They know voting is being suppressed. They just don’t care.
In a “democracy?”
I don’t understand how they can maintain that they have the moral high ground.
-
Establish that voting is a privilege, by insisting that you need to vote responsibly to prevent Bad Things from happening
-
Denounce the opposition as frivolous, infantile, and actively harmful to the public
-
Rally around the police state and insist everyone in opposition is “breaking the law!”
-
Use police violence as a tool to strip people of their voting rights
-
Win the next round of elections and use that to cement your image as Democratic and Popular
Eventually, you just establish a kind-of inertial force that people buck at their own peril. Everyone just wants to go with the flow, so they don’t dispute something they believe all their neighbors fundamentally agree with.
Could potentially be a good thing if more conservatives are vocal about this and break the illusion of functioning democracy at the ballot box (aside from the “republic, not democracy” shite). Then again, maybe I’m underestimating American laziness/faith in electoralism.
Here’s an honestly put question looking for opinions/takes:
Should all criminals incarcerated individuals be allowed to vote? Incarceration for serious crimes allows the state to deprive an individual of nearly all of their rights. Why is the forfeiture of freedom of action more “acceptable” than the forfeiture of participation in electoral politics?
EDIT: I corrected some things.
The important part is that the state cannot be incentivized in any way to incarcerate people. By disenfranchising criminals the state is incentivized to make those that disagree with them criminals. Incarceration, if used at all must be a burden on the state, and therefore a last resort. Disenfranchising criminals is essentially giving the state the opportunity to pay to eliminate the right to vote. Given how tight elections can be this can be disastrous.
Incarceration is bad across the board. I can’t of any arguments for keeping incarceration around but allowing inmates to vote that isn’t purely political or practical
There’s an argument to be made that reeducation, therapy, and medicine and the lack thereof are the main causes of “dangerous” people.
A refocus of prisons into rehabilitation centers for people that offer all these to the patients would be the way to handle it.
I can’t think of a good reason to just throw someone in a violent hole and feed them slop for 20 years and then boot them on the street thinking it’ll somehow make them a better person lmao
Otherwise, if they’re just fucking high ranking fascists or something equally heinous, I don’t see the point of keeping them around in general.
They’re asking both. The headline is addressing the “should” question, but the article goes a little deeper.
The survey … also finds a rare point of partisan agreement when it comes to the importance of all qualified citizens being allowed to vote. However, there are sizable differences in confidence about whether this is happening – and even wider differences in confidence in whether people not legally qualified to vote are prevented from voting.
Nearly all Americans (94%) – including 95% of both Republicans and Democrats – say it is important that people who are legally qualified to vote are able to cast a ballot, with 82% saying it is very important.
A large majority of Republicans (87%) are at least somewhat confident that legally qualified people are able to vote if they want to, including 54% who are very confident this is the case. Democrats express less confidence: 69% say they are at least somewhat confident that legally qualified people are able to cast a ballot, and just 28% say they are very confident in this.
