I think there are plenty of contervailing forces. The American Civil Liberties Association is one. Defendent lawyers are others. The reason the 'tough on crime' branding works is because people, rightly or wrongly, beleive that these forces have lessened the criminal system. Whether a person convicted of a felony deserves a vote, is really another matter. I can see a very valid stance that says No. Based on losing a privaledge because of the seriousness of the crime. Does one's 'punishment' end at the expiry of the prison sentence? Have they truly repaid their debt and as long as they promise to never never never do it again (until the next time)? Is the slate wiped clean? You've done your time, let's pretend it never happened. As far as the vote goes...I don't see a reason to deny it. I think that prisoners, while incarcerated, should not be permitted to vote, but once released, it should be allowed. My stance on sex offender lists and gun ownerships post release is quite different (since JV brought it up ) Just acknowledging that there's more here than keeping the black man down.
I wouldn't go so far to say that voting felons would vote our nation into anarchy, but I don't think the results would be positive. My view on crime and punishment is that if you do the crime, you should do the time. Now do we need to have the death penalty for car theft? Hmmm.....I'm almost a believer in draconian punishments in that the punishment is so severe you can't even think about committing the crime. I'm not one who spends hours thinking of the "social causes" for crimes. All I know is human nature and that we are preconditioned to do ill. We only do right because the consequences are so extreme (becoming big Bubba's lap buddy in prison) that you have no choice but to obey. It is when you no longer fear the consequences that you become dangerous. That is why I wouldn't allow ex-felons to vote. Anyone who has lost their fear of the consequences of their actions is dangerous and allowing them into a voting booth is dangerous as well, because they are likely to reduce those consequences. And as far as participation in elections, I think that to be able to vote, you should: A. pay Federal income tax B. not be on any govt. assistance C. never have had a felony conviction D. Be able to pass a simple quiz in which you name the Prez, Vice- Pres. and both of your senators. If you can't do that, you have no business in that voting booth.
I'd agree with you the we're preconditioned to do ill and mostly do right only through deterrence. Where I'd part company is in thinking that committing a crime means you don't fear the consequences. For one, I don't think most felons make very deliberate choices on such things. Oftentimes, it seems like human nature to think only of rewards and not of consequences when engaging in an endeavor. Also, deterrence is made up of two factors: severity of punishment multiplied by the perceived likelihood of being caught and punished. Studies have shown (I know this from years ago and have no link to back me up) that the likelihood of getting caught plays a much larger role in deterring crime than the severity of punishment. It's simply a calculated risk, something that most people do to some extent or other. So, I wouldn't say felons don't fear consequences, they simply gambled and lost. Now if you did have someone who really didn't care if he went in the slammer again, won't he soon be in the slammer again, and not voting? For the trully anti-social element, it seems like a problem that corrects itself (as far as voting is concerned). For the same reason, I don't see why denying votes to those on govt assistance makes sense. Maybe they have a personal interest in draining the govt coffers in social welfare subjects, but that won't prejudice decisions about international diplomacy or whatnot. In the same regard, should we ban officers of companies being subsidized by the government, like the airline industry?
Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote By Jimmy Carter Monday, September 27, 2004 After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes. The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair. The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?" The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida. The most significant of these requirements are: • A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process. • Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida. It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms. Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons. The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue. Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future. It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida. Former President Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html
Translation: we as Democrats intend to sue immediately after the election to get as many recounts as possible until we win, then we quit asking for them. The Dems already have more lawyers on standby than flies on a pile of manure, ready to swarm into Florida like the sleazy carpetbaggers they are. Florida is no better than the rubber-stamp, tin-horn hellholes you claim to monitor? Are you kidding me? So basically Jimmah is saying that we are no better than the Turd World when it comes to elections. What a disgrace he is for the state of Georgia. Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote The most significant of these requirements are: • A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process. [/QUOTE] Uhh.....Jimmah, most of those canvas boards are DEMOCRATS. Of course they couldn't be trusted to do anything in the public good. Look at all of the votes they were trying to "find" for Al Gore with those "hanging" chads. How hard is to punch a goddamned hole through a goddamned card? If you're not capable of doing so, you don't deserve or need to vote. Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote • Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida. [/QUOTE] I wouldn't say proven. Many liberals here have posted some stuff that is highly critical of those machines. As many computer geeks live in this country, we'd just be asking for trouble. Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms. [/QUOTE] Like your canvassng boards? Hmmmmmm........ Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons. [/QUOTE] Coincidental. It's funny that you apply so much scrutiny to Florida, but yet I hear nothing of you investigating widespread Democratic voting fraud in Chicago and other big urban centers. Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue. [/QUOTE] And you have a problem with Ralph Nader on the ballot because....he'd hurt your candidate? Guess you had no problems with Perot in 92. Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida. Former President Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52800-2004Sep26.html [/QUOTE] Translation: if Bush wins we're going to b**** about it for four more years, blame it on Florida and continue to call him an "illegitimate" President.
Flood of New Voters Signing Up By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer New voters are flooding local election offices with paperwork, registering in significantly higher numbers than four years ago as attention to the presidential election runs high and an array of activist groups recruit would-be voters who could prove critical come Nov. 2. Cleveland has seen nearly twice as many new voters register so far as compared with 2000; Philadelphia is having its biggest boom in new voters in 20 years; and counties are bringing in temporary workers and employees from other agencies to help process all the new registration forms. Nationwide figures aren't yet available, but anecdotal evidence shows an upswing in many places, often urban but some rural. Some wonder whether the new voters — some of whom sign up at the insistence of workers paid by get-out-the-vote organizations — will actually make it to the polls on Election Day, but few dispute the registration boom. "We're swamped," said Bob Lee, who oversees voter registration in Philadelphia. "It seems like everybody and their little group is out there trying to register people." Some examples, from interviews with state and county officials across the country: _ New registered voters in Miami-Dade County, a crucial Florida county in 2000, grew by 65 percent through mid-September, compared with 2000. _ New registered voters jumped nearly 150 percent in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) in Ohio, one of the most hard-fought states this year. And that's with weeks left until registration deadlines fall, beginning in October. Curtis Gans at the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate said a clear national picture won't emerge until more applications are processed next month. And Kay Maxwell of the League of Women Voters cautioned that some years that promise a boom in new voters turn out to be duds on Election Day. The danger is that new voters may not be as committed to showing up at the polls as longtime voters. "Turning people out to vote is tougher than getting them to register," said Doug Lewis, who works with local election officials as head of The Election Center, a nonprofit group. Rural areas, which trend conservative and Republican, aren't necessarily reporting the same growth as urban, more liberal and Democratic strongholds: Brazos County, Texas, hasn't beaten its 2000 numbers so far, though officials said applications are now rolling in. The state of Oklahoma, however, saw new registrations in July and August increase by 60 percent compared with four years ago. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...696&e=1&u=/ap/20040928/ap_on_el_pr/new_voters Could large numbers of new voters help Kerry or Bush?
