Should our government extend the right to vote to prisoners/felons?

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

I say our government should because it is the only way for democracy to reach its final form, and thus finally bring a close to one of the greatest revolutions in history.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If you mean the federal government it has no such power. And in the case of felons, the vast majority of states allow them to vote now, the only two states with lifetime bans on voting for convicted felons still are Kentucky and Virginia. Oddly enough I've found that most generally apolitical people are under the impression all states have a lifetime ban...

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

If you mean the federal government it has no such power. And in the case of felons, the vast majority of states allow them to vote now, the only two states with lifetime bans on voting for convicted felons still are Kentucky and Virginia. Oddly enough I've found that most generally apolitical people are under the impression all states have a lifetime ban...

even a momentary ban is bad enough. I think the Federal government should make it legal. Are country has a long history of progressives, Liberals, socialists, and other leftists argueing the moral claim that particular groups should have the right to vote. Thus I wouldn't be suprised if some of those arguments were raised in this thread.

[Franzl]

I don't care too much about prisoners...but definitely after they get out of prison, certainly. Although there's not really much of an argument to denying it to them ever.

[k-onmmunist]

Yes, as well as the mentally ill, and 16-17 year olds.

[John Dibble]

To prisoners who are currently serving a sentence, no. Parolees are a possibility. To people who have served their time, absolutely.

[The Age Wave]

No.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No.

[Хahar 🤔]

Certainly. Why should they be disenfranchised?

[John Dibble]

Certainly. Why should they be disenfranchised?

Why should they be locked up and have their freedoms heavily restricted?

[Хahar 🤔]

Certainly. Why should they be disenfranchised?

Why should they be locked up and have their freedoms heavily restricted?

There are a number of reasons, none of which provide a reason for them to be disenfranchised.

[Sewer]

Yes, as well as the mentally ill, and 16-17 year olds.

Agree, but can't the mentally ill already vote?

[The Age Wave]

Yes, as well as the mentally ill, and 16-17 year olds.

Agree, but can't the mentally ill already vote?

You'll find out when you show up at the polls now won't you?

[Bo]

No. However, it should extend the franchise to 15-17 year olds.

[??????????]

Of course not. They removed the rights of someone else when they committed their crimes. After parole and with approval of the state is acceptable enough.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Of course not. They removed the rights of someone else when they committed their crimes. After parole and with approval of the state is acceptable enough.

should committing a crime totally strip the legal right of voteing?

[Magic 8-Ball]

Not in the middle of their punishment.  Once they have completely served their sentence, yes.

[??????????]

Of course not. They removed the rights of someone else when they committed their crimes. After parole and with approval of the state is acceptable enough.

should committing a crime totally strip the legal right of voteing?

While imprisoned, yes. If the person is a murderer then I believe they should be banned for life, preferably executed if they were a first degree murderer.