That's an interesting angle I hadn't thought of before. It could certainly be a problem if guards or other prisoners pressure people to vote a certain way.

I think it possible to keep the process private such that conclusive evidence of what an individual actually voted for is unable to be given to others.

@FearlessFly

I think it is possible but authorities in prison have an enormous amount of power and I think they can to set it up in a way that prisoners will feel obliged to vote a certain way or not at all.

I'm not saying it's impossible or we shouldn't allow voting, just that it's something that would have to be monitored.

@FearlessFly It the vote comes out different than what the power brokers think, the weakest members in the prison will suffer. Parolees would not be subject to the same kind of pressures therefore I may change my mind on parolees.

@Lorajay I don't assume that the voting process would be controlled by "power brokers" any more than non-prisoner voting is.

@FearlessFly I think we need someone who has been in a prison and understands the dynamics there to weigh in on whether there are power brokers in prisons.

@Lorajay I didn't intend to infer that I thought there weren't any. Now, prisons are administered by commercial interests. There are typically outside 'influences' -- education, lawyers, doctors, theologians, visitors. I'm hoping for a little less retribution and more rehabilitation.

@RoboGraham no voting while incarcerated, only after release, for the reason(s) you state.

@AnneWimsey

The reasons I state are in favor of allowing prisoners to keep their right to vote

"I believe prison should be about rehabilitation. I'd rather those resources be used to help people adjust to life on the outside and help them become productive members of society.

And I think the best way to do that is to treat them humanely rather than striping them of their rights. To allow them to participate in the political process is to encourage them to take part in bettering society and I think that will go a long way in giving them dignity and sense that they belong in this society and will therefore be motivated to participate rather than engage in destructive behaviors which will land them back behind bars.

I also worry that taking away the voting rights of prisoners may incentivize the authorities to target and lock up certain groups that they would like to disenfranchise.

There is also the issue that prisoners are counted in the Census, so the district where they are housed gets to add their numbers to list which determines representation, but then those people do not have any say in political matters."

Why do you believe that parolees should have the right to vote but not those currently serving sentences in prison?

@RoboGraham If you trust them to walk around in public then you should trust them to vote.

@Willow_Wisp

Sure of course, I agree with you there, but why not people currently serving time? What makes them different from parolees?

@RoboGraham Well prison is supposed to be punishment, and what is our greatest benefit of citizenship? The ability to vote for our representation.

But to be honest I don't had a hard line opinion here, if it were legal for prisoners to vote I don't think it would cause nearly as much damage as just never letting felons vote again, like forever, that's just stupid.

@Willow_Wisp

Prison being about punishment is one way to look at it. I believe it should be about rehabilitation. I'd rather those resources be used to help people adjust to life on the outside and help them become productive members of society.

And I think the best way to do that is to treat them humanely rather than striping them of their rights. To allow them to participate in the political process is to encourage them to take part in bettering society and I think that will go a long way in giving them dignity and sense that they belong in this society and will therefore be motivated to participate rather than engage in destructive behaviors which will land them back behind bars.

I also worry that taking away the voting rights of prisoners may incentivize the authorities to target and lock up certain groups that they would like to disenfranchise.

There is also the issue that prisoners are counted in the Census, so the district where they are housed gets to add their numbers to list which determines representation, but then those people do not have any say in political matters.

@RoboGraham The force is strong with this one. I like your reasoning.

@Willow_Wisp

Thanks

Yes, it is outrageous that some people are barred from voting even after repaying their debt to society.

That sounds awfully familiar. It's almost as if I've seen that very scenario before.

@RoboGraham Great idea if you are a Republican.

You have to be CONVICTED, not merely arrested, I doubt the system could handle anything close to such a scenario.

I don't see any good reasons why not but I see plenty of reasons why they should be allowed to.

@RoboGraham Why do Democrats allow this to happen? I'm baffled as to why they stand by while there voting base is decimated

@dermot235

Because they are two wings of the same party.

The function of the democrats is to give the people the appearance that there is a party that represents them so they don't go voting for actual leftist parties. Then the democrats go and purposefully lose to the republicans like a boxer throwing a fight. They are owned by the same corporate overlords and when the plutocrats tell the democrats to lose a political battle, they do it.

@RoboGraham That seems like an awful lot of people you'd need to keep quiet for that to work. Do you have any evidence for this?

@RoboGraham That makes NO sense. Democrats want power. Just because they are right of centre instead of Right does not mean they want to lose elections. I think they are afraid to push voting for Felons because they are afraid they will lose more votes from the centre.

@JeffMurray

Only the fact that the democrats take bribes form the same corporations and wealthy donors that the republicans do and their behavior is very telling. When fighting political battles against republicans, they almost always appear to be politically inept. They start giving concessions before the negotiation even begins, they compromise to the point that any deal is always more heavily right wing than anything else, they fail to use any leverage they may have, and they often just go along with the republican agenda with only token resistance as Pelosi and the democratic House has been doing for the last two years.

On the other hand, when democrats face progressives, they prove that they are far from inept. They always find a way to crush any and all leftist movements. Which leads me to believe that they are politically capable, they just choose not to be when fighting for the people against the interests of their donors because of course they won't bite the hand that feeds.

@dermot235

I think they just want to keep those campaign donations rolling in so they will do whatever the wealthy elites tell them to do.

@RoboGraham That would be a good argument if the Democrats controlled the Senate too, but they don't. When the Democrats have controlled both the Senate and the House they do legislate for things that are in no way part of the republican Agenda. Obama Care, The Civil Rights act, Medicare, The Housing Rights act, Social Security. I'm not saying the Dems are doing enough by any means but you cannot right off completely what they have done. If they rolled over on the Republicans all the time there would be no Social security, No Medicare, No Obama Care, No gay marriage, No civil rights, no Post office. etc etc

@RoboGraham Did wealthy Elites tell them to introduce the Payroll tax, Obama care, etc etc. Did wealthy elites tell Obama to cut Military spending by 40 %. Did they tell Bill Clinton to cut Military spending. Democrats have traditionally cut Military spending which to my mind is a good thing. Republicans have always increased it for not good reason other than keeping the industrial military complex happy. You can't say there is NO difference between Democrat and Republican. That is quite untrue and so many levels. And I say that as someone that is way to the left of the Democratic party. But it is Hobson's Choice in My view. A choice that does not give you what you want but does give you a choice that can result in you choosing the lessor of 2 evils

@dermot235

Well, Obamacare was the right wing option of healthcare reform. It was literally the same as Romneycare. It was born out of right wing think tanks as a way to satisfy the calls for healthcare reform while still allowing the insurance companies to profit. In fact, it was so right wing that it originally required that everyone pay the insurance companies or be punished.

Those other examples you gave are wonderful but they came decades ago. The democrats didn't start their abandonment of the people until the 90's under Clinton.

There was a time not too long ago when dems controlled the presidency, the House and the Senate and all we got was right wing healthcare reform. They also bailed out the banks and large corporations while giving no relief at all for common people as they were being kicked out of their homes in record numbers.

Same sex marriage was legalized as a result of a Supreme Court decision so we can't really give democrats credit for that unless you want to give credit to democratic Senators who put those Justices in place but that also occurred long ago. The post office was written into the Constitution so that came about before there was even such a thing as political parties.

I used to look at as you do but my eyes have been opened to what the democrats truly are.

@RoboGraham I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. But republicans don't even want people to have Obama care. And Obama care does redistribute wealth to the Poor. Not in a very efficient way but it does do that. And YES the Dems have moved so far over to the right. But there is still a difference that does impact peoples lives in some way that is positive. Obama Care would have been so much better if the Blue Dog Democrats had not blocked it's most progressive parts.

Should the Dems move back to the left. Yes they should. As I have said before...Money out of politics is the only way that is going to happen in any substantial way.

@dermot235

I'm not aware of Obama cutting the military budget. I remember republicans accusing him of making the country unsafe by doing it but I thought it was false. That's something I'd have to look more into.

I'm not claiming that there is no difference. I don't literally mean that they are the same party, it's just a convenient way to look at it, as if there is a very conservative wing of this dempublican party and a center right wing. It isn't literal, just a way of phrasing it to make clear that they are actually very similar and they have the same constituents funding their campaigns and therefore they mostly have the same incentives for leadership.

I also see one as the lesser evil, but it's still far too right wing for me and I believe that the only way to force it back to the left is to refuse support and criticize relentlessly until they get it together.

I do agree that the ACA was better than nothing. It actually did help me personally. But I also recognize that it was a bad compromise. With a super majority in the Senate and control over the house and the presidency, they could have done much better, no doubt about it, we got conservative healthcare reform because that's what the democrats, and more accurately, their wealthy donors, decided to give us.

@RoboGraham I just don't understand helping the Republicans win because you want the Democrats to be more liberal. The more the Republicans win the more the Democratic party has to move towards the middle or right in order to survive and potentially win elections. It's similar to how people say don't stick your dog's nose in their poop and then smack them because all that teaches them is not to stick their nose in their poop. If more and more people fail to support the Democrat party in favor of the Republicans, all it tells them is that the electorate is further to the right and they need to move that way to steal back votes.

@JeffMurray

I'm not sure where you get the idea that because I've rescinded my support for democrats I must be helping republicans. I won't support either.

The democrats have been sticking our noses in it for some time now and a lot of us are sick of it.

There's only so far right they can go before they leave open too much space on the left and some opportunist will come along and grab those votes. If neither of the two parties will represent us, someone else will. And you'll see the Dems start stepping left.

@RoboGraham If you're a liberal, and have always voted liberal in the past, and now you're not going to vote for the more liberal of the only two options, you are, in effect, helping the Republicans. It's like one of the 11 people on a football team saying they weren't going to help either team while they were on the field.

@RoboGraham So if you lived in the State that just selected a Senate candidate that believes in Q anon and thinks Hillary runs a pedophile ring out of the basement of a Pizza store you would still not Vote for a democrat to help defeat that Republican. Bad things need bad people to start them. Bad things happen also because good people stand aside. An absolutist position is not something a progressive thinking person should ever embrace. I would respectfully ask you review your position, even if it's just to help give Trump a bloody nose in November. Trump energises his Base and relies on apathy from the Left so he can Win. If you don't vote against him you are doing exactly what Trump wants you to do. If you want to help Trump then abstain and let Trump bring out his base. If you get 4 more years of Trump and you do not vote against him in November you have no right to complain about anything Trump does in the future.

@JeffMurray

As a person who is not liberal, I don't really care which of them is more liberal.

I'm not a democrat and I have no responsibility to help them. If they wanted my support, they could have had it but instead they nominated the worst possible option. They lost me and that's on them.

@dermot235

I will be voting against Trump in November. I'll also be voting against Biden because both of them are evil.

I have no way of knowing which of those two will be worse. I assume Trump will be the greater evil which is why I do hope that Biden wins but if he doesn't, well it won't be all that different except that Trump is less effective at doing bad things because people hate him and are ready to resist him whereas, people will feel comfortable with Biden and will probably turn a blind eye as he ruins the country further. And there is the added benefit of the radicalization effect that Trump causes. I've seen friends of mine who were centrists move left in response of Trump so if he gets another term, we may end up with a significant number of full blown socialists like myself, and that's what we need.

In your hypothetical scenario, it would depend on the democrat running against the qnon person. I'm willing to support the progressive democrats but if it's just some standard neoliberal, no way. Fortunately, I'm not in that position because my state is solidly blue and my rep in Congress is the democratic majority leader. He is safe and so are my two democratic senators. My state will vote blue no matter what I do so I can feel free to vote for candidates who actually represent me.

@RoboGraham The means justify the ends. So even if another 4 years of Trump results in another 600,000 Covid19 deaths, it will be worth it to gain more radical voters for the next time? You are starting to sound like a Stalinist.

@dermot235

Lol

Did you not see the part where I said that I hope Biden wins because he is the lesser evil?

If Trump wins, the silver lining will be that more people will become radicalized. I never said I want this, I just acknowledged that it could happen.