triumverate. or as we say in Canadian, "hat-trick"

[the_siobhan]

Dude, this is great. Next topic.

One of my cousins runs a facility for schizophrenic seniors who cannot live unassisted. Last time I saw him he regaled us with the story of the federal government staff who were sent to record the votes of the clients. Apparently Elmer Fudd represented a strong write-in.

There are a group of homeless people who I often encounter on one of the main streets near my house. There is a soup kitchen in the area, a community centre with a needle exchange and a library where they can use the computers. I was standing on the corner waiting for a streetcar and ended up in a long conversation with a couple of them about the municipal election that was taking place that day. Every person who passed by was challenged, "Did you vote! Make sure you go vote!" It was probably the most politically engaged group I've ever met in this country.

A conversation else-net happened where I found out that in some states in the US, not only can prisoners not vote, people with criminal records can't vote. I looked up our rules, and prisoners are specifically instructed that they cast their vote in the riding where they would be living if they were not currently incarcerated. All Canadian citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote. Period.

All of which makes perfect sense to me. How can people who suffer from mental illness, who are homeless, who are incarcerated, expect their rights to be represented unless they can vote?

How does it work where you live? Do you agree or disagree with it?

Comments

[elusis.livejournal.com]

Felons permanently lose their right to vote in most states here. I think it SUCKS, having had a friend who did his time for his felony but remained disenfranchised.

[redcountess]

I'm not sure about prison inmates or the homeless in Australia, where voting is compulsory, but my brother (who has schizophrenia but lives with my mother) is very proud of his right to vote and goes to the polling booth like everyone else despite being eligible for a postal vote, although I'm not sure whether he spoils his ballot.

[marchenland.livejournal.com]

I think ANY continued punishment after one has served their time is wrong. I don't have as much of an issue with people not being able to vote while incarcerated, but that's probably because I'm not aware of any details and haven't thought about it much.

I think in some cases, people can challenge it and have their rights reinstated.

[machineplay.livejournal.com]

I'm in Canada and I agree 100% with our system. Felons are still part of our society. Period. We *want* them to be able to participate. It's important. I think disenfranchising people is a terrible idea.

Mentally ill people should be able to vote (or I might have to start telling religious fundamentalists that they can't vote) and so should the homeless. The whole 'requiring a fixed address' business is bad mojo anyway, at least the way it plays out now.

[fudjo.livejournal.com]

To my dismay, Massachusetts voted in a law prohibiting felons in prison from being able to vote. I'm very bothered by this, as those incarcerated would have no voting voice when laws affecting them - and in particular, their legal/criminal/incarcerated status - are put to a vote.

I also find such laws to be racist, as non-whites tend to have a higher rate of incarceration. Disenfrancising them means that it's harder for those peoples to have a voice, and makes it easier for right-wing racists to establish and maintain power over them.

There's also the basic notion that every adult should have a voting voice in a democracy.

[lee-chaos.livejournal.com]

My opinion is that only people who are aware of what they are voting for should be allowed to vote. Since people only get one vote, and there are a lot of people out there who do not think about where they put the X, and that X is as powerful as my X, I believe there should be means-testing.

WHY you are voting someone should be as relevant as WHO you are voting for.

Just one of my night-thoughts exposed to the light...

[latemodel.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's disgusting. To my surprise, I just found out that non-incarcerated felons get to vote in CA (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/06/BAG9794C5D1.DTL). Who knew? California has a rep for being pretty draconian about law enforcement.

I, too, was appalled when MA passed the law forbidding incarcerated felons from voting. I'm pretty radical when it comes to suffrage; I think the best way to make society work is to enfranchise all adults. I must have taken too much Roman history in high school.

[panic-girl.livejournal.com]

I also find such laws to be racist, as non-whites tend to have a higher rate of incarceration. Disenfrancising them means that it's harder for those peoples to have a voice, and makes it easier for right-wing racists to establish and maintain power over them.
Agreed.

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

It's not necessarily permanent, actually. There is a process for re-establishment of voting rights. In some places it's needlessly cumbersome. In others it's very simple. (CA has a very easy process of petition, NV does not, for example).

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

The Homeless can vote in the US. They only need to provide a common address. That address can be corner of Main and 3rd or the address of a shelter.

The reason that an address is required is so that people don't register to vote as 'homeless' in multiple precincts. The idea is that if anyone questioned the balloting, someone could conceivably locate the registrant, whether it's at a home address or a common place of habituation. Even if they don't find the voter, per se, they can inquire others as to whether or not this is a real person who may have voted.

[kat1031.livejournal.com]

I agree with the homeless (who can vote in the US) and the mentally ill who are self-sufficient. If they can take care of their needs, they have the mental ability to make as informed a choice as the average voter.

I go back and forth on those who are hospitalized. How much influence is there from caregivers or poll workers? Are those voters really "voting" in any sense other than the manual act?

I believe in restoration of civil rights to felons. If they aren't rehabilitated, they should still be in prison. If they're out of prison, they're just like anyone else (1).

I don't believe that incarcerated persons should vote. They are in prison because they violated the social contract. That works both ways - civil society is rights and responsibilities and you can't have one without the other.

(1) I'm okay with felons convicted of violent crimes being prohibited from weapons licenses. I know that most guns used in crime are unregistered or stolen, but still. You already committed an act of violence, I don't approve the bang-stick.

[inulro.livejournal.com]

I could have sworn that when we did "how the Canadian political system works" in elementary school we were told that people in prison can't vote. Am I wrong, or has it changed?

[popecrunch.livejournal.com]

The way I see it if you're over 18 you should be voting, period. I don't feel that compulsory voting is the answer but if you don't exercise your right to vote then you're a varying degree of a shithead depending on what was being voted for - to wit, if you blow off a presidential election, you are an immense shithead, but if you blow off county dogcatcher elections, that's not really a big deal but you probably should consider more involvement in local affairs.

Sure people who blow holes in others or rape people or blow holes in others and then rape the holes have violated the social contract - but they are still US citizens and still being affected by government, so it is only fair that they should have their fair say in its choosing. Hell, what with the legally required law libraries, I'd be willing to bet a dollar or two that your average inmate knows more about how the government works on at least some level then Joe Fuckstick bopping down the sidewalk, social contract be damned.

I've always wondered why people who approve of removal of voting rights from prisoners have those beliefs - yes, they violate the social contract, but what else? I violate the social contract on a daily basis and I'm positive most if not all of you do too - I speed, I download movies and music I don't have any legal claim to, hell, sometimes I park in the parents with children spots at the grocery store when the kid isn't in the car (mainly because I think that whole concept is FUCKING RETARDED). Shit, I'm doing it now: My LJ icon is a frame from a video game that I don't have a legal right to use. So the 'social contract' argument isn't exactly IRONCLAD DEBATING.

[girfan.livejournal.com]

I've voted in every election since I was 18. I no longer vote in most local (where I used to live in Chicago) elections, though I am still sent a form to vote for an alderman! I do vote in every presidential election, though I have to do it as an absentee voter (and have no idea if my vote gets counted...at least not in the past 2 elections).

Even if I become a UK citizen, I will still be able to vote in US elections. Just because I don't live there anymore doesn't mean that as an American I can't vote.

I've never taken voting for granted and am glad to see that Canadians are able to participate.

[excess-and-oohs.livejournal.com]

there are plenty of smart mentally ill, homeless and incarcerated people in the world. it's disturbing that anyone would petition for their right to vote to be taken away.

[unagothae.livejournal.com]

My brother is developmentally disabled, so his understanding of things is limited. He votes because he cares. Even though he usually agrees with my mom because she's the one who taught him how things should be, he thinks for himself well enough to disagree if she thinks she shouldn't be taxed for something, but he thinks the tax would be good for what it's established for.

For a long time, I was of the opinion that the only vote worth anything was a vote that was well-informed about the issue and possible outcomes and over all effects on everything. Now, I think it's good for everybody to have a voice, even if it's an uninformed voice directed by the media or name recognition.

People who are motivated enough to vote care enough about the system to have opinions about issues that affect them, and even some of the issues that don't. Who is in a position to pass judgment on what makes those opinions "valuable" or "worthless"? My brother isn't as smart as me, but he tends to be more well-informed than me just because he watches the news and asks for my opinion/explanation for things he isn't sure about. I have strong opinions on issues I'm infomed about, but I usually have to ask my mom what's going on with local initiatives because the political scene around here is kinda screwy.

I was more well-informed about the issues in Vancouver because I had been planning to live there and had given up on voting here because I didn't want to declare a party affiliation and be locked into voting for only members of that party (it's a WA state thing that makes me feel I don't really get to choose who I vote for.)

It's easy to say that votes like mine or votes like my brother's screw up the results, but that's the opinion of the people who disagree with our opinions about how things should be run and what would be the best ways to respond to the issues. I'm glad those people don't have the authority to take away our voices because that would made this other than a democracy.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

If you are declared incompetent enough that you are committed against your will, you're not competent to vote in an election. One can hardly make the argument that someone who cannot make basic life decisions or cannot tell the difference between right and wrong should be voting.

And
If you are convicted of a felony (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-felony.html), you have violated the major rules of society therefore you loose many of the privileges of being a citizen, right to vote, right to posses and own firearms, etc. This is based from English Common Law principles where you lost land, your right to life in some cases and other privileges of your station. In the US with everyone equal, you don't loose property (writ of attainder) you loose certain privileges but your property (less fines, etc) can be handed down to your heirs. Penalties are NOT to be handed down to one's heirs either.

Now, that said, Felons may petition their state governor, under a very old and traditional system, to have their rights restored. IT still goes on today and it's tough but one expects that it should be. You're attempting to prove that you're a contributing member of society and fully trustworthy. Finishing your term of imprisonment doesn't automatically equate to that. Parole from incarceration doesn't either.

If you make the argument that felons SHOULD have a right to vote because there are many lesser crimes which are felonies, then you either need to create a class of serious crimes which ARE clearly in the original class as felonies (rape, murder, arson, theft, etc) OR you need to modify a lot of laws such that the non violent felonies of possessory laws or other such crimes are moderated down to misdemeanors with stiffer fines and a 1 year or less prison term. Naturally those who are concerned about the "too many felons are disenfranchised *wirings hands*" aren't interested in modifying the criminal code, but rather just buying votes. I say this because many of those are the same legislators who look to enact VERY Stiff crimes and a felony appellation for otherwise minor, administrative or non-felony class crimes.

Under the old system of English Common law justice, if you were a felon, you weren't typically trusted to walk around in society, so the concept of stripping their other rights wasn't a big deal because you'd already stripped their freedom for a period of more than a YEAR. You typically also didn't see felons re-committing an offense and then getting PAroled again. IF you were paroled, you were giving your world not to re-commit any crimes. A second conviction very much meant a death sentence.

Im sure the kinder gentler criminal justice system which coddles violent felons makes us all the 'safer' for it.

[caspervonb.livejournal.com]

The idea of preventing people from voting is patently ridiculous.

You can't question why a person decides to vote for someone without going full speed ahead down the slippery slope of fucked up fascism and the death of democracy.

It kills the entire point of having the choice in the first place. In much the same way, you can't take away peoples' right to vote because you disagree with them or because they're jerks. Or are criminals.

(I have a completely baseless hypothesis that the reason to prevent criminals from voting is to prevent decriminalization. If a significant chunk of people are in jail for something like, say, having been caught with a joint, then they could potentially get their shit together and legalize.)

If you can't question why someone votes, then that includes voting for someone because the voices under your bed told you to.

As a tangent, my vote is meaningless. I'm in Duceppe's district and there's no way he's getting ousted. So my vote serves no purpose whatsoever. Kinda depressing.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

They aren't allowed to provide an address that the voting-registry office thinks is not a residential address. When my grad-school classmate was living in his office and showering in the school gym, they wouldn't let him give his office address. If he wanted to vote, they said, he needed to write down the address of Faith Mission shelter, whether or not he had ever been there.

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

I did more looking around, and it seems like it's been going back and forth for a while.

http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/PUB/A4.htm#NMA

So jail, yes. Federal prisons, maybe.

[hobbitbabe.livejournal.com]

When I was a scrutineer in a suburban polling station, there was a rush around 5:30 and another rush after supper.

This time, I was in a slightly-north-of-downtown polling station. The rush came right after the $1-lunch place finished serving, and many of the voters came with their bags of day-old baked goods.

[popecrunch.livejournal.com]

Aha: You said yourself that you lose privileges. Voting is a right, not a privilege, and the distinction is important. As far as losing the right to own firearms, that is because firearms can be used to kill people, but I think even MacGyver would have trouble fashioning the right to vote into a weapon.

[montieth.livejournal.com]

I generally agree with you, just to add however:

If they're not trustworthy enough to vote, own firearms, live near a bus stop or walk by a park where kids play because of past offenses, they're not trustworthy enough to be walking around free. If you're not competent to live on your own (decision making skills here, not physical impairment) and have to be put into a mental hospital by others, you're probably not qualified to vote for office.

I feel less strongly about the mentally impaired as compared to Felonies. Felony means loss of rights in the US. A great many rights. Vote, freedom, bear arms, obligation to serve in the military, hold office, etc. It used to be related to a heinous crime.

There are TOO many crimes which are felonies now but have really moderate or no victim. Perhaps there needs to be a definitive "forcible felony" crime which is what causes a loss of rights. But if you're going to incarcerate someone for a period of more than a YEAR (the benchmark of what makes a felony in the US) you're already stripping that person of a VERY basic right, that is of their basic freedom.

"I don't believe that incarcerated persons should vote. They are in prison because they violated the social contract. That works both ways - civil society is rights and responsibilities and you can't have one without the other.

I heartily agree here. Those others that believe this is NOT the case are full of it. You're going to argue that a prisoner who you've stuck in a room for a significant portion of his life because he SERIOUSLY violated social contracts still should have enough trust to help you elect your government? No sorry, that doesn't work at all logically.

If I recall correctly, something like 98% of the violent crimes in the US are committed by 2-3% of the criminal population because they keep coming back out.

Fraise Fronfrif!

[mr-sharkey.livejournal.com]

Damn Canada for being soft on crime - and the infirm! No wonder we've grown soft, spoiling ourselves with jobs and education. We need a return to Family Values - culling of the weak, and constant testing of the strong. By letting convicted criminals and the infirm vote, all you'll get are reasonable laws, effective treatment / rehabilitation programs and socialized health care. We need more character - and you know what builds character, don't you? That's right - Conflict! Praise Conflict!

Sorry - got a little distracted there. Ahem.


M. ("And if I am elected.. ")

[the-siobhan.livejournal.com]

Lots of people who are incapable of living unassisted are able to understand the implications of voting. Where do you draw the line on whether somebody has the mental capacity to vote? Who gets to decide?

I find it interesting that there is mention of the social contract. Part of the social contract - AFAIAC - is the part where we look after the needier parts of society. Elected officials who slash spending on social programs violate the social contract. Maybe I can lobby to have their voting rights suspended?