• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More than 1 million Floridians with felony convictions get back their right to vote today

Taylor said:
I've already provided several. Here's another... removing the age requirement would be great for Democracy, but not great for the country.
Click to expand...

Which posts did you provide those examples in?
 
Cardinal said:
Now if Florida adopted automatic voter registration that would be even better.
Click to expand...
As an aside, I was with the NY Governor the other night. Since the new legislature is controlled by the Dems, he said he will pass early voting laws.
 
Cardinal said:
Why?

.....
Click to expand...
Why would a convicted felon better serve the community if they were able to vote? And why would a sexual offender not be able to better serve the community in this same capacity?
 
jdog21 said:
Why would a convicted felon better serve the community if they were able to vote? And why would a sexual offender not be able to better serve the community in this same capacity?
Click to expand...

You're attempting to emotionalize the issue by conflating voting with crimes they may have committed. A better question is: Why shouldn't people who've served their time not be allowed to vote?
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Really, all I saw you do was ask very stupid questions that made everyone believe you have idea what the words democracy or representative government even means.
Click to expand...
Maybe you want to answer them.
 
Taylor said:
The ones where I say, "would be great for democracy, but"
Click to expand...

Such as removing the voting age limit, because...that's a thing people are arguing for? You're not making any sense. And you still haven't answered in any coherent way why automatic registration is bad.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I don't answer stupid questions as a rule, they only serve to validate the stupid.
Click to expand...

Right, you're not here to debate, you're just here to sling personal attacks because something I said triggered you.
 
Taylor said:
Right, you're not here to debate, you're just here to sling personal attacks because something I said triggered you.
Click to expand...

personal attacks? I can't control how you take my observations of the arguments you presented.

And I'll debate all day long, with someone who is honest, intelligent, and doesn't need to be educated on every issue after they have formed an opinion.

It should go, educate yourself, then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

You have clearly, formed an opinion, and are asking everyone to educate you on the subject of your opinion.

It wouldn't be a debate, it would be me explaining simple concepts and you putting your fingers in your ears and complaining about liberals.

Pass.
 
Cardinal said:
Such as removing the voting age limit, because...that's a thing people are arguing for? You're not making any sense. And you still haven't answered in any coherent way why automatic registration is bad.
Click to expand...
I said "I'm arguing that what's best for democracy is not always what's best for the country." You asked for an example. I provided the most obvious example I could think of.

Now, are you willing to agree that expanding democracy is not always in the best interests of the country? As you imply above, nobody seems to agree that expanding voting to 8-year-olds is a good decision.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
personal attacks? I can't control how you take my observations of the arguments you presented.

And I'll debate all day long, with someone who is honest, intelligent, and doesn't need to be educated on every issue after they have formed an opinion.

It should go, educate yourself, then form an opinion. Not the other way around.

You have clearly, formed an opinion, and are asking everyone to educate you on the subject of your opinion.

It wouldn't be a debate, it would be me explaining simple concepts and you putting your fingers in your ears and complaining about liberals.

Pass.
Click to expand...
Didn't think so.
 
Cardinal said:
You're attempting to emotionalize the issue by conflating voting with crimes they may have committed. A better question is: Why shouldn't people who've served their time not be allowed to vote?
Click to expand...

No that's questioning the very constitution of every state. Each state has the ability and sets out its own guidelines for voter to be disenfranchised due to the founding that voting is a privilege and not a right.
 
Taylor said:
I said "I'm arguing that what's best for democracy is not always what's best for the country." You asked for an example. I provided the most obvious example I could think of.

Now, are you willing to agree that expanding democracy is not always in the best interests of the country? As you imply above, nobody seems to agree that expanding voting to 8-year-olds is a good decision.
Click to expand...

You provided an example of something imaginary that nobody is talking about and nobody is asking for. Automatic registration, however, is real in over a dozen states (it's a bit higher than that but I forget the exact figure), so rather than resorting to fantasy we can point to the observable and demonstrate a reason why, if one exists, that automatic registration is bad. Can you do that?
 
jdog21 said:
No that's questioning the very constitution of every state. Each state has the ability and sets out its own guidelines for voter to be disenfranchised due to the founding that voting is a privilege and not a right.
Click to expand...

It's clear you haven't thought through this issue on any level. As a result you're see-sawing back and forth with your arguments and making it up as you go.
 
Cardinal said:
It's clear you haven't thought through this issue on any level. As a result you're see-sawing back and forth with your arguments and making it up as you go.
Click to expand...

And you provided no data and no logical opinion to why felons should keep their voting privileges?
 
Cardinal said:
You provided an example of something imaginary that nobody is talking about and nobody is asking for.
Click to expand...
Yes, baby steps. I'm trying to get you to accept the obvious premise that expanding voting is not automatically a good thing. Nobody is talking about expanding voting to 8-year-olds. And nobody is asking to expand voting to 8-year-olds. It's absurd.

So I think we can agree (though you do not want to admit it) that expanding voting is not always a good idea. There are valid reasons for doing so, but "because it's good for democracy" is not one of them.
 
sangha said:
8% of the US population has a felony conviction so FL is doing better than most states
Click to expand...

An astonishing number for "the land of the free."
 
Harshaw said:
Not one of these links does anything more than you did, simply claim, with no support, that felony disenfranchisement was part of Jim Crow. One story notes that Southern state constitutions written after the Civil War included felony disenfranchisement provisions, believing, apparently, that the timing is sufficient to establish it was part of Jim Crow. But it doesn't note that they also had them in their constitutions BEFORE the Civil War, too, when there was no black voting, and the Florida provision in question, for example, is nearly identical to its 1838 constitution counterpart.

Why were Southern state constitutions re-written in the 1860s? Because they were required to be after losing the Civil War.

Southern policies on felon disenfranchisement didn't suddenly spring up during the Jim Crow era.




What it shows is the distribution of similar disenfranchisement rights all over the country, not just in the South, and that the Southern states are represented proportionately in every construct type, along with almost every other state. If it were a "Jim Crow" thing, it wouldn't be so.
Click to expand...

Let's clear something up so that we are on the same page... was there Jim Crow era at all?
 
sangha said:
you are being pedantic
Click to expand...
Just drawing the distinction. I think most people agree that voting is a civic responsibility, but few think it is an obligation, or that we should adopt mandatory voting.
 
jdog21 said:
And you provided no data and no logical opinion to why felons should keep their voting privileges?
Click to expand...
You have that backwards. When discussing whether to restrict fundamental rights, the onus is on those who want to restrict those rights and freedoms to show a rationale, instead of the other way around. The default is that one has rights, unless there is a compelling reason to deny them.
 
Taylor said:
Just drawing the distinction. I think most people agree that voting is a civic responsibility, but few think it is an obligation, or that we should adopt mandatory voting.
Click to expand...

It is not an obligation but it should be.

I already told you that I support mandatory voting. If we had that, then it would be an obligation. You are just asking me the same question --ie do I support mandatory voting-- using different words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom