The criminal constituency

[David S]

The criminal constituency
BY JOHN R. LOTT JR.
ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 16, 2006
WASHINGTON // If you can't win elections, change the rules.
Despite warnings from people such as the chairman of Maryland's State Board of Elections that the new rules are inviting voter fraud, the General Assembly has pushed through regulations weakening safeguards on provisional ballots, absentee ballots and a long early voting period.
 
Not satisfied, the legislature now wants to make it easier for convicted murderers, rapists, armed robbers and other violent criminals to vote. Overall, 150,000 felons would be eligible.

When asked if the felon voting bill was motivated to defeat Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s re-election bid this year, Del. Jill P. Carter, a Baltimore Democrat, replied, "Of course that's the reason."

The power to deny voting rights to ex-convicts now rests with the states, so standards vary across the country. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution explicitly allows for states to deny felons the right to vote.

Maryland Democrats are not alone in wanting to let felons vote. Last year, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. John Kerry introduced the Count Every Vote Act, which would restore voting rights to felons who had completed their prison terms, parole or probation.

Maryland Democrats are proposing even more liberal rules and would allow any convict who is not imprisoned or waiting to serve a prison sentence to cast a ballot. Similar legislation is being pushed in other states.

Democrats have a good reason to want ex-convicts to vote: Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

In recent academic work, Jeff Manza and Marcus Britton of Northwestern University and Christopher Uggen of the University of Minnesota estimated that Bill Clinton pulled 86 percent of the felon vote in 1992 and a whopping 93 percent in 1996.

The researchers found that about one-third of felons vote when given the chance. So if all 150,000 eligible Maryland felons are re-enfranchised, about 50,000 will cast ballots, and Democrats will pick up a net gain of 40,000 votes. Mr. Ehrlich still would have won in 2002, but his margin would have been cut by almost two-thirds.

At the national level, the study's results indicate that the felon vote would have given Democrats the White House in 2000 and control of the Senate from 1986 to 2004.

Full Article at  http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.felons16feb16,0,5189088.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines

[David S]

Democrats have a good reason to want ex-convicts to vote: Felons overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

In 1870, Republicans had a very good reason to want ex-slaves to vote: Ex-slaves overwhelmingly voted for Republicans. But does that make the Fifteenth Amendment a bad idea? If we apply this article's reasoning, the answer would be yes.

This article is nothing more than a long argumentum ad hominem circumstantiae.

There is a significant difference between an ex-slave and a felon. Hopefully you understand that. Also the 14th amendment does allow for depriving people of voting rights "...for participation in rebellion or other crime." Our justice system frequently deprives criminals of certain rights after serving their prison sentence. The right to own guns, or the right to travel freely, or the right to vote are examples. There is nothing unconstitutional or wrong about such laws. They are just part of the penalty for committing a crime.

The recidivism rate among ex-cons is high, which suggests that many are still criminals at heart even after serving their jail time. One should  wonder about the wisdom of allowing the criminally inclined to have a voice in deciding who our elected officials will be. People will vote for  whatever they perceive to be in their own personal best interest. For an ex-con that might include; voting for people who are soft on crime, voting for gun bans to disarm  potential victims, voting for welfare programs which use the power of government to take wealth from the people who earned it and transfer it to someone else.

[David S]

There is a significant difference between an ex-slave and a felon.

That's not the point. This article argues that Democrats are proposing voting rights for felons primarily because felons vote for Democrats. Well, during the 19th century, Republicans proposed voting rights for ex-slaves primarily because ex-slaves voted for Republicans.

The article discusses just one point: why Democrats supposedly support giving felons voting rights. But all that matters is whether felons deserve voting rights or not. The motivation of the Democrats is utterly irrelevant.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It does not require it. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are effectively arguing that people should be disenfranchised because of their opinions. You find the political philosophy of the "average felon" objectionable, so you suggest that they should be denied voting rights.

Would you like to put the lunatics in charge of the asylum too?

My point is that criminals would like to enact laws favorable to crime. Do you favor that? In any event the Dems seem willing to accept that in exchange for more votes.

[David S]

The laws of the land should protect law abiding folks from criminals and provide punishment for law breakers. To allow scoundrels to participate in the law making process is to invite a perversion of the justice system to favor criminals at the expense of the law-abiding.

To say that criminals simply have different opinions than me is ludicrous. I hold that it is wrong to assault, rape, rob or murder someone and that those things should be illegal. Criminals don't agree. Is that just a difference of opinion?

One of the founders ( I don't remember which one) once said that the constitution was written for a moral people and that it was wholly inadequate for any other. This is what he was talking about.

Possibly you have noticed that farmers don't employ foxes to guard the henhouse. There is a reason for that.

[David S]

The laws of the land should protect law abiding folks from criminals and provide punishment for law breakers.

I agree with that David.  You loose me in the second sentence.  Scoundrels?  Surely you have observed that many on this board would use that word, and far worse, to describe our leaders, from Bush, to Cheney, to Hastert, and right on down to the local mayor.  One man's scoundrel is another man's favorite politician.  If we never let "scoundrels" in we'd never have a government.

In this case "scoundrels" was simply meant to be another word for the aforementioned felons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok then I, as a purse thief, work to pass laws making it legal for me to steal your purse. Still want me to vote?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It seems to me that both you and Emsworth think of criminals as just average folks who happen to commit crime for a living. In other words they are just like doctors, or teachers, or engineers, or bricklayers. They are not. And treating them like they are invites danger. You and Emsworth both strike me as decent honest people and if you were in need of a place to stay for a night I would have no problem allowing either of you to use our spare bedroom.  But I would not extend that courtesy to a convicted murderer out on parole. Can you see the difference?

[David S]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok then I, as a purse thief, work to pass laws making it legal for me to steal your purse. Still want me to vote?

OK, I'm a liberal.  By Libertarian Logic (tm), taxation is theft, so I basically want to steal money from your purse.  Still want me to vote?

No I don't want you to vote! But since you have committed no crime there is no reason to stop you from voting.

Your point about taxation being theft is a good one. Look at two scenarios;
1) A thief walks up to you and says give me your money. You say no. He then takes your wallet by force.
2) The government says give me your money. You say no. Then they take it from you by force. Further they redistribute it to the "Poor"  one of whom is the same thief who robbed you.

In either case money is taken, by force, from the person who earned it and given to someone who did not earn it.