If you adopt a policy to say that certain people are unfit to vote, than what's to stop people from saying that YOU're unfit to vote, perhaps because you're atheist, or some other religion, or because you're homeless or because of something else.
Fun fact: seven states legally bar atheists from holding public office. They're unenforced and have been ruled unconstitutional, but they're still on the books.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The real question is whether there's a good reason to believe these people actually will make significantly worse decisions at the polls than other people generally.
I do no think the ability to vote is a good argument either. I think the laws have more to do with potential voter fraud from felons than decision making at the polls. Look at the tax scams felons take part in while in prison.
The real question is whether there's a good reason to believe these people actually will make significantly worse decisions at the polls than other people generally.
I do no think the ability to vote is a good argument either. I think the laws have more to do with potential voter fraud from felons than decision making at the polls. Look at the tax scams felons take part in while in prison.
Even if you could prove the claim that felons are more likely to commit voter fraud, that still wouldn't be enough to remove their ability to vote. You don't lose rights because of what might happen.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
Even if you could prove the claim that felons are more likely to commit voter fraud, that still wouldn't be enough to remove their ability to vote. You don't lose rights because of what might happen.
You absolutely can lose rights for what might happen. I don't think it's right, but it exists.
Even if you could prove the claim that felons are more likely to commit voter fraud, that still wouldn't be enough to remove their ability to vote. You don't lose rights because of what might happen.
You absolutely can lose rights for what might happen. I don't think it's right, but it exists.
You can lose rights (temporarily) if they have evidence that you specifically may plan to do illegal act x. Even if you did a study and found that ex-felons have a higher chance of commiting voter fraud, you cannot remove their right to vote based on that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
You can lose rights (temporarily) if they have evidence that you specifically may plan to do illegal act x. Even if you did a study and found that ex-felons have a higher chance of commiting voter fraud, you cannot remove their right to vote based on that.
The act doesn't have to be illegal for rights to be taken away. Various forms of medical practice do this. Likelihood of events occurring, even demographic information, go into this evaluation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I do no think the ability to vote is a good argument either. I think the laws have more to do with potential voter fraud from felons than decision making at the polls. Look at the tax scams felons take part in while in prison.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Even if you could prove the claim that felons are more likely to commit voter fraud, that still wouldn't be enough to remove their ability to vote. You don't lose rights because of what might happen.
You can lose rights (temporarily) if they have evidence that you specifically may plan to do illegal act x. Even if you did a study and found that ex-felons have a higher chance of commiting voter fraud, you cannot remove their right to vote based on that.