How large can the “voting rights for terrorists” crowd be?
I don’t think Bernie Sanders did himself any political favors when he said that even the Boston marathon bomber should have the right to vote. What constituency is he appealing to, besides hardcore libertarians?
It’s not that his argument lacks all merit. I don’t agree with Sanders—I think that certain crimes should mean that a person has forfeited the right to vote along with certain other rights, such as the right to roam freely around among us. But I well understand his argument, which he expressed this way. I just think it’s not going to wash with the vast vast majority of people, even many who otherwise support Sanders:
“This is a democracy and we have got to expand that democracy, and I believe every single person does have the right to vote,” he said, adding, “Even for terrible people, because once you start chipping away and you say, ‘Well, that guy committed a terrible crime, not going to let him vote. Well, that person did that. Not going to let that person vote,’ you’re running down a slippery slope.”
He slammed Republican governors for blocking access to the ballot box for felons, in what he described as an effort to disenfranchise voters and influence elections in their favor. “They come up with all kinds of excuses why people of color, young people, poor people can’t vote. and I will do everything I can to resist that,” he said.
Vermont and Maine are the only states that allow incarcerated felons to vote, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Massachusetts is among 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, that automatically reinstate voting rights to felons released from prison. Other states have additional restrictions, including bans on voting while a felon is on parole or probation.
I’m not the only person noting that Sanders’ extreme position is a sort of political poison of the self-inflicted kind (not that it is likely to deter his most fervent supporters—and does he really have any other kind?):
“You’re writing your own opposition ad against you,” CNN host Chris Cuomo said.
And Sanders gave this answer:
“I think I have written many 30 second opposition ads throughout my life,” Sanders replied. “This will just be another one of them.”
Well, that’s certainly true. But for most of his career he’s been in liberal/left cocoons. This is the national stage, which he entered only during the 2016 campaign. Sanders may not really want to win and actually become president; after all, he’ll be 79 by Election Day 2020. He may not think he can win. Or, he may think he can win with exactly the formula he’s had all his life, as an extreme leftist, and that his hour is finally at hand and he can let it all hang out in terms of voicing the extreme positions that made him what he is.
At any rate, his remarks have the function of moving the Overton window for the other candidates, stating the most extreme positions so that their own positions won’t seem quite as far left as they actually are. He is the lefty-ist leftist of all in that great big “who can be the furthest left?” competition that the Democratic Party has become:
Asked similar questions at CNN town halls later on, Democratic candidate and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg said he disagreed, arguing that losing the right to vote is one of the penalties inmates should face while incarcerated. California Sen. Kamala Harris said she believed “we should have that conversation.”
Harris’s polls must have told her that such a “conversation” is political cyanide, because she backtracked from that stance the very next day and declared that murderers and terrorists should “be deprived of their rights.”
I have to say that I am heartened by the Democrats’ infighting and voicing of off-putting positions (at least I think they’re off-putting; I sincerely hope so). I would rather have them state their extremism rather than hide it, wait till they’re elected, and then pursue far more extreme policies than the ones they’ve owned up to. Of course, many of them are probably still on track for that. How far left are they really, in their heart of hearts? Extremely far. Will the American public reject this leftism? That remains to be seen, but I have hopes.
The list of insanely idiotic proposals from the assorted Democratic hopefuls is very long and increasing in stupidity by the day, from abolishing ICE and having essentially open borders, to reparations and free stuff for everyone, dismantling the Electoral College, altering the composition of the Supreme Court and perhaps the Senate, possible statehood for heavily-indebted Puerto Rico, forgiveness of student loan debt (currently around 1.5 trillion), but the brain grows weary contemplating so much nonsense.
“They come up with all kinds of excuses why people of color, young people, poor people can’t vote. and I will do everything I can to resist that,” he said.
I had a certain amount of respect for Sanders. Now I see he’s lying his tuchus off and impugning other people’s motives in the process. Retire, stupid old man.
Why do Democrats push for allowing felons to vote? Because they know that an overwhelming percentage would vote for Democrats. Which indicates that Democrats and felons tend to think alike.
And act alike, for that matter.
They should interview people in small towns located near prisons and ask them what they think about rapists, drug dealers and murderers determining who will be their sheriffs, school board members, and town council members. Trump should have the fed prisons moved to Chicago, SF, and LA. We## see what Cher would say.
They should interview people in small towns located near prisons and ask them what they think about rapists, drug dealers and murderers determining who will be their sheriffs, school board members, and town council members. Trump should have the fed prisons moved to Chicago, SF, and LA. We’ll see what Cher would say.
Ok, so most prisons are in rural areas so they want hundreds of inmates to vote on local races and school levies in small areas which in no way affect them and cancel out other citizens who will be affected through taxes and other things.
Alrighty, that’ll be real popular.
Ha Ha!
expat beat me to it by one minute!
Ain’t this lovely:
https://althouse.blogspot.com/2019/04/bidens-announcement-video-is-anchored.html
Sanders isn’t the only lying liar trading in boob bait for blacks.
I have a friend that works in the elections office in a smallish county and there have been several times where some election has been extremely close (under 10 vote separation) and to think people would accept convicts deciding these is beyond naive.
And it wouldn’t just be state or federal prisons I assume. In most places county jails hold some prisoners with shorter sentences or those waiting for trial.
Can that person vote in some election in a tiny county seat?
Some of the gang of 21 may realize that they have to back away from the looney positions if they are to have any chance in the general election. But the demo* debates will decide who the nominee will be. If any of the 21 try to back away from a looney position in the debates, they’ll be mobbed by the others, especially those others who only got that far based on a looney position, and don’t have a chance, but only wanted a moment in the spotlight.
* As in “demolition” derbies, when old jalopies used to smash into each other until only one was left running . . .
My favorite small county election story that my friend tells is about a bond election in a small city to purchase a new fire truck.
This is a town of about 15,000 or so and this bond election was in April and was the only issue on the ballot for this town so turnout was low.
So they received about 2,500 ballots at the election office and the results were something like 1253 no 1247 yes which means automatic recount. For the recount this small town fire department brought firemen in uniform to be the observers and lurk over the officials as they counted and after the recount they added a few ballots and the total was now something like 1255 no 1248 yes so the bond fails, right?
No, the firemen whine and complain in the local paper about how unsafe the citizens are with the 15 year old fire truck so they get the bond on the ballot again in September. This time the bond wins by about 15 votes. Recount again and it still passes. The firemen now say the matter is decided fire truck bought property taxes go up.
Example #4,579 why I’m so cynical and distrustful of government.
So yeah let’s throw in some prisoner votes and screw the law abiding citizens some more.
I think that which used to be something of a norm, was the best. Convicted felons permanently lose their right to vote. Once their sentence, including probation, is finished, they may petition a judge to reinstate their right to vote.
The judge is typically charged with determining that the citizen is not a recidivist and is of some benefit to the community. I presume this means that they need to have been functioning in the community for a number of years, post prison.
I gotta laugh at the one Sanders comment: Denying the vote to people is a slippery slope.
Sure Bernie. It’s a slippery slope we’ve been rapidly falling upward on for the last 150 years.
In spite of the fact that I view Sanders position on this as cynical and self-serving, from a constitutional standpoint he has a point.
This is why I support weighting every citizen’s vote proportional to the amount of tax paid. This would automatically void the votes of the incarcerated, as they are not paying taxes.
No representation without taxation.
TpommyJay: “I gotta laugh at the one Sanders comment: Denying the vote to people is a slippery slope.”
I presume Bernie would also want convicts to have 2nd amendment rights. Right Bernie? Oh, not so much. He only wants to observe those parts of the Constitution that he agrees with. Par for the course.
Since it wont be worded that way, and the idea is for cons in prison to vote, and for ex cons to vote..
nearly 2.2 million adults were held in America’s prisons and jails at the end of 2016
Harris: “We should have that conversation.”
What a mushy, pablum-like answer.
A non-answer answer.
expat on April 25, 2019 at 2:28 pm at 2:28 pm said:
They should interview people in small towns located near prisons and ask them what they think about rapists, drug dealers and murderers determining who will be their sheriffs, school board members, and town council members. Trump should have the fed prisons moved to Chicago, SF, and LA. We’ll see what Cher would say.
* * *
… Or, if you MUST have incarcerated felons vote, treat them the same as college students who are still residents of their home town (i.e., their domicile when arrested/arraigned), not residents of their current lgeographical ocation.
For federal prisons, I suspect that pretty much boils down to the Big Cities.
States and municipalities will just have to deal.
And — which came up somewhere else, probably PowerLine — remind them that they would also be restoring voting rights to the Christchurch killer, the Charlottesville dude, cops jailed for shooting black folks, and real neo-Nazis.
Tommy Jay:
In most other countries, for most all of the time, and still, laws were handed down to the inferior class by the sovereign. Breaking a law that someone who considered you to be a deplorable probably wasn’t so bad; a bit ‘o revenge, maybe. It’s less of a crime to steal from the government, when the government is stealing from you.
But we tried a new experiment on this Continent. Here the people would make their own laws. IOW, the people would be the sovereign. A quick definition of sovereign is “He who answers to no one” a/k/a, freedom. We only answer to each other, because we agree to follow the majority in deciding what the laws will be.
Thus, when someone breaks our law, they are attacking the very basis of our liberty. Since they have no appreciation of what a gift that is, and what it cost in blood and treasure, they have relinquished the right to participate in the process when they violate the law.
You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.
J.J.
I was going to mention gun rights too. Some big 2A supporters do want gun rights restored immediately after time served, but I would not, particularly for violent felons. However, I feel that if the convict can pass the judge’s ruling via petition for voting rights, they should get their gun rights back as well.
What would Bernie want, in his heart of hearts? Probably what Maduro wanted and did. Confiscate weapons from law abiding citizens and hand them over the antifa and other violent felon Bernie supporters. Remember he was a big Chavez supporter before he denied being a Chavez supporter.
What ostensibly entitles someone to recognition – by law or custom – as having an equal say in a political community or alliance?
Peerhood. A presumption of actual, if rough personal equality, a genuine moral equality; and a respect for limits and rules and a refusal to commit acts of treachery and fraud.
Obviously then, they must first be taken and accepted as moral peers; persons whose judgement and ethics and preferences are accepted as being on a par with, and as entitled to your respect as, and ultimately to your own deference as, your own.
Why then should a felon have a say in your life and fate? He is a felon: i.e., by definition someone whose “fel” or evil actions have properly set him against the moral community, and have violated those rules of alliance which entitle him to participation, acceptance, and recognition as a moral and political peer in the first place.
The felon is not an equal entitled to speak and count as a valued peer, ally, and political “brother”.
Why not just let, say, a mental imbecile have a say in how you shall live and structure your life?
Why not grant a squalling and spoiled brat of 5 have a say in how you focus your life energies?
Why not let three rapists tell you and your wife [three votes to two] how her sexual life will be lived out? Or yours, for that matter.
They should not be alowed because they are not moral peers they are moral others and aliens. They are demonstrably moral, and prossibly intellectual as well, incompetents; as proven through their fell and wicked and deal breaking behaviors.
The view which holds they have not just an in-principle inalienable right to their own lives and liberties, but in addition some kind of organic mystery-umbilical claim on your life as well, is a contemptible view completely at odds with the notion of a society composed of free and responsible agents.
The fact that most modern liberals hold this latter view, demonstrates how lacking they themselves are in the attributes necessary to participate in an association of free men and women.
Liberals are simply not fit to live in the company of free men and women as equals, they know it, and therefore they must modify social assumptions and predicates to suit their incapacity … or incompetence. It’s the only way they can survive when others have the option of refusing to deal, share with, or put up with them voluntarily.
A felony is a major crime. The convicted perpetrator of a serious crime(s) has in effect, voluntarily forfeited their right to vote.
The convicted criminal has demonstrated their unwillingness to conduct themselves according to civilized norms of behavior and proven their unfitness to reside in a civilized society. Thus imprisonment and their removal from society.
The societal consequence of the loss of a former right to vote is an ‘equal and opposite’ societal reaction to their rejection of their citizen’ship’. Oncehe convicted has demonstrated
Participation in that level of criminality must carry an appropriate level of consequence. Loss of their freedom for a specified period of time does not ‘make up’ for what they’ve done. ‘Time served’ does not bring back the murderer’s victim. Time served does not erase the rape’s victim’s horrified remembrance of their terror. ‘Time served’ does not erase the devastating psychological impact upon the pedophile’s victim.
Societal compassion in giving a second chance to those convicted of serious crimes, who ‘have served their time’ must rest upon the ex-convict demonstrating that they have abandoned their anti-social behavior. They have to prove that they’ve reformed by demonstrating that to be so.
Five years of law abiding behavior seems an appropriate demonstration of the ex-convict’s having committed themselves to being a law abiding citizen.
Serious criminals must earn back ‘the right’ to vote that they threw away.
Geoffrey Britain on April 25, 2019 at 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm said:
A felony is a major crime. The convicted perpetrator of a serious crime(s) has in effect, voluntarily forfeited their right to vote.
* * *
Except…everyone commits three felonies a day.
And some are framed by the real perpetrators.
And some are railroaded by the prosecutors.
And some face corrupt judges.
Still, I would opt for improving the laws and the justice system, rather than letting convicts vote.
Aesopfan,
“Except…everyone commits three felonies a day.
That we have far too many laws is a reflection of a society that in the aggregate, has lost its moral compass; “Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without.” Edmund Burke
“And some are framed by the real perpetrators.”
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” ( Exodus 20:16)
“And some are railroaded by the prosecutors. And some face corrupt judges.”
Both are forms of corruption, when the majority of the public fails to hold its representatives accountable to the rule of law, corruption finds fertile fields.
DNW: Bravo! Well said.
“At any rate, his remarks have the function of moving the Overton window for the other candidates, stating the most extreme positions so that their own positions won’t seem quite as far left as they actually are. ”
They are not just moving the Overton Window these days; they are smashing it.
In some ways, it would be more satisfactory to have Bernie as the Dem candidate, because he at least says what he believes, and would probably act that way in office, so we know what kind of snake we would be picking up.
Obama, on the other hand, got away with his seriously hard-left actions because he talked a moderate-agenda storyn(as long as he needed to for re-election and “legacy” anyway), and the MSM covered for him whenever someone tried to point out the disjunct between his publicized speeches and his actions as president.
Old saying I made up: The further out the outliers lie, the further out the inliers can lie without being outliers. Being half as bad as Bernie makes you look like a moderate and thus acceptable.
Talked to a teacher in a small town near which is a state prison. Families of some inmates move to the area to be able to visit more frequently. Something about apple near tree. No, I don’t think the locals will want felons to vote, given what the non-felon relatives do to diversify the mix.
“This is a democracy and we have got to expand that democracy”
I am getting really tired of this dangerous talking point. This is NOT a democracy, it’s a Constitutional Republic. There’s a reason for that. Majority rule is mob rule and it’s not good enough, duh — this country was designed to protect us from that!
This stupid idea to let felons vote is primarily a publicity angle thing — Reps are “against voting rights”.
Thus, there can be no enforcement of anti-fraud laws, because to enforce voting laws is “against voting rights”.
Those who are against vote harvesting are “against voting rights”.
It’s mostly a tactic to allow more smearing of the Reps by Dems.
On the other hand, maybe the prisoners inside of prison could vote on where they would like the prison to be? New York? San Francisco? LA? Chicago? I’m pretty sure most Dems would NOT want prisoners voting on where the prison should be, and having those votes be decisive — but I’d support that step, just to show ’em.
I will mention that one of my many lefty FB acquaintances posted on this topic – “Is this really what we (the Democrat party) want to fight for?” Many of those who replied posted some degree of support of the idea of allowing felons to vote, but I was heartened to see even a moment of waking up and looking around at what their party was doing.
I find it weird how many lefties seem to think that prisons are full of innocent people, or at least people who were minding their own business until some crime apparently attacked them out of the clear blue sky and their ethnicity and/or economic level caused them to get railroaded. I understand that there are innocent people in jail, but I also believe that most people in jail are there because they decided to do something that people who are not in jail would look at and say, “That’s a stupid thing to do. You’ll get arrested and go to prison if you get caught.”
I have not read the “three felonies a day” book but examples I have seen look either contrived or far removed from what any of us (eg average ordinary people whose jobs do not involve skirting the bleeding edge of what is or might not be legal) did between getting up yesterday and going to bed last night.
Good points made that this issue is another one of those that “sounds good” in theory but causes negative reactions from the left IF they learn how badly THEY will be affected (cue Cher in the MAGA hat theme song).
The best reply for Republicans is to post ads saying, effectively, “this is who the Dems want voting in your elections” with pictures (clearly identified) of “right-wing” felons that are anathema to the Left (and a smattering of bipartisan fusion villains, if such can be found; eg, Boston Marathon bombers).
Don’t make ads with pictures of Leftist heroes or victim groups!
The Right will figure that part out on their own.
Does “Every single person” include “deplorables” ?
Somebody — maybe somebody here, and if so I apologize for forgetting who — pointed out that voting is NOT a “natural right.” It exists only under the terms of the particular jurisdiction’s law. It was pointed out that persons convicted of felony can lose what is normally the fundamental right of self-determination, such as the right not to be incarcerated, as a logical result of their presumably-proven taking-over over some or all of another, innocent person’s right of self-determination. (Yes, theft of rightfully owned property is an instance of this, because somewhere in the chain of ownership there was a person or group who created the property in question, which was a product of a part of their lives that was made by their own will; if some other person now rightfully owns it, it will have become his through a chain of trades and gifts.)
I don’t see why any libertarian, hard-core or not, would argue that a felon has a “right” to vote in libertarian theory.
I mean, if I do away with somebody, or I steal the Hope Diamond, and I get caught and imprisoned as a result, why can’t I simply “vote” to have me released? Even better, simplify the process, get Gov out of the way and bring down taxes and the federal budget all at once: Make it the rule that an incarcerated felon merely has to politely request to be released unencumbered.
How easy is that!
“I think I have written many 30 second opposition ads throughout my life,” Sanders replied. “This will just be another one of them.”
The man knows what he’s talking about. Bernie Sanders Praising Bread Lines and Food Rationing.
Bernie Sanders was talking in the 1980s about food lines in Sandinista Nicaragua, where a combination of government controls on prices etc. & “land reform” collapsed agricultural production, which led to food shortages and food lines. While Bernie Sanders never said anything about food lines in Chavista Venezuela- which arose from a policy mix similar to Sandinista Nicaragua- one may assume he had a similar opinion.
Soooo …
Are we heading for a Sanders-Biden primary face-off?
Where are the Marx Brothers when you need them?
Sarah Rolph — you are right and Bernie is an idiot. The USA is NOT a democracy, it is a constitutional republic. And if Bernie Sanders does not understand that, he has no business running for president.