A feeble attempt to defend a poor position that Bernie took (and even Bernie admitted on the spot that he just created an election ad for the ReThugs with his response).

The site you linked to also has headlines such as:

Will Anyone Call Joe Biden on His Bullshit?

Democrat Running for Congress Shows He Is a Shameful Coward

Bill Maher Doesn't Think Joe Biden's Creepy Touching Is a Big Deal

Stacey Abrams Says Friends Discouraged Her From Running for Office Because of Debt


Great resource. You cite it often?

These are the kinds of bizarre, deeply unpopular policy proposals that would get Bernie smoked in a GE with Trump.

It's not deserved while serving time but it should be reinstated upon completion of a sentence, as Florida has done. If you don't want to do the time (and want to vote), DON'T DO THE CRIME!

zero. none. nil.

absolutely no one will ever decide not to commit a crime on the basis of possibly losing the right to vote.

it has never happened and never will.

getting caught, possibly killed or hurt during an arrrest, getting tried and convicted and sentenced to prison, fines, community service, etc., and losing your job and maybe your family and so on, all of that has deterrent value.

but possibly losing the right to vote? that's just ridiculous.

as a punishment, it's just stupid and thoughtless. at best it's just a mean thing to do for the sake of being mean without giving it any thought. at worst, it allows politicians to abuse it to corrupt the voting process and it undermines rehabilitation.

to regulate their use of guns. The government does have such rights and should exercise them. Even if it's "mean."

Returning a full slate of privileges upon release from prison should be part of the incentive for reintegration, voting among them.

Two states -- Vermont and Maine -- agree with your position that felons should be able to vote while in prison. Two states. You're in an awfully small minority, you and Bernie. It's an awfully weak position.

real cute, though, twisting things to paint me as using a republican argument, even though republicans are the prime beneficiary of disenfranchisement laws.


the republican argument that the government doesn't have the right to regulate guns is put forth by republicans as an argument based on the second amendment. they usually do not appeal on the basis of what "ought to be", but rather on their interpretation of what "is". their argument is that the second amendment denies such power to the government, period.

i disagree, and not even this right-wing supreme court agrees that zero regulation of guns is permitted, but the point is, it's an argument of whether or not the government *does* have the power, not so much whether or not the government *ought to have* that power.


i'm not disputing that the government *does* have the power to take away the right to vote. hell, we don't even have the right to elections for presidents -- state legislatures can just choose their own electors without holding presidential elections at all.

i'm saying that government *ought not* have the power of disenfranchisement. republicans rarely make this argument when it comes to guns. well, on occasion they put forth the idiotic fantasy of someone holed up in his house with a gun defending 'murica against the might of the entire federal gubmint, but that's all pretty stupid....

people are generally in favor of tyrannical governments.

well, if you ask them pointedly if they support a tyrannical government, of course they say no.

but then they support things that empower and embolden governments to engage in tyranny, such as picking and choosing who gets to vote.

"God damn gubment taking away mah automatic! That's tyranny!"


You'd willingly give a vote to Aldrich Ames or any other spy on behalf of an adversarial government? They should be entitled to sit in prison with a say on who leads the country? Come on!

there are plenty of people who, if i look at their positions, i'm not thrilled at all about them being able to vote.

so?

i believe in democracy, call me crazy.

it's on us, we the people, to keep the majority voting for good things over bad.

i trust that a majority can outvote the likes of aldrich ames far more than a trust the government not to screw things up by doing things like, say, taking the vote away from millions of black people. literally millions.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/08/20/jim-crow-s-lasting-legacy-at-the-ballot-box

Felony disenfranchisement has an undeniable racial present, not just past. Black Americans constitute 2.2 million of the disenfranchised, banned from voting at four times the rate of all other racial groups combined. Its history betrays a truth the nation has continuously refused to recognize in the experience of its most intimately reviled child: enslaved Africans and their descendants.


how many spies are there in prison?

letting them vote is a tiny price to pay for getting rid of this horrible, racist, tyrannical, corrupt practice.

NO, NO, NO.

I also understand there is going to have to be criminal justice reform and a change in mindset about our justice system as a whole before it happens. Bernie TV is not going to quickly rush this one across the finish line, as you have suggested.

Agreed... they should be able to vote for which movie is shown on "movie night".

They should be able to vote for "Guard of the Month".

They should vote for which flavor Jello gets served on Sundays.

They should vote on who gets to be the captain of the kickball team.

There's all sorts of voting that convicted prisoners get to do.

It's downright horrible how they are promoting this as an issue and the arguments they are making. For me this is a long-term goal. First the justice system needs to be overhauled and how it is used as a tool of punishment needs to change. That is also part of a mindset that takes a considerable amount of time to change. Just going out there and making this a stand alone issue is damaging to progressive causes. It's nothing more than red meat to LIV's in an attempt to catch a couple of votes, not caring about the greater good or building lasting coalitions.

There is absolutely no doubt about it. I'm shocked at how bad he is floundering already. When he stops yelling at milli... billionaires he goes way off the tracks.

it deters zero crimes. no one otherwise inclined to commit a crime has or will ever say, wait, i better not do this because i might lose the right to vote.

on the contrary, making felons and ex-felons feel like they're involved and have a stake in their community by preserving their right to vote is more likely to rehabilitate them.


one thing that keeping the status quo does do is keep a whole lot of people of color from voting, though, because disenfranchisement just seems to somehow happen disproportionately more to people of color. gee, i wonder why that is....

+1000.

I don't agree with Sen. Sanders on this particular issue.

it's the right thing to do.

letting politicians choose who gets to vote is just a horrible idea, and this country has had a long history of horrible ideas when it comes to implementing democracy.

remember how a tiny amount of crack cocaine was a felony, but small mountains of powder cocaine weren't, or in any event, weren't as ruthlessly prosecuted? remember the racial disparity in who used crack vs. powder?


how is this make sense in a democracy?

the appeal of the argument is that "felon" equals "bad person" and the thinking stops there.
except it's not so simple. "felon" often means disproportionately a person of color, disproportionately unable to afford a good lawyer, etc.

this leaves many white and/or rich "bad people" still able to vote while people of color and/or poor cannot, even if they are equally "bad people". or, hell, even if they got railroaded.

That's where your focus should be. Allowing felons to vote doesn't change the crux of the problem. It's two wrongs trying to make a right.

but disenfranchisement on any basis remains wrong, and these topics are intertwined.

we have racial disparity in our judicial system in part *because* some politicians know that disproportionate enforcement of laws against people of color and the poor tilts the remaining list of eligible voters in their favor.


as long as we disenfranchise people on the basis of law enforcement and judicial outcomes, politicians will have an incentive to corrupt the process.

Being able to vote is one.

not every killer or rapist gets caught or sentenced or has their vote taken away.

this happens far more often to poor people and people of color, so right off there's a big problem.

moreover, many people who have their vote taken away aren't killers or rapists. maybe they shoplifted or evaded taxes or negligently harmed someone bad enough to make it a felony. or maybe they were railroaded or badgered into taking a bad deal.


finally, what the hell does taking away voting rights have to do with law enforcement or criminal justice? who is this helping? what is the goal here? there zero deterrent value and negative rehabilitative value in taking away someone's right to vote.

it's stupid, stupid concept that only serves the interests of bigots and corrupt politicians looking to slant the field of eligible voters in their favor.

Minor drug offenders can vote, murderers and rapists can not.

it varies by state, but this is typically the dividing line.

in any event, who's to decide? politicians who are being given an incentive to be corrupt and to choose their own voters?


consider this one:

person a, who is sporting a holstered, legal gun, shouts, "i think the government should round up and execute all jews and i'm gonna vote for someone who agrees with me!"

and

person b, who is sporting a holstered, legal gun, shouts, "you slept with my wife! i've been planning for this moment ever since i found out a month ago! now i'm gonna grab my gun and kill you!"


person a is saying something odious, but he is exercising his first amendment rights and has committed no crimes. that person can vote.
person b probably just committed a felony, and depending on where he is, he could lose his right to vote.

if we're going on the basis of "bad people" or people who have done bad things, tell me why we're in a better place if person a can vote while person b can't.

the group i'm focused on is politicians, lawmakers, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, etc.

i want them to have no incentive to pass or enforce laws in a manner which helps them shape how white the voting population is or how rich it is by applying the disenfranchisement penalty in a corrupt manner.

by far the most straightforward way to do this is to simply say that shouldn't have that power, period.


do killers "deserve" the right to vote? that's a pointless and irrelevant question.

*government* does not deserve the right to take away anyone's vote.


much of the bill of rights works the same way. does a killer "deserve" a fair trial and to be protect from improper searches?
that's the wrong question. a killer deserves what's coming to him. the *government* doesn't deserve the right to make searches without proper warrants or probable cause, the *government* doesn't deserve the right to conduct unfair trials, etc.

*that* is where the focus should be.

In the state of nature a person can do whatever he or she wants or whatever his or her conscience allows. To enter into a social contract with our fellow citizens we give up the right to do whatever we want and in return the sovereign protects us from people doing whatever they want against us. In the state of nature we're on our own. One of the ways the sovereign protects us is by passing laws for our safety which punish people for raping, murdering, and using terror on us. And those laws of necessity include some form of punishment as a deterrent and the more egregious the crime the harsher the punishment,

and it also separates the criminal from the rest of society, which gives a specific deterrent to further crimes, at least for the duration of the sentence. plus it provides a general deterrent to others who see the consequence of criminal acts. that's all fine and dandy as far as punishment, deterrence, and social contract go.

but taking away the right to vote does nothing to advance any of that. no one is ever going to look at a felon and say, i don't want to end up like that, i don't mind being stuck in a cell for years, but not being able to vote, wow, guess i better walk the straight and narrow....

but again, we're getting away from focusing on powers governments should have. the power to deter and punish, fine. the power to use laws and law enforcement to shape the pool of eligible voters to suit their own interests, that's a big problem for everyone.


whatever dubious benefit there might be as far as criminal justice goes to taking away the right to vote, the risk of bad government is far more real and far more important.

Or more than an ounce of weed?

Or resisting arrest?

Or aiding a suicide?

The list goes on...

Thank gawd I live in California instead of whatever blue state you live in.

If Bernie thinks child rapists should vote while in prison, then he should say it loud and say it often. Let's see how it goes over with the rest of the country

Although it's really not funny. If Sanders thinks this issue will set him apart from the herd? He's probably correct but not in a good way.

Once a felon serves his/her time, there's no question (in my mind at least) that they should be able to vote. We say we want ex-offenders to rejoin the community as productive citizens. Part of that is resuming the duties and rights of a citizen. For me, restoring voting rights is a no-brainer.

But giving voting rights to the incarcerated?

I don't believe the Senator from Vermont has thought this one through. It's a politically toxic idea.

I find this interesting: https://www.dailypress.com/news/politics/dp-nws-felon-voting-20160426-story.html

In Virginia, people who were found guilty of committing various types of crimes had their voting rights restored. No exception was made for child rapists.

Once they have done their time and been rehabilitated, then voting rights can be restored. if you feel differently, please sing it loud and often and be sure Bernie does.

I do think that revocation of voting rights should be used very sparingly.

It would be interesting to see what DUers think on this topic.

I'd be ok with non violent felons voting.

Not sure how you do that, though.

for this to be used against us...I can only say why even bring this Up? Of course as usual all the supporters must rush to post about it.

Seems Constitutionally mandated to me. I suppose there are ways to revoke citizenship, but convictions for felonies aren't enough on their own. Using extremely heinous criminals is no justification.

… this issue would help Trump, McConnell and the Republicans. However, people who have served their time should be given full rights and welcomed into the voting booths.

They're in prison, which is supposed to be a punishment.

Beneath Sanders' words during the CNN Town Hall last night was the principle that incarcerating a citizen already deprives him/her of the precious freedom of movement. We should cherish that freedom to such an extent that we not feel it necessary to revoke the right to vote.

I also concur with the position expressed here that this needs to be addressed as part of a larger reform of the criminal justice system. In my view, a nationwide ban on private prisons, including for Homeland Security, needs to go first.

I hope that, over time, those who oppose the idea would take a breath to hear us out.

Let's also recall that the right to vote is not technically enshrined in the constitution. That's why it has been so difficult to ban gerrymandering.

Thanks for citing that illuminating column!

In Vermont, the Republican Party said they would oppose measures to end inmate voting.

"The last thing we want to do is start putting up insurmountable barriers to participation in civic life because someone may have been convicted of a crime," a spokesman for the state Republican Party, Mike Donohue, told NBC News. "People’s right to vote is sacred."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/states-rethink-prisoner-voting-rights-incarceration-rates-rise-n850406

I find that interesting!

For whatever party the warden or guards want. Felons should be allowed to vote when they are away from prison.

would have to be in private.

However, Vermont contracts out to a for-profit prison corporation that houses Vermont's incarcerated in a Mississippi hellhole where they are subject to Mississippi state law, thereby losing their right to vote.

I support restoration of voting rights for felons who have completed their sentence - imprisonment, parole & probation. People voting from prison is a really bad idea. Supporting such a bad idea is really bad politics.

Come on folks. The Republic is at stake here. We can't loose any votes by pushing this idea. Let's stick with the real issues.

Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2019, 09:49 PM - Edit history (2)

cumulatively speaking since 2000, the number would be much greater.

Their millions of family members in greater numbers still, and many of them have been devastated; poverty, increased chances of drug abuse, family disintegration, increased chances of crime passing down to the next generation as a result by the so called "War on Drugs" disproportionately of course effecting African, Latino, Native Americans and poor whites, that can't afford cash bail and a host of other "justice" issues which worked against them.

Non-violent drug offenses that nonetheless disenfranchised infinitely more of them than any Wall Street white collar criminal which wrecked our national economy and cost hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their homes or go bankrupt.

We have for profit prisons engaged in a 21st century form of slavery with too many Americans; again predominately minorities, the elderly, college students and the poor outside of prison facing increasing forms of voter suppression from the cowardly Republican Governors.

Those voter suppression lines used by the Republicans could not exist if the right to vote was considered by our society to be absolutely inalienable and sacred as with freedom of religion.

Those shock the conscience lines that compel voter disenfranchisement whether it be anyone in prison can and will be easily moved so long as they exist by the passions or prejudices of the day on to the greater society and I believe the long term result is many a Trump coming to power.

First principles. We must win the 2020 election. Democrats sacrificing the election on the altar of extreme positions will be the death of the Republic.

We need calm, reasoned debate on important issues. We seriously don't need to waste time on votes arguing for secondary issues.

I remain undecided about how I will vote in the primary. However, I will not vote for a candidate who mistakes passion and volume for reason, nor one who loses sight of the important issues of the day in favor of feel-good ideas.

I also thought this to be an important issue.

I have posted many a thread here on what I thought were other critical issues across the spectrum and will continue to do so.

I believe this may be an uncomfortable issue from an emotional standpoint but I also believe our dysfunctional justice/prison system is in dire need of addressing.

Compared to the threat to the Republic. This issue is small beer.

as this issue being a small toxic root that has spread to a lesser or greater extent throughout our nation disenfranchising not only those in prison but increasing numbers of Americans living on the outside.

I believe the current threat to the Republic is being dealt with and Trump will be on his way out one way impeachment or the other losing the 2020 election.

However if the root isn't dug up and destroyed, there will most definitely be more Trumps probably increasing in devastating intensity.

The privilege of those who have no interest in winning general elections.

those that believe the current dysfunctional system of disenfranchising millions of Americans from their right to vote not only didn't produce Trump but won't do it in the future.

I remember when Bush the Least was considered by most historians to the at or very near the bottom of Presidential rankings, today he looks like a statesman compared to Trump.

I think what you meant to say was that you think me unintelligent. Of perhaps you were simply trying to veil a personal attack.

My decades of observing politics notwithstanding, I will accept that I do not know all there is to know about politics. Nevertheless, I am reasonably certain that there will no widespread felon enfranchisement between now and November, 2020. The only relevance the issue will have in the 2020 election is whether Democrats allow themselves to be distracted from more important issues.

I will be curious to see if Senator Sanders can avoid being so strident and doctrinaire as to guarantee he cannot win a general election.

However, I 100% support making it federal law that once out of prison ALL people convicted previously MUST be allowed to vote as long as they are out of prison.

isn't it?

the possibility that any American can lose their right to vote in prison or out.

With 55 people in prison (and some of them probably aren't even Americans) National Security doesn't even make up 1% of incarcerated prisoners.

Almost half are for drug offenses.

By offense

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp

By race

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

Felons should earn back ALL their rights..from firearms to freedom of movement to voting, when their debt to society is paid in full. Automatically, no applications or hearings or any roadblocks.