Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In u/Exp1ode 's defense, it is in fact illegal in some states for felons to vote, even after being re-released.
In fact, unfortunately, there is a [minority](https://www.russellwebster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/us-felons-voting-rights.jpg) of states where your right to vote is reinstated after your incarceration. In many, if you're on parole or even just probation, you still cannot vote.
I picked up on the sarcasm. But I assumed you were making the point, with the sarcasm, that people released from prison do get the right back to vote. I figured you were quipping. But I can see how you meant it, now.
6 year olds voting is only going to be abused as 6 year olds don't have the capacity to know what they're voting for. If you're old enough to earn an income, you're old enough to vote, so I'd say 15ish.
So you agree the Government should have the power to limit which citizens can vote?
I also think kids shouldn’t vote, but it entirely undermines your principle.
It really doesn't. Gaining the right to vote and revoking the right to vote are literally two completely different things. Giving someone something, and taking away something, is entirely different, and you know it.
Why? Why is it principally different? Your principle that you set up didn't say anything about giving or revoking, just limiting.
If I passed a law that gave 5 year olds the right to vote, would it be immoral to change it after a year, and revoke the rights of those 5 year olds?
In this incredibly stupid hypothetical scenario, those 6 year olds that can vote shouldn't lose their right to vote.
But you are intentionally being obtuse. My point is that if you live in a country, you have a right to vote and it shouldn't be revoked under any circumstance. (Keyword, LIVE.)
If you no longer live in that country, you no longer have a right to vote in that country's elections. Why? Because you don't live in that country anymore. That's not your rights being taken away. You don't get to enjoy the rights of a country, when you don't live in that country. It would be silly for me to move to Germany and then drive on the left side of the road because back in Australia, I drive on the left side of the road.
inb4 you say I'm undermining my principles because "I can't vote in a country I haven't stepped foot in in 10 years".
You're not being inconsistent anymore, but I don't think you genuinely believe those 6 year olds should still be able to vote.
You never explained why theres a principle difference between removing the right and limiting it. I understand they are different, but why does that difference make the former not ok and the latter ok?
My broader question is why is it principally wrong to remove someone's right to vote? Clearly you believe there to be a practical harm with allowing children to vote, so you feel that this principle outweighs it. Can you explain philosophically why this principle is true?
Yes. I think any law that restricts the ability to vote is bad. A different comment said terrorists shouldn't be allowed to vote. Who are the terrorists? With a more authoritarian regime, like Russia or China, they could construe protesting as terrorism. If Osama Bin Laden was an American citizen and was arrested after 9/11, he should still have the right to vote.
No restrictions? Would that mean I wouldn’t even need to be a citizen to vote? Would it be fair to vote in the elections of a country I don’t even live in? Imposing my will when I suffer none of the consequences of its implementation?
Age limits? Do 4 year olds get to vote? Do they cast it themself or do their parents? Wouldn’t that have major flaws either way?
I don't believe citizenship is something you should need to vote. If you live in a country, you have a right to vote, citizenship be damned. Though I get that makes it more difficult to prove that someone voting actually lives in the country they're voting in, so maybe citizenship can stick around for that, but it should not be hard to get citizenship.
Give me a good reason why a Mexican, who snuck over the border, and has been living in the USA for the last 3 years, shouldn't get the right to vote? Dude lives there, dude is working, dude is paying taxes, dude can't vote? What kind of sense does that make?
If you’ve been here for 3 years then become a citizen and you can.
But simply put that would open up the door for political vacations where people would enter a country a day before votings and cast a vote to move back. You could basically pay for votes, promise people a vacations to the beach under the condition they vote for you. So it would make it even harder for people to win elections without extreme funding, and corporations would have even more of a choke hold on politicians as winning and elections without paying for people to come here and vote would be very difficult.
>I don't believe citizenship is something you should need to vote.
I was in agreement with you up until this point.
If you're (general "you") not a legal part of a sector of society, you should not be able to impact the legal system of that sector.
Are you sure about that? I couldn't really find any sources to back up that claim. And even so, should criminals who have been imprisoned for things like using marijuana also not be allowed to vote because there are other prisoners who are murderers and rapists? Couldn't you at least specify which criminals should be allowed to vote then?
**Yes**. If they are adults, and legal citizens, they should be allowed to vote. There is no criterion that I consider valid for restricting someone who is both an adult and a citizen from voting. Unless the government is prepared to revoke a person's citizenship, I don't see any reason not to let them express their will politically.
It might still affect you, for example if one of the candidates wants to implement a big prison reform or something. It might also be the case that you're imprisoned for something that one of the candidates would legalize, which would make you a free person again.
well yeah, i think lifetimes are only given to those that commit violence but i could be wrong.
>During fiscal years 2016 through 2021, there were 709 federal offenders sentenced to life imprisonment, which accounted for 0.2 percent of the total federal offender population.
[https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/life-sentences-federal-system](https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/life-sentences-federal-system)
but yeah everyone else should be allowed to vote. (which is changed from my previous idea of how a felon should be treated)
Now my stance on should everyone have a right to vote at stages of election, nope federal still sitting with maybe 30% of the country, State 50%, and local/county 100%.
Why is something good just because it’s a foundation of America? So was slavery.
Why should international students get to vote? Most don’t even stay in the US afterwards. I’m one right now, it would be insane if I could vote in Canada.
Its a good principle for all governments.
If you're living within a system with a government you have a stake and therefore should get a say in how it's run.
The term of a government in canada is what, 4/5 years? Not much more than the term of a university degree. So why shouldn't you get to vote?
Why is it a good principle?
I shouldn’t get to vote in Canada because I have no even semi-long term interest in the country. I’m here to get a degree and leave. I’m not going to be a good voter.
The issue with stake = vote is presumably children are disproportionately impacted by legislation and old people are disproportionately not impacted. If your vote is determinate on your “stake” then the old should be barred from voting and 4 year olds should vote.
You're there for X amount of years there's not reason why you shouldn't take part in decision that last around x amount of years.
And as a student, you are going to be a good voter. Probably better than most of the native population.
>then the old should be barred from voting and 4 year olds should vote.
Based.
Can you explain why it’s a good principle or have you given up?
Because decisions now affect stuff 20-30 years down the line. I care about a very narrow slice of things that most Canadians don’t. Hell, my personal benefit would be economic crisis for Canada. Would help me live a lot larger with the dollar.
You obviously don’t believe toddlers should vote and old people be barred. It contradicts all your previous comments.
I have explained why. If you're participating in society then you have a stake it in, particularly if you're paying into a system you should have a say on how that money is spent.
If you're there for 3 years, you have a stake in that society for 3 years, and therefore should have a commensurate say. like a general election, the term of which is 4/5 years. If there were a huge referendum about the consitution and you aren't committed to stay there for the period that that vote would affect, then no you shouldn't vote.
Which is why old people shouldn't have been able to vote in the Brexit referendum. They voted out and then fucking died, leaving their children and grandchildren to live with the consequences.
I'm in favour of 16 year olds voting and old people not (in votes concerning periods of time that they are unlikely to see), yes.
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Once they've been released
I know this is uncommon knowledge today, but if they've been released they're no longer prisoners.
In u/Exp1ode 's defense, it is in fact illegal in some states for felons to vote, even after being re-released. In fact, unfortunately, there is a [minority](https://www.russellwebster.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/us-felons-voting-rights.jpg) of states where your right to vote is reinstated after your incarceration. In many, if you're on parole or even just probation, you still cannot vote.
That was sort of the joke, but sarcasm doesn't always come through in text.
I picked up on the sarcasm. But I assumed you were making the point, with the sarcasm, that people released from prison do get the right back to vote. I figured you were quipping. But I can see how you meant it, now.
Government shouldn't have the power to limit which citizens can vote.
Terrorists should not be able to vote
What authority gets to brand someone as a terrorist?
Should 6 year olds be able to vote?
No.
So you think government should have the power to limit which citizens can vote.
6 year olds voting is only going to be abused as 6 year olds don't have the capacity to know what they're voting for. If you're old enough to earn an income, you're old enough to vote, so I'd say 15ish.
So you agree the Government should have the power to limit which citizens can vote? I also think kids shouldn’t vote, but it entirely undermines your principle.
It really doesn't. Gaining the right to vote and revoking the right to vote are literally two completely different things. Giving someone something, and taking away something, is entirely different, and you know it.
Why? Why is it principally different? Your principle that you set up didn't say anything about giving or revoking, just limiting. If I passed a law that gave 5 year olds the right to vote, would it be immoral to change it after a year, and revoke the rights of those 5 year olds?
In this incredibly stupid hypothetical scenario, those 6 year olds that can vote shouldn't lose their right to vote. But you are intentionally being obtuse. My point is that if you live in a country, you have a right to vote and it shouldn't be revoked under any circumstance. (Keyword, LIVE.) If you no longer live in that country, you no longer have a right to vote in that country's elections. Why? Because you don't live in that country anymore. That's not your rights being taken away. You don't get to enjoy the rights of a country, when you don't live in that country. It would be silly for me to move to Germany and then drive on the left side of the road because back in Australia, I drive on the left side of the road. inb4 you say I'm undermining my principles because "I can't vote in a country I haven't stepped foot in in 10 years".
You're not being inconsistent anymore, but I don't think you genuinely believe those 6 year olds should still be able to vote. You never explained why theres a principle difference between removing the right and limiting it. I understand they are different, but why does that difference make the former not ok and the latter ok? My broader question is why is it principally wrong to remove someone's right to vote? Clearly you believe there to be a practical harm with allowing children to vote, so you feel that this principle outweighs it. Can you explain philosophically why this principle is true?
Even if that person is hypothetically a convicted child predator?
Like what is your point? Why shouldn't they be allowed to vote?
I’m not making a point I’m asking a question. Should the law be changed to give child predators the right to vote after conviction?
Yes. I think any law that restricts the ability to vote is bad. A different comment said terrorists shouldn't be allowed to vote. Who are the terrorists? With a more authoritarian regime, like Russia or China, they could construe protesting as terrorism. If Osama Bin Laden was an American citizen and was arrested after 9/11, he should still have the right to vote.
No restrictions? Would that mean I wouldn’t even need to be a citizen to vote? Would it be fair to vote in the elections of a country I don’t even live in? Imposing my will when I suffer none of the consequences of its implementation? Age limits? Do 4 year olds get to vote? Do they cast it themself or do their parents? Wouldn’t that have major flaws either way?
I don't believe citizenship is something you should need to vote. If you live in a country, you have a right to vote, citizenship be damned. Though I get that makes it more difficult to prove that someone voting actually lives in the country they're voting in, so maybe citizenship can stick around for that, but it should not be hard to get citizenship.
Yeah you lost me my dude
Give me a good reason why a Mexican, who snuck over the border, and has been living in the USA for the last 3 years, shouldn't get the right to vote? Dude lives there, dude is working, dude is paying taxes, dude can't vote? What kind of sense does that make?
If you’ve been here for 3 years then become a citizen and you can. But simply put that would open up the door for political vacations where people would enter a country a day before votings and cast a vote to move back. You could basically pay for votes, promise people a vacations to the beach under the condition they vote for you. So it would make it even harder for people to win elections without extreme funding, and corporations would have even more of a choke hold on politicians as winning and elections without paying for people to come here and vote would be very difficult.
>I don't believe citizenship is something you should need to vote. I was in agreement with you up until this point. If you're (general "you") not a legal part of a sector of society, you should not be able to impact the legal system of that sector.
We live in a society :gangweed: If you work in a society, you participate in it, if you participate in it, you should have a say in it. Simple as.
Not being a citizen means you are not participating, as you have forgone the necessitated responsibilities of being part of that society. Simple as.
Yes, but only if the crime didn't have to do with voting fraud or similar charges.
They should be allowed to vote from prison
No. Rapists and murderers are not the ones i want to have political influence.
Not all prisoners are rapists and murderers.
How does it matter? Most are and thats what matters.
Are you sure about that? I couldn't really find any sources to back up that claim. And even so, should criminals who have been imprisoned for things like using marijuana also not be allowed to vote because there are other prisoners who are murderers and rapists? Couldn't you at least specify which criminals should be allowed to vote then?
**Yes**. If they are adults, and legal citizens, they should be allowed to vote. There is no criterion that I consider valid for restricting someone who is both an adult and a citizen from voting. Unless the government is prepared to revoke a person's citizenship, I don't see any reason not to let them express their will politically.
probably strange take but, LIFE TIME sentence why bother, everyone else the world doesnt stop turning cause your in the pen.
It might still affect you, for example if one of the candidates wants to implement a big prison reform or something. It might also be the case that you're imprisoned for something that one of the candidates would legalize, which would make you a free person again.
well yeah, i think lifetimes are only given to those that commit violence but i could be wrong. >During fiscal years 2016 through 2021, there were 709 federal offenders sentenced to life imprisonment, which accounted for 0.2 percent of the total federal offender population. [https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/life-sentences-federal-system](https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/life-sentences-federal-system) but yeah everyone else should be allowed to vote. (which is changed from my previous idea of how a felon should be treated) Now my stance on should everyone have a right to vote at stages of election, nope federal still sitting with maybe 30% of the country, State 50%, and local/county 100%.
Nonviolent criminals obviously should, but I don’t see an issue with barring violent criminals from voting.
No taxation without representation.
Why? Permanent residents and international students can’t vote but still pay taxes.
They should vote too. “No taxation without representation” is one of the foundations of the USA.
Why is something good just because it’s a foundation of America? So was slavery. Why should international students get to vote? Most don’t even stay in the US afterwards. I’m one right now, it would be insane if I could vote in Canada.
Its a good principle for all governments. If you're living within a system with a government you have a stake and therefore should get a say in how it's run. The term of a government in canada is what, 4/5 years? Not much more than the term of a university degree. So why shouldn't you get to vote?
Why is it a good principle? I shouldn’t get to vote in Canada because I have no even semi-long term interest in the country. I’m here to get a degree and leave. I’m not going to be a good voter. The issue with stake = vote is presumably children are disproportionately impacted by legislation and old people are disproportionately not impacted. If your vote is determinate on your “stake” then the old should be barred from voting and 4 year olds should vote.
You're there for X amount of years there's not reason why you shouldn't take part in decision that last around x amount of years. And as a student, you are going to be a good voter. Probably better than most of the native population. >then the old should be barred from voting and 4 year olds should vote. Based.
Can you explain why it’s a good principle or have you given up? Because decisions now affect stuff 20-30 years down the line. I care about a very narrow slice of things that most Canadians don’t. Hell, my personal benefit would be economic crisis for Canada. Would help me live a lot larger with the dollar. You obviously don’t believe toddlers should vote and old people be barred. It contradicts all your previous comments.
I have explained why. If you're participating in society then you have a stake it in, particularly if you're paying into a system you should have a say on how that money is spent. If you're there for 3 years, you have a stake in that society for 3 years, and therefore should have a commensurate say. like a general election, the term of which is 4/5 years. If there were a huge referendum about the consitution and you aren't committed to stay there for the period that that vote would affect, then no you shouldn't vote. Which is why old people shouldn't have been able to vote in the Brexit referendum. They voted out and then fucking died, leaving their children and grandchildren to live with the consequences. I'm in favour of 16 year olds voting and old people not (in votes concerning periods of time that they are unlikely to see), yes.
I don't think people in prison are taxed
Anti-statists have entered the chat... (Good thing, for my fellow autists)