Re: OT:Thanksgiving

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 13:13:06 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



"SkippyPB" <swiegand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:mqotk3l5u4g1kuck26cqevnmaqfskioepu@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:04:06 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 01:03:42 +1300, "Pete Dashwood"
<dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I find this staggering. How can Democracy work when every State is
allowed
to interpret who can and cannot vote?

I'm not convinced that having national standards that are less than
universal would make Democracy work better. States define which of
their crimes are felonies, for instance.

I sometimes wonder what would have happened if the Constitution had
instituted representation based upon voters rather than heads. States
would have been motivated to enfranchise more people earlier to gain
more power.

There is a federal standard for who can and cannot vote. It is called
the 15th amendment to the Constitution which guarantees that,
throughout the nation, no person shall be denied the right to vote on
account of race or color. It was effecuated by the Voting Right Act
of 1965 which has been extended every time it is up for renewal.

While the Voting Rights Act was primarily aimed at the southern states
who were finding ways of keeping African-American people from voting,
it does set standards and ends some discriminations (such as literacy)
for preventing people from voting.

Enforcement of the Act has also increased the opportunity of black and
Latino voters to elect representatives of their choice by providing a
vehicle for challenging discriminatory election methods such as
at-large elections, racially gerrymandered districting plans, or
runoff requirements that may dilute minority voting strength.
Virtually excluded from all public offices in the South in 1965, black
and Hispanic voters are now substantially represented in the state
legislatures and local governing bodies throughout the region.

As for felons not being able to vote, that is not true in all states.
Forty-eight states currently restrict the right of felons to vote.
Most states forbid current inmates to vote, others extend such bans to
parolees, and still others disenfranchise felons for life.

The policy of disenfranchising felons is as old as ancient Greece and
Rome; it made its way to these shores not long after the American
Revolution.

That doesn't mean it is a good policy, Steve.

Both Greece and Rome were states that had underclasses and used slaves.

A true democracy holds that EVERYONE has equal rights. (These rights may be
abrogated temporarily, as a kind of "time out" for anti-social behaviour,
but removing them for life is not an inducement for reform on the part of
the miscreant. If you REALLY feel that certain people (having shown from
repeated misbehaviour or having committed crimes against humanity, and being
certain they have no hope of ever being re-assimilated...) should be
excluded permanently from society, then banish them or execute them...

I think the "three strikes" Law that some States employ is wise legislation.
What I'm saying above is an extension of that.

Disenfranchising criminals is tied to the ideas of "punishment" and
"exclusion", both of which are counter to the idea of a state that values
ALL its citizens.

By the time of the Civil War, 70 percent of the states
already had such laws.


Would it be fair to say that that 70% have passed new laws and amended old
ones many times since then? It isn't impossbile to revoke Laws that are not
pertinent to modern society.

Pete.

I was not commenting on whether it was good or not, just that not all
states do it and how it came to be. My personal belief is that once a
person has done their time and have either been paroled or released
because they've satisfied their sentence, they should be allowed to
vote again.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"From there to here, from here to there,
funny things are everywhere.
If you never did, you should.
These things are fun and fun is good."
--- Dr. Seuss
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I'm not convinced that having national standards that are less than ... There is a federal standard for who can and cannot vote. ... It was effecuated by the Voting Right Act ... Would it be fair to say that that 70% have passed new laws and amended old ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I'm not convinced that having national standards that are less than ... There is a federal standard for who can and cannot vote. ... It was effecuated by the Voting Right Act ... and still others disenfranchise felons for life. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Wal*Mart generic drugs plan
    ... And I believe the "government" has ... I do believe everyone has the right to one vote, even Christians, and I ... standards, mine or anyone else's. ... the laws of this land, but our government does have the right to make ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Wal*Mart generic drugs plan
    ... I do believe everyone has the right to one vote, even Christians, and I ... standards, mine or anyone else's. ... The government decides what will or will not be law. ... the laws of this land, but our government does have the right to make laws, ...
    (sci.med.transcription)
  • Re: Wal*Mart generic drugs plan
    ... No you just vote in those who will vote that way. ... standards, mine or anyone else's. ... The government decides what will or will not be law. ... the laws of this land, but our government does have the right to make laws, ...
    (sci.med.transcription)