “So what? We can watch their campaigns on television,” the fact is that by only campaigning in these major areas, they would also only be addressing the issues of the people who live in those areas. Farmers, for instance, would be extremely marginalized in a popular vote system … living in extremely rural areas, presidential candidates would have little reason to visit them or to address their issues.

While we are all still reeling from the Florida debacle, and from the fact that the current President won an election without winning the popular vote, it is important to remember why the electoral college was established in the first place. Without such a system, states like West Virginia would have a significantly reduced role in the political system. Candidates would never have an interest in addressing issues that matter to our state, but not to major metropolitan areas … we would find our state’s natural resources being stripped without regard for our concerns over the natural beauty of West Virginia, because the votes of a few major cities would outweigh the votes of our entire state, and those cities, with their industrial centers, would have a vested interest in acquiring the resources from our state; this is already happening to a significant degree, but without a seat at the table guaranteed by the electoral college, there would be even less of a reason for presidential candidates to address the issues that concern West Virginians.

In short, the electoral college allows states with lower populations to receive the attention of presidential candidates. It could be argued that since the number of electoral votes a state controls are proportional to population, there is little difference between a popular vote and the current system. West Virginia obviously controls less electoral votes than California. However the current setup skews the ratio of population to electoral vote; for instance, the ratio of California’s percentage of the U.S. population to percentage of electoral votes is 0.84 … West Virginia’s is somewhere around 1.29 (stats taken from www.thirty-thousand.org, based on the 2004 election). This was done specifically to ensure that smaller states are not neglected in the electoral process (for instance, the highest ratio, Wyoming, is 3.05!). It can and has been argued that this is an unfair system, wherein a citizen of a more populous state can obviously contend that their vote counts for less than someone in a less populous state. It is a valid point, and the part of me that tends to argue in favor of individual rights finds it to be compelling. I believe that in order to refute this point, one must point out that, on certain issues, citizens in urban centers will naturally tend to group their votes together on those issues (such as tax benefits for farmers, or various issues related to the mining industry), and therefore as a group will have vastly more influence than those in rural areas. Yes, individuals’ votes in California count less in the grand scheme than those from West Virginia; but as a voting bloc, even with the current system, their group vote ends up counting for more. This is why the electoral college is so critical in making sure that the interests of those living in rural areas are respected.

I know at this point I’ve probably written too much for a The Question blog post, but these issues touch on something I’m very passionate about, and so I will continue, leaving you with the freedom of choice to simply stop reading.

As far as the right for convicted felons to vote: I have recently argued both publicly and privately on the issue of constitutional rights for prison inmates. To me, men and women are granted fundamental rights purely by virtue of existing. These rights are not “bestowed” upon them, whether by God or the state or any other authority. They simply have them, and these rights cannot be revoked, as they were never granted. In my opinion, trying to revoke someone’s fundamental rights is akin to trying to revoke someone’s mass. It is an intrinsic property; it is unquestionable and cannot be argued, although it is entirely possible (and, unfortunately, entirely common) for a certain group to attempt to act as if another group did not possess such inalienable rights. The real Question, then, is whether voting is one of these inalienable rights, or (as has been suggested by Patrick) merely a privelege, like driving.

I think to truly understand this issue, we have to ask a more fundamental question. What is it to vote? Empirically it is obviously the act of casting a ballot in favor of a candidate (or issue) of your choice. But do we have a fundamental right to do this? Yonina (a previous poster) mentioned that taxing 16-year-olds who do not have the right to vote amounts to taxation without representation. This obviously applies to convicted felons as well. It seems to me to be a fundamental injustice to require a person to pay for something (the government) that they do not have a say in. Patrick argued that those under 18 generally will receive their taxes back in a refund, because they do not make enough money to surpass a standard deduction; he also argued that for someone to vote who is still under the control of their parents amounts to a de facto additional vote for the parents. I would argue that both points fail in their aims.

First, it is entirely possible for someone under the age of 18 to make enough money to be forced to pay taxes. Second, parents’ influence over the opinions of their children does not somehow magically end once the child turns 18. Granted, at 18 an individual is legally allowed to make their own decisions; but to suggest that 18 years of influence by one’s parents simply fades away on a specific date is absurd. While most of us learn to critically evaluate the opinions our parents have imposed upon us throughout our childhood, the fact remains that those opinions do form some sort of framework which each of us must eventually deal with. For example, I grew up with a father who espoused the right-wing Christian fundamentalist position that this country was founded on Christian values, and that “freedom of religion” refers only to particular denominations of Christianity. Unfortunately for him, one of my best friends from 8th grade until I graduated high school was Hindu. One of my other good friends was Muslim, and we had many discussions about the similarities between our religions, as well as the differences. I realized very early that my parents’ opinions were not infallible. I am also aware that some never realize that fact. In all likelihood this is why I am so drawn to this issue; by constantly expressing an opinion that I have considered incorrect since I was very young, my father managed to convince me that this issue was important.

The point is that the development of one’s own views on issues is not an instantaneous process … it happens over a long period of time, with some learning later than others. This question harkens back to an older argument, when the voting age was 21 and those who could be drafted at 18 pointed out that they were being asked to risk their lives for a country they had no influence over. Now they are not being asked to risk their lives; only to give up their money. One can argue that it is less significant to be asked to give money instead of risking one’s life, and they would be correct. However, to take anything away from someone, without giving them either a choice or an avenue to argue against it, amounts to outright theft. It is for this reason that I believe that both convicted felons and anyone who works and pays taxes should be given the right to vote. The age does not matter; if you are mature enough to hold a job then I would suggest that you are mature enough to have a say in where your money goes.

As far as Patrick’s argument that murderers would push legislation that legalizes murder … I’m afraid that in my opinion the best response is somewhat cliche … “So What?” This is a democratic (to an extent … yes fine, it’s a republic, but you know what I mean) country. If a majority of citizens decide that legalizing murder is a good idea, then I guess murder will be legalized. But a) the odds of a majority of any society legalizing murder are slim to none, and b) if we decide to marginalize and censor those with minority viewpoints, we might as well go back and reinstitute the Jim Crow laws, revoke the right for women to vote, reinstitute laws forbidding homosexual activity, and countless other policies that were voiced by a minority and eventually agreed upon by the majority. If we are to maintain some semblance of democracy in our society, we must trust the democratic system to work. Extremists will always voice their opinion; we trust that only those opinions that are beneficial will eventually be accepted by everyone, and then put into law. I suppose that, in that respect, this is only my opinion, and is only as valid as it is accepted. Such is the nature of law, and of knowledge (yes, I suppose I could be classified as a skeptic).

I would like to apologize again for making such a lengthy post … all complaints can be forwarded to:

Thomas Holland
tholland@mix.wvu.edu

I would be glad (more than glad … I would very much love) to discuss this topic further with anyone who cares to. Please don’t hesitate to email me about this topic (I realize that posting my email address is quite a risk, as it could easily be spammed … but I tend to believe in the innate goodness of people. Please don’t prove me wrong.).

I fail to see why there is some age in which a person magically becomes capable of voting. There have been several posters which have mentioned the idea of having the people who want to vote take a test. I propose that this should be the solution to the problem of who should vote. Why, if a fourteen year old knows much about the workings of the government and the issues at hand, would he not be allowed to have a say while some ignorant 45 year old just votes for whomever his preacher tells him to. By requiring everyone who wants to vote to pass a test about the issues on which they will be voting it will force people to actually know the issues. What would be the harm in this?

Hitting on the issue of felons; I think people have lost sight of what the purpose of prison is. It is a total institution that is created to change people from the criminals they are. If someone is realeased from prison then the state is telling them that they have been institutionalized and can live like everyone else in the world. So if the state is telling these people that they are free to live as u.s. citizens, then how can that same state tell them they cannot vote?

I’m not saying that everyone realeased from person is a changed person but I also know innocent people are sent to jail. They have served their time and want to live their lives. If our jails are doing their jobs, then these “felons” should be worthy to vote.

That is an EXCELLENT question! Personally, I’ve always subscribed to the fictional situation encountered in the film, ‘Starship Troopers.’ The civilian-versus-citizen comparison, where certain civil privilege is afforded to those who take personal responsibility for the state and future of their nation and their world.

HOWEVER, the beauty of living in the United States is the ultimate in personal freedom. Having visited or lived in almost 1 of every 10 countries out there, I can tell you that we have it REALLY good in the USA. And part of that goodness and freedom is giving a voice to EACH AND EVERY LAST LAW-BIDING CITIZEN. This comes with the above-mentioned stipulations of age, criminal record, legal citizenship and so on.

Age: In a PERFECT world, one’s maturity, intelligence and understanding of the electoral system would be judged individually to determine eligibility to vote. Ours, unfortunately, is not a PERFECT world. The resources necessary to consider these criteria responsibly and thoroughly on a case-by-case basis for all potential voters are just too great, and it’s not feasible. So the semi-arbitrary rule of age 18 will have to suffice. Sadly, that leaves quite a few intelligent and insightful young minds out of the process, but fortunately it also keeps a great many more less-responsible minds out too. You take some bad with a lot of good.

Criminal record: A sentence is a finite amount of time served as punishment. Ours is supposed to be a ‘correctional’ system, not just a confinement system. If the criminal behavior was indeed corrected, then why shouldn’t ex-con John Doe be allowed to vote? He’s done his time (or hers, but gender-neutral use of male terms works for me), paid his fines, and lost quite a bit of his life that he’ll NEVER get back. If that amount of time and fines cannot suffice to correct the criminal behavior, then the sentence should be adjusted accordingly. But all of these requirements to forfeit voting and gun ownership rights, and the occasional requirement for registry and anklebracelet wear are a way of affirming a lack of faith in the correctional system. If the correctional system is broken, then fix it. But don’t continue to punish those who’ve completed their formal sentences. Ex-cons should be allowed to vote. Robbing a liquor store to put food on the table for your kids does NOT make one a poor judge of a politician’s character.

The electoral college undermines democracy. The concept of a republic is all fine, but that should only apply to voting in the legislative elections, where the people of each state or district elect the officials to represent ONLY that state or district. In a general presidential election (or even a primary, for that matter), the people are voting for the one chief executive of the country on the whole. States are irrelevant to this. As a matter of simplifying the ballot-counting, that’s entirely unnecessary in the digital age of the 21st century. They’re called computers, and they work. Really. I kid you not.

But I suppose this is really more a question of whether voting should be a right or a privilege. Privileges like your driver’s license can be taken away. Rights cannot without an arrest. If it’s my RIGHT to vote, then regardless of my age or police record, I will vote. If it’s a PRIVILEGE, then I just have to deal with whatever restrictions are imposed and hope that still leaves me with a ballot in-hand.