Should a convicted felon's vote count 1/2?

I'm recalling posts from 1-2 months ago (about the time the voter ID judgement came down in Indiana) about how unconstitutional it is to deprive felons who have paid their debt to society of the right to vote. The general consensus here was that it was wrong to do that. That depriving votes couldn't be used as "punishment."

Why is it acceptable now? Punishing voters, disenfranchising voters, in whole or in part, because of a rule? Shouldn't the punishment be limited to the people on top who had the power to make the decision to break the rule? Why is the outrage so limited here? (I suspect it would be greater, if the Obama/Clinton roles were reversed).

ETA: I'm not pro-hillary, or pro-obama, I will vote for whoever the nominee is, but this is going to hurt us in the GE.

the two are not even remotely similar.

We voted them in, we didn't raise enough hell when they tried to pull this. The people we voted to leadership were piss poor in telling us what they were doing and only tried to convince us when they started to look bad.

In Florida a felons vote is taken away for all time.

How are those two alike?

redemption built into any of your systems of employment or anywhere else for that matter.

We all knew at the time that they didn't count. Clinton and her people were perfectly willing to throw those states under the bus until they needed the votes.

I'm pissed that they recognized the invalid primary in Florida, but I guess it makes sense on one level because it was somewhat less demented than the one in Michigan. But these people who are so angry about being disenfranchised waited far too long to do something about it. They're angry now, but did they raise hell when they first found out their votes wouldn't count?

It seemed to me that the vast majority of the protesters on Saturday were merely partisans for Hillary trying to win her more delegates.

reps who willfully acted to violate the established rules for recognized primaries.

I was thinking that maybe the DNC would have been better off doing that than a half-vote for each delegate, just from a PR standpoint. But doing it this way enables more people to go to the convention. If they had stripped them of half their delegates half the people who were supposed to go to the convention would have been cut, so I guess they thought it was better to give all the people who were elected as delegates a chance to participate.