Donald Trump - GUILTY!

[Maticmaker]

Three more examples (that others can correct/supplement as required).

States may ask for proof of identification to be able to vote. Republicans have been amping up these laws to try and make it more difficult for minorities to vote (e.g., poor Black are likely to vote for the Democrats but unlikely to possess certain types of ID).

Also, stopping people who are in prison or who have open fines from voting. Another thing that Republicans have realized hinders the Democrats more than them.

Finally, gerrymandering kinda fits here as well. It's the practice where state legislators create voting districts that are better for their party by creating oddly shaped districts that group people leaning one way together, so that party wins that one district by a huge margin and loses multiple other districts by a slight margin. (Basically they're maximizing the productivity of their voters.) Again something that Republicans have done predominantly.

Thank you for your response, much appreciated.

require proof of Identification...surely for voting purposes that's a given anywhere in the world? I suppose if the documents used for such proof were restricted, e.g. only passports or drivers licence, then that would mitigate against certain groups, especially those who are poor or disadvantage in some way e.g. are unemployed or on low wages.

in prison or have not paid their fines ... does seem a bit draconian, but to be honest I'm not sure if it also applies in the UK as well? I suppose there is an argument that says if you are outside the law then you cannot participate in voting until you are back inside the law.

gerrymandering ... this in one form or another is as old as the voting system itself, almost everywhere in the world; but in the US if every State is doing its 'own thing' on this then it follows there must be unfairness somewhere along the line ending up with... "its the rich that get the benefit and the poor that get the blame".

 

[NotworkSte]

gerrymandering ... this in one form or another is as old as the voting system itself, almost everywhere in the world; but in the US if every State is doing its 'own thing' on this then it follows there must be unfairness somewhere along the line ending up with... "its the rich that get the benefit and the poor that get the blame".

The gerrymandering is carried out on both sides, but predominantly by the GOP. On saying that, anyone can bring out a "but here is an example..."
So let's take Florida. Florida is supposed to be a purple state, but it really isn't. It's been trending Red for some time. This red trend doesn't often actually reflect the voting population in Florida though. And it is an important state because in Presidential elections it carries 29 EC votes.

Florida has the following
Registered Rep - 5,217,000
Registered Dem - 5,249,000
Unaffiliated - 3,830,000

DeSantis won Governorship by a 0.4% margin. Rick Scott won Governorship by 1% margins.
Trump carried the state twice by 1% over H Clinton and approx 5% over Biden (this margin might be an outlier, unless DeSantis runs in 2024)

The Florida congress however, paints a very different story.
Senate 24R v 16D
House 74R v 42D
The GOP have a wide margin in Florida congress and as a result drive politics at the state level despite an almost even split in registered voters. There is a saying, politics is local. The the GOP, while technically being a minority party in the state, has locked up state politics by a wide margin. And they are using this to their advantage.

Last point here is voter disenfranchisement. Florida actually has relief to restore voting rights, but fights really hard to continue to deny people their rights. This is estimated to affect around 20% of the black population. Various tactics such as "war on drugs" and disproportionate legal handling of crimes and sentences compared to demographic makeup etc. The GOP tactic is, don't let people vote. The more they can disenfranchise (criminal rehabilitation, gerrymandering) the easier it is for them to do this. And politics is local. The GOP has a lock in Florida at a local level. There is one powerful D in Florida called Nikki Fried who won state wide election and DeSantis refuses to even talk to her.

Funny thing about Fried, she is agricultural commissioner. Part of her mandate is oversight of conceal weapon permits. Her agency has been revoking the permits of those involve in the DC Insurrections, much to the anger of the GOP.

 

[nimic]

in prison or have not paid their fines ... does seem a bit draconian, but to be honest I'm not sure if it also applies in the UK as well? I suppose there is an argument that says if you are outside the law then you cannot participate in voting until you are back inside the law.

The issue is that it creates an incentive to imprison or fine certain groups based on their political preferences. Strong forces in the GOP are, and always have been, absolutely clear on their pragmatic approach to suffrage: the fewer people that vote, the better for us, and even more so if they are the wrong sort.

The sole punishment in a decent correctional system should be to deprive someone of their liberty. Anything else is not only ethically questionable, it's counter-productive.

 

[WI_Red]

The gerrymandering is carried out on both sides, but predominantly by the GOP. On saying that, anyone can bring out a "but here is an example..."
So let's take Florida. Florida is supposed to be a purple state, but it really isn't. It's been trending Red for some time. This red trend doesn't often actually reflect the voting population in Florida though. And it is an important state because in Presidential elections it carries 29 EC votes.

Florida has the following
Registered Rep - 5,217,000
Registered Dem - 5,249,000
Unaffiliated - 3,830,000

DeSantis won Governorship by a 0.4% margin. Rick Scott won Governorship by 1% margins.
Trump carried the state twice by 1% over H Clinton and approx 5% over Biden (this margin might be an outlier, unless DeSantis runs in 2024)

The Florida congress however, paints a very different story.
Senate 24R v 16D
House 74R v 42D
The GOP have a wide margin in Florida congress and as a result drive politics at the state level despite an almost even split in registered voters. There is a saying, politics is local. The the GOP, while technically being a minority party in the state, has locked up state politics by a wide margin. And they are using this to their advantage.

Last point here is voter disenfranchisement. Florida actually has relief to restore voting rights, but fights really hard to continue to deny people their rights. This is estimated to affect around 20% of the black population. Various tactics such as "war on drugs" and disproportionate legal handling of crimes and sentences compared to demographic makeup etc. The GOP tactic is, don't let people vote. The more they can disenfranchise (criminal rehabilitation, gerrymandering) the easier it is for them to do this. And politics is local. The GOP has a lock in Florida at a local level. There is one powerful D in Florida called Nikki Fried who won state wide election and DeSantis refuses to even talk to her.

Funny thing about Fried, she is agricultural commissioner. Part of her mandate is oversight of conceal weapon permits. Her agency has been revoking the permits of those involve in the DC Insurrections, much to the anger of the GOP.

Same here in WI. Biden won the state and every statewide office is held by a democrat, however the state legislature is 62% Republican. They saw this coming when Walker lost to Evers and spent his lame duck period stripping the governor of every power they could.....and Walker signed every bill happily that stripped his office of power.

 

[Maticmaker]

The issue is that it creates an incentive to imprison or fine certain groups based on their political preferences. Strong forces in the GOP are, and always have been, absolutely clear on their pragmatic approach to suffrage: the fewer people that vote, the better for us, and even more so if they are the wrong sort.

The sole punishment in a decent correctional system should be to deprive someone of their liberty. Anything else is not only ethically questionable, it's counter-productive.

-political preferences-
TBH this seems improbable to me, but to be fair some of the things that your colleague have told me can/may happen in the US then its not perhaps a surprise; but surely if someone is found guilty of a crime where the punishment is a prison term, would it matter what their political preferences are and who would know anyway? Within the guidelines laid down (State or Federal) judges surely have to back their sentencing strategy with specific issues, or are you saying certain judges would say add extra time to a sentence because they found out the political affiliations of the accused?

-sole punishment-
I think you might get an argument on that matter, many people believe that those who put themselves outside, or believe they are above the law, should not be allowed to participate in voting and other civic matters until they are reconciled within the law once again. It all depends, I suppose, on how you view the prison system, is it a 'correctional tool' or is it a punishment of 'deprivation,' i.e. removing those found guilty of crimes against their fellow citizens from normal citizenship freedoms? This seems to be one of the major problems, not just in the USA but around the world. Those who see it as a means of correction/rehabilitation would argue is not working, similarly those who believe it removes offenders from the streets, also think its not working, but for different reasons.

 

[Cheimoon]

Thank you for your response, much appreciated.

require proof of Identification...surely for voting purposes that's a given anywhere in the world? I suppose if the documents used for such proof were restricted, e.g. only passports or drivers licence, then that would mitigate against certain groups, especially those who are poor or disadvantage in some way e.g. are unemployed or on low wages.

The question is what kind of ID is required. For example, it could be considered enough to ID yourself if you bring a recent bill with your name and address, or otherwise any kind of ID that everyone gets for free (a health card, if US states have those). The moment you switch to IDs that not everybody needs that you have to pay for, it becomes more restrictive. Maybe someone from the US can provide specific examples of what's at issue here exactly.

in prison or have not paid their fines ... does seem a bit draconian, but to be honest I'm not sure if it also applies in the UK as well? I suppose there is an argument that says if you are outside the law then you cannot participate in voting until you are back inside the law.

To my mind, it doesn't make much sense if your status in the law affects your ability to vote. You're a citizen either way, and no criminal punishment states that you lose certain aspects of your rights as a citizen while in prison or while you haven't paid a fine. This applies especially to the US, since imprisonment percentages are very high due to draconian laws - like the three-strikes stuff. So people end up in jail for very minor offenses. Also, minorities are heavily overrepresented in US jails and generally tend to favour the Democrats.

In general, it's also the principle at play here. For a society to be truly democratic, you want to have maximum participation in electoral processes. All these voter laws serve to accomplish the opposite, are mostly enacted by one party, and mostly affect the other party. That makes the intent pretty obvious. (These laws are usually defended as attempts to ensure the legality of voting; but there is barely any evidence of widespread fraud, so that argument makes no actual sense.)

I'll also add that the above all applies to the US, of course. I'm not talking about any other countries here.

gerrymandering.

.. this in one form or another is as old as the voting system itself, almost everywhere in the world; but in the US if every State is doing its 'own thing' on this then it follows there must be unfairness somewhere along the line ending up with... "its the rich that get the benefit and the poor that get the blame".

I didn't think this was very common internationally, but the Wikipedia article on the subject has corrected me on that matter. Compared to the international examples given there though, the US case does seem more extreme. There are a couple of examples here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

And here are two of them that I found particularly insane:

4th congressional district of Illinois:

Maryland's 3rd congressional district:

 

[nimic]

-political preferences-
TBH this seems improbable to me, but to be fair some of the things that your colleague have told me can/may happen in the US then its not perhaps a surprise; but surely if someone is found guilty of a crime where the punishment is a prison term, would it matter what their political preferences are and who would know anyway? Within the guidelines laid down (State or Federal) judges surely have to back their sentencing strategy with specific issues, or are you saying certain judges would say add extra time to a sentence because they found out the political affiliations of the accused?

You're thinking about it the wrong way around. I am not talking about individuals who are jailed by the nefarious judge who figures out that they vote Democrat. I am talking about the legislature (which is increasingly controlled by the Republicans in many states, despite the fact that they are in a minority nationally, and also in many of the states they control) creating laws that target specific groups, because they know that those groups statistically skew Democrat in their voting intentions.

For example, there are many more young black men than middle aged white men in prison for low-level, non-violent drug offences. If you make sure nobody who has a drug conviction is allowed to vote, then you hit more potential Democratic voters than Republican voters, given that you know that young black men are more likely to vote Democratic than middle aged white men. Now, what if you did the same, except with corporate fraud? Then you would hit those white men much more than black men. Is getting caught with a bit of weed worse than fraud?

It's would be the same with laws that limit your suffrage if you have outstanding fines. Black people are statistically poorer than white people, and poor people are less likely to be able to pay their fines in a timely manner.

These are just examples, there are many more possibilities. Not all of them involve race, obviously, but sadly in the US it often comes to that.

 

[Maticmaker]

The question is what kind of ID is required.

Once again thanks for your reply

Yes, I understand this aspect, if types of ID required are limited, then specific groups could be disadvantaged. However, is this decision on what constitutes 'officially' accepted ID, a definition defined by State laws or by a Federal definition?

To my mind, it doesn't make much sense if your status in the law affects your ability to vote.

Again I understand your viewpoint, but I think I would disagree. Anyone who finds themselves outside the law, in the sense of being found guilty of a crime where the defined punishment is a jail term, then I would support their citizenship rights, such as voting, should be suspended until they are released. Not sure I would make the same argument for non-payment of fines, because as you point out some people are better able to pay their fines off quickly, whilst for others it would be much more difficult.

For a society to be truly democratic, you want to have maximum participation in electoral processes.

Perhaps naively I have always believed that was one of the major benefit of (countries like the USA) having an unchangeable written constitution?
The only exception that I would approve, was as above, if someone puts themselves outside the law through their criminal activity, then they should sacrifice that right to vote, until their debt to their fellow citizens is paid.

And here are two of them that I found particularly insane:

Yes, these do seem ridiculous. What rights do the people living in these districts in Illinois and Maryland have to question this and the reasons given for such a juxtaposition?

 

[Maticmaker]

You're thinking about it the wrong way around.

Thanks for your reply.
OK, I see I had hold of the wrong end of the stick originally.

So, if I understand this correctly certain state legislature, predominantly Republican, are differentiating either on what constitutes a crime in the first place, e.g. making up laws on the hoof, specifically to target certain groups, or on what constitutes a crime that attracts a prison term, and those crimes that don't?
How do they get away with this, surely there is some appeal process, initially within the State's own procedures or ultimately to federal lawmakers in Washington?

Forgive me if these questions seem naive I obviously don't live in the US and can only go off the transatlantic news (fake or otherwise!)

Once again thanks for your indulgence.

 

[Maagge]

Yes, I understand this aspect, if types of ID required are limited, then specific groups could be disadvantaged. However, is this decision on what constitutes 'officially' accepted ID, a definition defined by State laws or by a Federal definition?

Yes that would be a state level thing. I'm currently listening to a podcast @nimic I think recommended on here (Scene on Radio, season 4) and they had a pretty striking example of this. I can't remember the state, but the crux of the matter was that they made it so a gun licence (or whatever those are called) was legitimate ID but student ID wasn't. White rural voters will most likely have a gun licence and will most likely vote republican so now they don't have to jump through extra hoops to vote. Conversely students are likely to live in urban areas and vote democrat and now they need to get a different type of ID. It might not be impossible but a slightly higher barrier of entry means some people won't vote for this or that reason. Small margins matter.
Last Week Tonight had an example at one point, where the only time the place that hand out IDs was open was on the fifth Thursday of a month. It's just laughably anti-democratic.

Great podcast, by the way.

 

[nimic]

To be clear @Maticmaker, I don't actually know if there are any states that take away voting rights based on drug offences specifically. It was more an example of something that could be done. Though if you take that particular argument one step further, you get a situation where many more young black men are imprisoned because of drug offences than young white men, even though drug use is fairly similar in those two groups*. Obviously then you're getting into themes like what the police focus on, not always necessarily what legislatures do, but the effect is the same.

You're right to be baffled that stuff like this could even happen. Sometimes the justice system does strike it down, so it's not like all judges in Republican-controlled states are "in on it". The American right have been much better than the American left at organizing and planning for the future, though, so there's a decades-long concerted push by groups on the right to control state and federal legislatures and get their own judges appointed. This goes all the way to the top, which is evidenced by the fact that all the Conservative judges on the US Supreme Court are members of the Federalist Society.

* Here's a fairly old source, but the numbers shouldn't have changed significantly. I cut off the scale, but it's like 6.5% and 7%.

 

[nimic]

I'll add another example that has everything to do with targeting specific groups. One of the reasons the suburbs have been overwhelmingly white is that they were specifically designed that way. Often by the groups building and selling these houses, but also in many cases as specific government policy.

There are many good articles out there, but here's a useful video:




Edit: John Oliver did a segment on it on Last Week Tonight recently, if you're into him:

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It’s absolutely insane that millions of people in many countries vote for parties that aggressively attempt to deny people the ability to vote.

That it’s normally the ‘Free speech’ party that does this is even more on the nose.

Like, how do you get across that as a person. Vote for a party that’s silencing people, at the same time you’re screaming about free speech.

 

[Raoul]

It’s absolutely insane that millions of people in many countries vote for parties that aggressively attempt to deny people the ability to vote.

That it’s normally the ‘Free speech’ party that does this is even more on the nose.

Like, how do you get across that as a person. Vote for a party that’s silencing people, at the same time you’re screaming about free speech.

Its not so surprising when you learn the party seeking to limit voting access can't win future elections without doing so.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

Its not so surprising when you learn the party seeking to limit voting access can't win future elections without doing so.

Oh I get that. I’m commenting on the headspace of citizens. Knowingly voting for a party that strips rights.

 

[Dr. StrangeHate]

It’s absolutely insane that millions of people in many countries vote for parties that aggressively attempt to deny people the ability to vote.

That it’s normally the ‘Free speech’ party that does this is even more on the nose.

Like, how do you get across that as a person. Vote for a party that’s silencing people, at the same time you’re screaming about free speech.

The key point is that when they are screaming about free speech, they are screaming about their free speech not anybody else's.

 

[Rado_N]

It’s absolutely insane that millions of people in many countries vote for parties that aggressively attempt to deny people the ability to vote.

That it’s normally the ‘Free speech’ party that does this is even more on the nose.

Like, how do you get across that as a person. Vote for a party that’s silencing people, at the same time you’re screaming about free speech.

They don’t consider the silenced parties to be “people” the same as them.

 

[WI_Red]

They don’t consider the silenced parties to be “people” the same as them.

Which is ironic to anyone who has spent any time in the rural deep south amongst "them".

 

[Jericholyte2]

I'll add another example that has everything to do with targeting specific groups. One of the reasons the suburbs have been overwhelmingly white is that they were specifically designed that way. Often by the groups building and selling these houses, but also in many cases as specific government policy.

There are many good articles out there, but here's a useful video:




Edit: John Oliver did a segment on it on Last Week Tonight recently, if you're into him:

John Oliver did this weeks episode of Last Week Tonight about the topic of housing segregation that gives several examples of attempts to segregate the suburbs. Very good watch.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Raoul]

Hard to read that without using his voice in your mind

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

They lost to Canada. He must be dying inside.

 

[Pexbo]

Hard to read that without using his voice in your mind

I generally read his writing in Alec Baldwin’s voice for some reason.

 

[The Firestarter]

If men basket team win gold on Sat, will it be because they're not woke?

 

[WI_Red]

If men basket team win gold on Sat, will it be because they're not woke?

Are you seriously suggesting there should be consistency in any santorum that comes out of his mouth?
—my goal is to make this term move into the mainstream

 

[nimic]

Are you seriously suggesting there should be consistency in any santorum that comes out of his mouth?
—my goal is to make this term move into the mainstream

My dude, you're about 18 years too late.

 

[WI_Red]

My dude, you're about 18 years too late.

Never too late to dump santorum all over Santorum

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

My dude, you're about 18 years too late.

Twenty, really, as I recall. FFS I am old.

 

[DavidDeSchmikes]

the woman with the purple hair

 

[Raoul]

the woman with the purple hair

...said the Orange man

 

[Maticmaker]

@nimic, @Cheimoon, @NotworkSte, @Maagge, @Wl_Red and all who have responded to my initial questions, many thanks.

It started as just 'a question' for clarification, but what you have told me certainly makes me think that long held (personal) views of how a country held up as a bastion of the Free operates its internal politics, needs to be re-set.
Thanks once again

 

[MrMarcello]

Oh I get that. I’m commenting on the headspace of citizens. Knowingly voting for a party that strips rights.

It's not their rights though, it's the other.

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

It's not their rights though, it's the other.

But it’s not. It’s their rights. Albeit of a different pigment.

 

[nimic]

@nimic, @Cheimoon, @NotworkSte, @Maagge, @Wl_Red and all who have responded to my initial questions, many thanks.

It started as just 'a question' for clarification, but what you have told me certainly makes me think that long held (personal) views of how a country held up as a bastion of the Free operates its internal politics, needs to be re-set.
Thanks once again

No problem, it's always nice to see people show a genuine interest in knowing more.

 

[Cheimoon]

Yes, I understand this aspect, if types of ID required are limited, then specific groups could be disadvantaged. However, is this decision on what constitutes 'officially' accepted ID, a definition defined by State laws or by a Federal definition?

I am glad @nimic followed up on this, as I always forget these details. Just to add that these sort of things are generally all decided at the state level. As someone pointed out above, in principle, a state could even decide that its parliament decides on outcomes of federal elections - just as an indication of the sort of leeway they have.

Some federal regulation must be possible: an attempt by the Democrats to stop/limit gerrymandering just stranded in the US Senate. I am not sure how that works exactly though.

Again I understand your viewpoint, but I think I would disagree. Anyone who finds themselves outside the law, in the sense of being found guilty of a crime where the defined punishment is a jail term, then I would support their citizenship rights, such as voting, should be suspended until they are released. Not sure I would make the same argument for non-payment of fines, because as you point out some people are better able to pay their fines off quickly, whilst for others it would be much more difficult.

Yeah, I realized when I wrote that that it strays into the territory of personal opinion. I would say, though, that I do think it should be a factor that its extremely easy to end up in prison in the US (compared to, say, other OECD countries), and this affects minorities very strongly. There is some data on that here (based on a quick search; there are probably more comprehensive sources out there):

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/incarceration-rates-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender-in-the-u-s.html

In this situation, the discussion becomes more complex, I think. But that's probably for another time.

Perhaps naively I have always believed that was one of the major benefit of (countries like the USA) having an unchangeable written constitution?

It depends on what's in the constitution, of course. Obviously, for example, the amendment on gun ownership hasn't helped the US in the slightest. It also doesn't help the US that some of the procedures that are defined in the constitution are inherently unfair and/or racist. See for example these two articles, which explain how Black people counted for less (3/5) in the design of the system, and how southern states were advantaged:

https://www.thoughtco.com/three-fifths-compromise-4588466
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/electoral-colleges-racist-origins

The constitution also leads to a situation where there is a 50-50 split in the Senate between Republican and Democratic Senators, but the latter represent 41.5 million more people than the latter:

https://www.vox.com/2020/11/6/21550...0-million-democrats-republicans-supreme-court

So I would say that an unchangeable constitution is only as advantageous as its contents are - putting the US effectively at a serious disadvantage. (The US constitution is not actually unchangeable of course, although it is in practice due to the numbers required for change and the unlikelihood to get those due to political polarization.)

Yes, these do seem ridiculous. What rights do the people living in these districts in Illinois and Maryland have to question this and the reasons given for such a juxtaposition?

Little, I think. Voting another party into power is the main thing, but that's what gerrymandering is intended to make hard, of course. I know legal proceedings have been tried, but if I remember correctly, they have narrowly failed at the US Supreme Court so far.

 

[WI_Red]

No problem, it's always nice to see people show a genuine interest in knowing more.

 

[Cheimoon]

@nimic, @Cheimoon, @NotworkSte, @Maagge, @Wl_Red and all who have responded to my initial questions, many thanks.

It started as just 'a question' for clarification, but what you have told me certainly makes me think that long held (personal) views of how a country held up as a bastion of the Free operates its internal politics, needs to be re-set.
Thanks once again

You're welcome! And discussing this has also made me learn more; these conversations are always interesting.

And time-consuming, for that matter. I started my post earlier this morning and have been writing it in bits of pieces. I didn't see you had written this in the meantime.

 

[WI_Red]

I would disagree with the idea that people in prisons should lose their right to vote. While they have given up some of their Constitutional rights in the name of punishment/public safety they do not give all of them up. Prisoners still enjoy other Constitutional rights, so denying them the right to vote seems to me to be a step too far. They have not given up their citizenship, and furthermore, there are often ballot provisions that directly affect them. Even if someone disagrees with that I would hope that we could all agree that withholding the right to vote because a person, who has completely served their term, can not pay fines is a bridge too far.

Little, I think. Voting another party into power is the main thing, but that's what gerrymandering is intended to make hard, of course. I know legal proceedings have been tried, but if I remember correctly, they have narrowly failed at the US Supreme Court so far.

Correct. The SC has basically said that under the Constitution that partisan gerrymandering is fine, and if you don't think it's fine then Congress needs to fix it. Especially with the current court construction we are not going to see a judicial remedy.

 

[nimic]

I would disagree with the idea that people in prisons should lose their right to vote. While they have given up some of their Constitutional rights in the name of punishment/public safety they do not give all of them up. Prisoners still enjoy other Constitutional rights, so denying them the right to vote seems to me to be a step too far. They have not given up their citizenship, and furthermore, there are often ballot provisions that directly affect them. Even if someone disagrees with that I would hope that we could all agree that withholding the right to vote because a person, who has completely served their term, can not pay fines is a bridge too far.

Fun fact: this is exactly how it works in Norway. The only thing you lose by being in prison is your liberty, your freedom to go where you want and do what you want. You still have the right to vote, the right to an education, etc. This is why a defining principle of the Norwegian correctional system is "normality", meaning that everything is supposed to resemble outside life as far as possible.

Spoiler: Some interesting videos (if you're interested in this sort of thing)

(<- half-way through this one you get a sequence where some American prisoners are asked to "design" a dream prison by the Norwegian warden, it's very insightful).

Another fun fact: never mind voting while in prison, the American socialist Eugene Debs ran for President while in prison. He only got 3.4% of the vote, but that's not so bad for a third-party candidate campaigning from prison as a socialist during the first Red Scare.

 

[Cheimoon]

I would disagree with the idea that people in prisons should lose their right to vote. While they have given up some of their Constitutional rights in the name of punishment/public safety they do not give all of them up. Prisoners still enjoy other Constitutional rights, so denying them the right to vote seems to me to be a step too far. They have not given up their citizenship, and furthermore, there are often ballot provisions that directly affect them. Even if someone disagrees with that I would hope that we could all agree that withholding the right to vote because a person, who has completely served their term, can not pay fines is a bridge too far.

Fun fact: this is exactly how it works in Norway. The only thing you lose by being in prison is your liberty, your freedom to go where you want and do what you want. You still have the right to vote, the right to an education, etc. This is why a defining principle of the Norwegian correctional system is "normality", meaning that everything is supposed to resemble outside life as far as possible.

Spoiler: Some interesting videos (if you're interested in this sort of thing)

(<- half-way through this one you get a sequence where some American prisoners are asked to "design" a dream prison by the Norwegian warden, it's very insightful).

Another fun fact: never mind voting while in prison, the American socialist Eugene Debs ran for President while in prison. He only got 3.4% of the vote, but that's not so bad for a third-party candidate campaigning from prison as a socialist during the first Red Scare.

I'll just add here that I agree with these notions. I was just staying out of that aspect in what's otherwise a pretty factual conversation.

Also, isn't the Norwegian correctional service one of the most successful in the world in terms of (a lack of) recidivism etc? (And the US system one of the worst, at least among OECD countries?) Norway is certainly often used as an example of a good system in the Netherlands.