ZOMBIE FORUMS

Hmm...it seems to me that, because criminals can't vote (at least in the US), the very people who could change an unfair law (assuming that the democratic process could accomplish that anyway) are unable to. Now, unless all laws are perfect, which they obviously aren't, then doesn't that mean that criminals should be able to vote?

And yes, I know the obvious answer, but just for the sake of discussion...

Discuss.

THe idea is that if a law is unjust you should work to change it but not break it until then.

Phew. I was scared that the Debate Club was dying for a second there.

When the officer say, "You have the right to remain silent," and all that, it means that that is the only rights you're given. Your normal rights are revoked.

As for not breaking unfair laws, I must disagree with that. That idea is a bit unrealistic. As much as I hate to use the obvious example, if we did that there would be no USA.

Not to mention that there is constant re-interpretation of laws........

No, you're rights are not revoked. Voting is a privilage, not a right. Rights are inalieninable. There is no place in the constitution that says that you have a right to vote. You can only vote if you are over 18, have registered, and are not a felon.

Do you really want people in jail to vote, chances are that voter turnout would be near 100% because they don't have jobs. You want convicts running the country?

Whoops, my bad. You get my reasoning, though, right? Your normal status changes, and all that.

I still say we should have fines for not voting, like the Aussies. Don't see the Aussies whining to the world about how screwed up their voting system is, now do you? Heh. At least not very loudly.

100% turnout because they don't have jobs, though? Do unemployed people almost always vote?

Most homeless people don't go to the booth tis true, but in prison the booth would come to you. People with jobs don't vote often because the day is on a Tuesday.

"If we really wanted a democracy we'd make voting day a national holiday." -Dr. Truslow (My old History Teacher.)

Why should a bunch of asshole who don't care de-value my vote, half of America votes, I get 2 votes.

Is it really that big of a deal to take an hour off? Or go to work early, and vote on the way there? Admittedly, for some the answer is yes. But not the majority.



Just remember, so does the crazy gun-nut who thinks TNT should be mandatory to own, the Satanist who thinks that dancing around nude and sacrificing goats should be allowed in schools, and the bastard that just wants to piss everyone off.

Nah, Abunai, Ero isn't old enough to vote yet.

If you're a convicted felon, you've proven that your judgement cannot in any way be trusted. Therefore, you should not have the right to vote.

And Abunai, what's so bad about those "other three" who are voting?

I trust those three who care enough to go out and vote more than I trust the apathetic person who doesn't.

Anubai misses a huge point, that you can't force people to be responsible. Voting is a huge responsibility- namely you're helping put in the people who are making decisions for millions of people collectively. Does anyone really want someone who doesn't care enough who runs the country to bother to go out and vote having their say in who runs the country?

This is why the law is not only unjust (putting voting as a right and then forcing people to use it is akin to forcing everyone to exercise their right to demonstrate on a certain day or be fined- or speak in public (use their right to free speech) or be fined. Or force people to buy a gun. The thing no longer becomes a right, but a government mandate, which I feel lessens its value) but stupid. If someone can't bother to vote, why force them? What quality do they bring to the election besides apathy?

Hmm...the main reason I started this was to resurrect the debate club...but, to my point, you still haven't addressed that, if the point of voting is to exert control over the democracy, then what's to prevent the government from making a law, and throwing the opposition into jail for breaking it? I admit that this is far-fetched, and this still probably doesn't save it, but I still think that it means either A. the democratic process is BS (which it is, this is only more proof) or B. you're removing control of the democracy from those who would change the law for the better. Homeless people, for example, arguably commit no crime but being poor and having no access to homeless shelters, get thrown in jail, and the system's injustice isn't changed because the people who are affected can't vote. Which brings me to my other point, which I just forgot. Maybe it'll come to me later.

Sorry for the lack of coherence, hopefully you get my jist. If not, then I probably just suck.

My God, I am tired. 0_o

Another point not mentioned is that the person who doesn't vote might have a reason besides apathy. I for one can think of reasons why you might not vote even if you're the aforementioned prisoner. Or the (also aforementioned) work reasons.

As for the "Three," I for one don't believe more massively destructive weapons are good, that religion in schools (be it christian, muslim, pagan, etc.) should be allowed without equal representation, or that just trying to annoy people will be productive. Nor are any of these conducive to a just society or democracy.

Unum, that is a big 'what if.' Obviously, if the government does that, the country is no longer a democracy. Therefore, that example (no matter how unlikely it is) isn't an implication against democracy, but an implication against a lack of checks and balances (ie, if congress passed such a law, the supreme court [no matter the political bent] would immediately throw it out as unconstitutional. Somehow co-opting both congress and the supreme court would take illuminati-esque resources and a lot of time, thus making it practically impossible for it to happen, unless of course there is an illuminati-esque organization out there.)

So please feel free to go to hell and die.

-MiB

Just before I get started, the ideal form of government would be a dictartorship of some sort if there existed a human just enough to run, which there doesn't, so in reality, I support democracy.

Now, on topic, there is a reason why felons cannot vote. What would the country be like if we had a former alcoholic/cokehead running it...

Har har, kry. I don't see Bush doing too bad a job...but the joke was still funny.

Anyway, one must also remember that felonies are often series and/or violent crimes (the exception to this, I believe, are drugs laws. I feel these are quite backwards, but hey) as well. You can't simply say that a rapist or child molester is fit to have his or her say in how the country is run.

hmm...good point, I guess I should have put a qualifier on that.

Anyone know exactly at what point you can no longer vote? Misdemeanors probably don't, but...anyone? I'm not sure where you'd look it up, or willing to wade through laws to do so.

I believe, but I could be incorrect, that only felony convictions can prevent a person from voting...

Felons cannot vote.

To be a felon, you must commit a felony.

-MiB

In many states (I don't have the exact count, so don't prod) a convicted felon can apply to have their voting rights restored, usually around 5 years after they have completed a probation and/or rehabilitation program. It does depend upon the type of felony, usually excluding violent offenders, and drug convictions. The drug convictions usually end up federal felonies, so they are out of luck. Any felon in a state without this type of restoration law can always petition the governors office of the state they are in to accomplish the same restoration of voting rights.
Now before you go wanking about facts, go look it up as I did (I did not believe it at first myself).