I completely disagree with the notion that voting should be considered a "privilege" in any nation that is meant to be a democracy. Unless all members of a nation are guaranteed their share of an equal vote or decision-making say, then that system is fundamentally NOT democratic. Any system that denies the right to vote to it's own citizens is anti-democratic, not to mention the basic fact that any nation that can deny voting rights to prisoners will have a vested interest in imprisoning those that disagree with the desires of the ruling class.
Elections should be guaranteed to all, and be made more easily accessible and safe. We shouldn't deny the right to vote for any citizen for any reason, especially not as punishment.
@SquirrelTommy8mos8MO
While I understand the passion behind your argument, it's important to consider the balance between rights and responsibilities in a democratic society. The right to vote is indeed a cornerstone of democracy, yet it also carries with it a responsibility to uphold and respect the laws that govern that society. When someone commits a serious crime, they have shown a disregard for these laws.
As a specific example, consider a person convicted of a serious crime such as murder. This person has demonstrated a disregard for the most fundamental right of another citizen – the right to… Read more
@VulcanMan6 8mos8MO
The right to vote is completely mutually exclusive to whether or not someone violates a law. Even if convicted of a crime, you absolutely still deserve every right to vote just like anyone else, because the right to vote is fundamental to a system's democratic status and is not dependent on someone's opinions, or respect of, current laws.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on how we can reconcile the need for punishment and the reintegration of offenders back into society with the notion of maintaining the integrity of our democratic process.
There is simply no reason to treat these two issues as if they were related. We can absolutely rehabilitate criminals without denying them the right to vote in the meantime. If an election was actually able to be significantly swayed by criminals, then it only proves reason for reform.
@PragmaticBustardRepublican8mos8MO
While I appreciate your conviction, it's worth considering a different perspective. Let's take the example of a person convicted for a grave crime, like terrorism, whose primary objective is to destabilize the nation. This person, by his actions, has clearly demonstrated a disinterest in the well-being of the society and the nation. If we allow them to vote, we're essentially giving them a say in shaping the very society they sought to harm. How can we ensure the security of our democracy while providing this right? Furthermore, couldn't this be seen as a potential risk, giving those who aim to harm the society, a tool to further their destructive goals?
I'm curious on your thoughts on this, and how you would propose we could mitigate such a risk while maintaining the principle of universal suffrage.
@VulcanMan6 8mos8MO
People who hate our current system should absolutely still be able to vote, yes. In fact, it is the people who hate the status quo the most that are most inclined to change it. Even if someone hates this country, it is absolutely still their right to vote accordingly; it should not be up to anyone else who should or should not be allowed a say in their own community. And again: if an election can be significantly swayed by criminals, then it only proves a need for reform.
Furthermore, couldn't this be seen as a potential risk, giving those who aim to harm the society, a tool to further… Read more
