2020 Democratic presidential primary

also lots of other very normal countries allow it iirc

in a perfect world i would agree with you but the criminal justice system is racist as fuck and so denying voting rights to inmates is basically marginalizing the voice of those communities that are routinely, historically targeted for incarceration.

In a "perfect world" I would still disagree, but yes to the racist system bit, and also the "oh so rapists should get a say??" line is particularly ridiculous because an absurdly tiny % of accused rapists ever get convicted

prison in the perfect world must be a sight

I took "perfect world" there to mean "place where the american justice system works by and for the people it says it does"

sund4r otm

If I was drawing up a list of urgently needed prison reforms in this country, letting them vote would not be high on my list, but sure why not.

they get counted as part of the population for district-drawing purposes, so the people being elected from their districts, for all practical purposes, represent them. They should darn well get a vote on who that is.

So change the former condition (prisoners counted toward local population), not the latter (prisoners voting).

prison in the perfect world must be a sight

― difficult listening hour, Wednesday, April 24, 2019

run by poets and Beyonce

i know taking away voting rights feels kind of arbitrary but i guess really the whole idea of imprisoning people is mostly kind of arbitrary? i think you can pretty clearly argue that there are some people who represent enough of a danger to the rest of society that they need to be incarcerated, but that probably describes a fairly small portion of the prison population. even the whole deterrence argument, there are probably healthier ways to get people to make restitution for their offenses that would have the same effect.

So change the former condition (prisoners counted toward local population), not the latter (prisoners voting).

you mean... wholly erase them from civic life

For the length of their sentence? Yes. They're criminals. Jesus, you fucking people.

lmao

xxpost surely we can come up with some kind of compromise, where they are partially counted. Maybe 60% or so.

If I was drawing up a list of urgently needed prison reforms in this country, letting them vote would not be high on my list

you may find that the one... brings the others closer

so uh this poll is a tremendous outlier (I'm assuming there are reasons for that but idk anything about the org), but I like the "remove a candidate and see what happens" feature, more polls should do this

http://poll.democracyforamerica.com/results

For the length of their sentence? Yes. They're criminals. Jesus, you fucking people.

As we all know, sentences are handed out in a totally fair and evenhanded way across all demographics.

as we all know, criminals are not citizens. that's why they have no rights

A good challenger for Perdue's senate seat (fingers crossed for Abrams) could put GA further in play, but if we just put up any ol' Dem drip for the job, GA will remain safe red territory. I know turnout matters everywhere, but especially here.

also lots of other very normal countries allow it iirc

Can somebody explain the whole give-prisoners-the-vote thing, and why this is a cause worth supporting?

For me its mainly "Remove a currently existing voter-suppression tool", there are already too many incentives for incarceration, yes this is a relatively minor one but still

Honestly, until 2 months ago I didn't even really think about it. I wouldn't say I've been persuaded from No to Yes, but I have been persuaded from Didn't Think Much About it to Yes

They're criminals. Jesus, you fucking people.

Do you have much personal experience with the so-called criminal justice system? Seems like not.

Huh, only settled by the Supreme Court in 03, apparently. xp to self

seems like a fine idea, but not a position I much care about when picking a candidate

you love to see it

John McCain's family plans to support Joe Biden's White House bid, backing Biden not only in the primary race but also in a general election match-up with Trump, the Washington Examiner has learned. https://t.co/4FIUwOxWNr

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) April 24, 2019

xpost @Pres Keyes - does it indicate anything to you about a candidate's larger values/priorities, e.g. on criminal justice reform, racial justice, and/or the importance and extension of democratic rights?

Do you have much personal experience with the so-called criminal justice system? Seems like not.

None of your business.

well, if the McCain Dynasty's backing Joe, can "Morning" Joe be far behind??

just want to say that dlh, among others, has been brilliantly otm for this whole discussion btw

This piece makes an interesting case (briefly) that Warren was more of a gadfly vs the Dem establishment during the Obama years than Sanders was: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/24/18510756/bernie-sanders-2020-democrats-neoliberals-chill

Idk if it's right but it's interesting. I do remember Sanders's epic filibuster against tax cuts.

love an earnest invitation to explain why something obviously good is worth supporting, feel like the responses are really gonna sink in

None of your business.

Fine. But your absolute belief in the depravity of criminals to the point where they have forfeited their right to participate in society by their criminal behavior, has far more in common with the scripts of television shows centered on imaginary serial killers who haunt every episode, than a sound evaluation what most criminals are like.

(italics yours)

To gauge the depths of right wing pathology, don't discuss taxes -- discuss the carceral and system, whether it's death penalty or disenfranchisement. It's been impossible to dissuade people who support capital death from believing that revenge /= justice; they're likely to say, "Yes, it is, and fuck you, he raped this woman three times, he doesn't deserve to live."

Almost as bad: asking the same people to point out where in the Constitution it states that you can revoke the rights of citizenship for a felony.

so uh this poll is a tremendous outlier (I'm assuming there are reasons for that but idk anything about the org), but I like the "remove a candidate and see what happens" feature, more polls should do this

http://poll.democracyforamerica.com/results

― Simon H., 24. april 2019 19:59 (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a poll of the organizations members, and it's a progressive organization. In all honesty it's rather a bit low for Sanders + Warren?

discuss the carceral and system

revenge /= justice; they're likely to say, "Yes, it is, and fuck you, he raped this woman three times, he doesn't deserve to live."

reminds of what an ilxor here once suggested as a response: if you think that this person should die as a result of their crimes, do it yourself and face the institutional/spiritual consequences yourself.

incarceration is already a loss of a right (to personal freedom(s)), so the question is why there ought to be more rights than that lost in the interim. aside from the considerations about representation already mentioned itt, i suppose one model might be the restriction of rights after release, on parole or whatever. sometimes those rights are restricted in the name of the safety or well-being of others. but sometimes they are restricted out of a goal of depriving people of 'privileges' enjoyed by people without criminal records.

is the idea supposed to be that voting is too powerful and too harmful to be done by people who are incarcerated (to the point where this prospect outweighs the harm of not having a voice in how one's society is run)?

or is it like a person with a driver's license having it revoked? that seems unlikely to me given the moral and political importance of voting.

It's worth looking at this map of how these laws differ across states: https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map

This level of variation in access to the franchise seems pretty unconstitutional to me?

the question is why there ought to be more rights than that lost in the interim.

not just any rights: the one at the bottom, the one all the others flow from (as you imply w "moral and political importance")

holy shit i didn't know that about iowa.

the idea that elected officials should not be accountable to precisely that huge swath of the population that is in the state's custody (and sent there by the state in the People's name) feels repugnant to me. it feels of a piece with the notion that "criminals" are problems we can just sweep under the rug, and forget about, with fingers weakly-crossed that they "get their acts together" while in their cells.

prison reform isn't just about reducing the number of people we send to jail. it's about reshaping our fundamental relationship and sense of responsibility toward the humans who end up in the system.

just leaving this here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/17/magazine/prison-abolition-ruth-wilson-gilmore.html

also lots of other very normal countries allow it iirc

lots of very normal countries don't allow it too. the practical (not the ethical) stakes are particularly high in the US because so many people are in prison. this is not true in most other countries.

e.g. more people are in prison right now than the number of votes trump won by in 2016 in each of WI, PA and MI. i didn't check any other states, but those three states were the "tipping points", i.e. the ones that "determined the election.

obviously permanent disenfranchisement is unfair and its abolition polls extremely well (as evidenced by all the ballot measures). so in addition to the slam dunk moral argument, there's not even a particularly complicated political calculus for the democrats that they'll lose more votes than from law and order centrists than they'll gain from the newly enfranchised (democratic) felon population. e.g. iowa and virginia are guaranteed electoral college votes for democrats if you allow felons to vote.

that said, bernie saying he doesn't want the distraction of talking about impeachment, but spending a week on this doesn't fill me with optimism for his general election instincts.

In the USA the constellation of societal racism, selective law enforcement, mandatory sentences, plea bargaining, mass incarceration, and deliberate vote suppression among minorities makes for a very toxic brew. Felon disenfranchisement is just another brick in that wall. The whole structure exhibits pervasive institutional racism that is a form of violent oppression against whole communities.

e.g. iowa and virginia are guaranteed electoral college votes for democrats if you allow felons to vote.

That's a big assumption - IIRC, most felons are in GOP demographics, ie non-college educated white men.

I'm through making assumptions about racial-ethnic blocs. Remember how in 2018 Florida was a slam dunk for Dems because of displaced Puerto Ricans?

Enshrined in the Charter of Rights in Canada iirc

in Australia, if your initial sentence means you'll be out in society under the next government, you get to vote on who they'll be.

White men being more likely to vote GOP isn't really an assumption so much as the way it's gone for the entirety of modern American history.

That's not 'Californians moving to Texas will have X effect on state elections' crystal ball gazing, it's just a statement of fact that has shown no signs of changing.