Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 24, 2012 10:48 pm

Election Law is in a constant state of flux, and David Cameron has made clear his opposition to European decrees that Prisoners should have the vote. Many people agree that upon conviction of breaking the law, a convict should not enjoy the liberties of free men. Nevertheless, our own Government stands under threat of sanction under European Law, universal disapproval for contempt of the Rule of Law, and compensation claims from Prisoners.

The requirement can easily be met by declaring all prisoners entitled to vote in the same constituency, to be represented in Parliament by a single Independent candidate.

by Redflag Sun Nov 25, 2012 9:54 am

oftenwrong wrote:Election Law is in a constant state of flux, and David Cameron has made clear his opposition to European decrees that Prisoners should have the vote. Many people agree that upon conviction of breaking the law, a convict should not enjoy the liberties of free men. Nevertheless, our own Government stands under threat of sanction under European Law, universal disapproval for contempt of the Rule of Law, and compensation claims from Prisoners.

The requirement can easily be met by declaring all prisoners entitled to vote in the same constituency, to be represented in Parliament by a single Independent candidate.

Much easier would be to allow prisoners with 6 months or less being allowed to vote, and as G.E. only happen every 5 years and local elections are about the same plus if they say prisoners must vote in there own constituency.

by oftenwrong Sun Nov 25, 2012 1:13 pm

QUOTE: " .... prisoners must vote in there own constituency."

I like that, Red. If they can get out of the cell, beyond the walls and home to the Polling Station they deserve a vote.

by Redflag Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:05 pm

oftenwrong wrote:QUOTE: " .... prisoners must vote in there own constituency."

I like that, Red. If they can get out of the cell, beyond the walls and home to the Polling Station they deserve a vote.

Thanks OW it does sound like a very crafty idea, they will need to take a rope in with them when they are sentenced ha ha ha .

by **Ivan** Sun Nov 25, 2012 8:32 pm

I feel very strongly that prisoners (apart from those who have committed such heinous crimes that they will never be released) should be allowed to vote.

When you are sentenced to imprisonment for a crime, loss of liberty is your punishment, not loss of all civil rights. I assume that most people would prefer it if, on release, prisoners were law-abiding and tried to become a part of society. So let's not alienate them, let's keep them involved in the national decision-making process.

Most convicted criminals have done less damage to this country than Cameron and his vile gang of corrupt spivs have managed in just two and a half years. If you want to take the right to vote away from anyone, please take it away from them.

by ROB Mon Nov 26, 2012 2:43 am

“Should prisoners be allowed to vote?”

No.

This absolute negative answer presumes that prisoners have been rightfully convicted under the just laws of a government under God, a government instituted among men gender inclusive to secure Creator-endowed unalienable innate human rights unto all men gender inclusive. Violators of such righteous laws, upon conviction, abdicate claim to membership amongst We the People of such nations as are governed by such laws; these nations include, but are not necessarily limited to, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

by boatlady Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:09 am

Ivan, I'm inclined to agree with you - prison to my mind should be more about rehabilitation and reeducation than about punishment, and taking part in the democratic process (such as it currently is) will support both aims.

by oftenwrong Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:05 am

DRAFT election address to all Guests of Her Majesty

David Cameron
Member of Parliament for Witney
Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party

A message to all Constituents of Her Majesty’s Prisons

Post: 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
Find David on Facebook / Follow David on Twitter
If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, please do so by following the guidance on the Number 10 website.

Dear Voter (By the Grace of God and the [deleted] European Court )

I became Prime Minister in May 2010 after a General Election in which the Conservative Party did not actually win enough seats, so I lead a rag, tag and bobtail Conservative / Liberal Democrat Coalition Government inspired by the values of freedom, fairness and denial of any responsibility.
My philosophy has always been making sure people are in control and that politicians are their servants, not their masters. My belief in social responsibility, not state control, as the best way to solve problems is already evident in the many decisions reversed since the General Election.
I have led a government that has set out bold action to deal with Britain's deficit, and will shortly have yet another try; established a radical programme of school, health and welfare reform which costs more than before; and set out a vision of building the Big Society by giving individuals, families and communities more power and control over their lives, though not including those of you behind bars, obviously.

Before I became an MP, I worked in business and government. I was educated at Eton College and Oxford University, studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics and gaining a first class honours degree, all of which prepared me fully to understand the workings of the criminal mind. After graduating I worked for the Conservative Party Research Department and then as a Special Adviser in government, first to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and then to the Home Secretary, thus cementing a solidarity of thought with those of a grab everything for yourself while you can tendency.

Now that you have been given the opportunity of a vote, the same as the mugs, (Sorry. I meant honest folk), I look forward to welcoming you into the warm embrace of God’s Own Tory Party.

Vote early, and vote often.

by starlight07 Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:36 pm

Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

I'm on the fence with this one but I kinda favour the notion that criminals/prisoners shouldn't be allowed to vote.

by tlttf Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:16 pm

Absolutely no vote for prisoners, the fact that arguably the wrong people are locked away on too many occasions shouldn't take away from the principle that they're locked away as a punishment that removes them from society and it's perks. If they were given the vote as part of a rehabilitation process probably overshadows the fact that little over 30% of free people can be bothered to make the effort.

by Shirina Mon Nov 26, 2012 10:17 pm

In the United States, there is no universal suffrage right within the Constitution, and there needs to be one. Yet as it stands now, one simply cannot be refused the vote based on gender and race. In addition the Constitution makes any sort of poll tax illegal. However, it does not say that we cannot take away voting rights for other reasons, including incarceration.

My feeling on it is that convicted felons should lose their right to vote, but not everone behind bars. Our futile "war on drugs," for instance, has landed more than one college kid in jail for possession of a few ounces of marijuana. I think those convicted of minor crimes, non-violent ones, should retain their ability to vote. Serial killers, rapists, baby fiddlers and the like ... no. As far as I'm concerned, their crimes were heinous enough to remove them from society, not let them take part in it.

by **Ivan** Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:44 am

Absolutely no vote for prisoners, the fact that arguably the wrong people are locked away on too many occasions shouldn't take away from the principle that they're locked away as a punishment that removes them from society and it's perks. If they were given the vote as part of a rehabilitation process probably overshadows the fact that little over 30% of free people can be bothered to make the effort.

tlttf. What is the punishment? I thought it was loss of liberty, not loss of all civil rights.

I doubt if many jailbirds see voting as “a perk”. As you’ve pointed out, turnout in council elections - and those wretched PCC elections - tends to be very low (65% voted in the 2010 general election), so this discussion is probably just academic. I feel that if you expect prisoners at the end of their sentence to take a proper part in the community, any gesture, however small, which encourages that is a good thing. Most offenders don’t identify with mainstream society and feel alienated from it, and that’s something which we ought to be trying to correct.

by ROB Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:11 am

Shirina wrote:
In the United States, there is no universal suffrage right within the Constitution…

The right of citizens of the United States to vote is specifically affirmed at least four times in the United States Constitution.

United States Constitution, Amendment 15, Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

United States Constitution, Amendment 19, Paragraph 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

United States Constitution, Amendment 24, Paragraph 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

United States Constitution, Amendment 26, Paragraph 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

by Shirina Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:42 am

Like I said, Rock. Look at those clauses in the Constitution very carefully.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

In other words, you cannot be denied the right to vote based on race, color, or being a former slave. No universal suffrage there.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

So you cannot be denied the right to vote based on whether you're male or female. No universal suffrage there.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

You cannot be denied the right to vote if you cannot pay money to do so. No universal suffrage there.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

You cannot be denied the right to vote based on your age (which I forgot to mention in my previous post). It simply means that you can't be considered, say, too elderly to vote. No universal suffrage there.

The only thing these clauses do is outline very specific reasons why you cannot be denied the right to vote. None of them, however, grant all citizens the right to vote. None of these clauses prevent anyone being denied voting rights based on, say, land ownership, being on welfare, being a convicted felon, or for any other reason, for that matter. Just as long as no one is being denied voting rights based on age, gender, race, or being forced to pay a tax. Everything else is fair game.

That is why we need a solid amendment granting universal suffrage.

by boatlady Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:43 am

Just a little thought - if EVERYONE voted, wonder what kind of government we'd have? - a fully representative one, that's for sure, and surely that would be a good thing?

by ROB Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:17 am

Like I said, Shirina, the right of citizens of the United States to vote is affirmed at least four times in the United States Constitution.

United States Constitution, Amendment 15, Section 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

There are as many races and colors as man gender inclusive can catalog; one cannot be denied the right to vote by membership in any race or color. There are citizens who have been in previous condition of servitude and citizens who have not; one cannot be denied the right to vote by membership in either group.

United States Constitution, Amendment 19, Paragraph 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

There are two genders, male and female; one cannot be denied the right to vote by membership in either gender.

United States Constitution, Amendment 24, Paragraph 1

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

There are citizens who have failed to pay a tax and citizens who have not; one cannot be denied the right to vote by membership in either group.

United States Constitution, Amendment 26, Paragraph 1

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

There are citizens who are eighteen years of age or older and citizens who are not; one cannot be denied the right to vote by membership in the former group.

Each of these amendments presumes the right of citizens of the United States to vote, a presumption verified by the inclusion of this common phrase, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote”, in each amendment. Accordingly, if one is a citizen of the United States that has attained to the age of eighteen years, one has the right to vote. I choose to characterize this reality as universal suffrage for all citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older.

by Shirina Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:21 am

Just a little thought - if EVERYONE voted, wonder what kind of government we'd have? - a fully representative one, that's for sure, and surely that would be a good thing?

Well, I don't know, boatlady. It seems like it would be a good idea at first, but a 100% voter turn-out in the USA, I fear, would lead to essentially a one-party conservative Republican dictatorship. There are more Republicans than Democrats, more conservatives than liberals. If everyone voted in every election, the GOP and the conservative ideology would probably win 90% of the time. Therefore, as a Democrat and a liberal, I'm rather thankful that voter turn-out is less than perfect, for it is that variable that ensures the same party and the same ideology isn't always in power.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:53 am

100% votes are usually associated in the public mind with Stalinist "democracies" where it's just about the only thing not forbidden to the Lower Orders.

In Australia, attending the Polling Station is compulsory, but they don't get 100% turn-outs, and if such a Law were to operate here, we bolshie Brits would generate a mountain of "spoiled papers".

by ROB Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:09 pm

More on universal suffrage in the United States.

The United States governments’ (plural possessive, inclusive of the federal government and fifty state governments) common foundational document, the Declaration of Independence of the united States, presumes universal suffrage in its language (more on this 1776 presumption below).

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness… it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security… such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

As can be seen by the terminology they chose, the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence presumed that the people (“We the People” in the Preamble to the United States Constitution) possess the power (1) to institute governments among men which derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed”, (2) to alter governments which fail to “effect their Safety and Happiness”, and (3) to abolish governments which fail to “effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Sounds like universal suffrage to me. However, to the authors and signers of the Declaration of Independence, the “all men” that “are created equal” and that “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” excludes all female men, all non-white men, and all non-“upper class” men. In fact, about thirteen out of every fourteen 2012 US voters were effectively excluded from the electoral process under the governments (plural) of the United States as constituted 15 December 1791, the ratification date of Amendments 1 through 10 of the United States Constitution, the US Bill of Rights. The process of achieving actual universal suffrage amongst citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older has been a process of removing exclusions to the universal suffrage presumed since at least 4 July 1776.

You mentioned landowners in your post; as universal suffrage amongst white male landowners has been presumed since 1776, no removal of exclusions thereto has been necessary. As de facto exclusions of non-“upper class” persons have been removed over the years “without” the amendment process, no amendments thereto have been necessary to include poor people, including welfare recipients (“if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). Denial of presumed universal suffrage amongst those convicted of crimes is addressed by Amendment 14, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:23 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:[color=black]
More on universal suffrage in the United States.....

But not very much about Prisoners' right to a vote there, Rock.

by ROB Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:39 pm

oftenwrong wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote:
More on universal suffrage in the United States.....

But not very much about Prisoners' right to a vote there, Rock.

Au contraire. But it’s a bit “deep”; thus, it’s certainly nothing that you would understand.

by Shirina Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:25 pm

Sounds like universal suffrage to me.

I get your point, Rock, but universal suffrage just isn't there. A fancy interpretation of the Declaration of Independence (which is not an enforceable document) should not be needed. Any sharp lawyer can make a case against universal suffrage and thus make a case that some people should not be allowed to vote. With the whiny Republicans already screaming voter fraud in regards to Obama's reelection, I have a feeling the issue of who gets to vote will become an issue in the very near future. What we need is a solid Constitutional Amendment that lays out in precise yet simple terms that *everyone* above the age of 18 should have the right to vote. It simply isn't there.

by jackthelad Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:05 pm

If prisoners were allowed to vote, how many would bother, half the population on the outside of prison who are eligible to vote can't be bothered to vote, so why do people think prisoners would bother. Anyone serving a prison term of one year or more shouldn't get a vote untill they are released anyway.

by starlight07 Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:43 pm

boatlady wrote:Just a little thought - if EVERYONE voted, wonder what kind of government we'd have? - a fully representative one, that's for sure, and surely that would be a good thing?

That you mention everyone boatlady this reminds me...why not lower the age of voting in the UK? If the age of consent in the UK is 16 years of age then why not have the age of voting also 16 years of age? If teenagers can be considered responsible by the government in starting a family so young then why not vote? Surely this factor too can make a difference in voting and the results even if by a slight margin?

by starlight07 Tue Nov 27, 2012 7:45 pm

jackthelad wrote:If prisoners were allowed to vote, how many would bother, half the population on the outside of prison who are eligible to vote can't be bothered to vote, so why do people think prisoners would bother. Anyone serving a prison term of one year or more shouldn't get a vote untill they are released anyway.

Half the population outside of prison and are eligible to vote don't bother voting? Isn't that too much of a stretch with the statistics, Jack?

by boatlady Tue Nov 27, 2012 9:11 pm

I've often wondered about the voting age - you can have a baby, get married and serve in the armed forces before you're allowed to have a hand in choosing the government - seems odd.
Also, if a majority of a 100% electorate really want a right wing governement, maybe that's the correct one for the country - isn't that the idea of democracy?

by Shirina Tue Nov 27, 2012 10:40 pm

Also, if a majority of a 100% electorate really want a right wing governement, maybe that's the correct one for the country - isn't that the idea of democracy?

Not necessarily. There is this little speed bump called "the tyranny of the majority" that would essentially preclude anyone else from having a voice. It comes back to the classic adage: It's like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Democracy can be unfair to anyone not marching in lock step with the majority opinion, and in a truly pluralistic society, there must be safeguards against this. One of the built-in safeguards is a less than 100% voter turn-out.

I'll also make no bones about this -- I feel that the conservative viewpoint is both wrong and immoral, at least for our nation. If we liberals had our way, we would have NHS like every other civilized nation, gays wouldn't be treated like second class citizens, contraception wouldn't be treated like poison, we wouldn't be going to war all the time, etc. By and large, conservatives consist of the uneducated and the politically ignorant who vote based on emotions, gut feelings, and propaganda ... not facts. They would have this country on its knees in no time.

Oh yeah, and we liberals would prevent religion from being rammed down our throats. Now the Kentucky Department of Homeland Security is saying that God MUST be given credit for our safety and security. It is required by law. Failure to do so is punishable by up to 12 months in prison. Yep ... that's conservatism for you. Remember that Hitler was elected democratically, too.

by oftenwrong Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:50 pm

boatlady wrote:I've often wondered about the voting age - you can have a baby, get married and serve in the armed forces before you're allowed to have a hand in choosing the government - seems odd.
Also, if a majority of a 100% electorate really want a right wing governement, maybe that's the correct one for the country - isn't that the idea of democracy?

We had that. It was called the Feudal System. If you didn't please your Noble Lord he'd put you in his cellar to contemplate your error. Or cut your head off. The wealthy are not casual about protecting their position.

by ROB Tue Nov 27, 2012 11:53 pm

You paint Republicans with too broad a brush, but that’s a topic for another thread.

Here’s a hint: There are a few Republicans that covertly voted for Obama twice who would have my head if I publicly revealed their identities.

Here’s another hint: SECHUD Jack Kemp asked his advisors, “How come only White people want to be homeowners?” In response to his advisors’ answers to the contrary, he asked, “Then how come we’re the biggest slumlords in America?” The “we” of “we’re” referred to HUD and its FHA ownership of projects in urban areas from Watts to South Bronx to Southside Chi-town. Kemp then instituted a program whereby project renters were to be transformed into condo buyers by converting their rent payments into house notes.

Jack Kemp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

… Kemp was unsuccessful at… promoting public housing tenant ownership. The goal of [this] plans was to change public housing into tenant-owned residences…

Although Kemp coaxed Bush to support a $4 billion housing program that encouraged public housing tenants to buy their own apartments, the Democratic Congress allocated only $361 million to the plan. In addition to opposition in Congress, Kemp fought White House Budget Director Richard Darman, who opposed Kemp's pet project HOPE (Homeownership and Opportunity for People Everywhere). The project involved selling public housing to its tenants. HOPE was… proposed… to… enact tax changes to help first-time home buyers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kemp#Cabinet_.281989.E2.80.931993.29

Mr. Kemp, for whom I voted for President of the United States in 1996 (I know), understood that if it was good enough for White Folks, it was good enough for All Folks. Was Jack Kemp a covert Bobby Seale fan? Power to the People; All Power to All People.

Back on track regarding universal suffrage, Canadians seem to share your yearning for the simpler things in life. I’ll stop here and let Canadians speak for themselves.

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

Rights and freedoms in Canada

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

Democratic rights of citizens

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Sounds like universal suffrage to me.

I’ve underlined a portion of Section 1 to address the thread topic. The overarching provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that guarantees of rights and freedoms are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” allows Canadian lawmakers to deny voting rights to Canadian citizens that have been convicted of violating Canadian laws.

In effect, this provision mirrors the US model wherein Amendment 14 prohibits denial of rights to citizens, including the presumed right to vote, except by “due process”, but “the Canadian way” does so with eloquent simplicity. One does not need anything save the ability to understand what one reads to understand this provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:00 am

RockOnBrother wrote: it’s a bit “deep”; thus, it’s certainly nothing that you would understand.
[/color]

Yeah, that 1776 stuff tends towards the incomprehensible at times.

by ROB Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:59 am

oftenwrong wrote:
RockOnBrother wrote: it’s a bit “deep”; thus, it’s certainly nothing that you would understand.
[/color]

Yeah, that 1776 stuff tends towards the incomprehensible at times.

That “1776 stuff” certainly seems incomprehensible to ant-American English-elitist bigots obsessed with harassing an American USV Cutting Edge member by compulsively “marking” against his posts like a hyena marking against a male lion, as shown in the Jouberts’ National Geographic documentary, “Eternal Enemies: Lions and Hyenas” (1:51-1:57, “This new matriarch is confident and defiant, marking where he marks and harassing the much larger lion”; 3:30-3:3:32, “He is the hyena killer”).

by jackthelad Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:50 pm

starlight07 wrote:
jackthelad wrote:If prisoners were allowed to vote, how many would bother, half the population on the outside of prison who are eligible to vote can't be bothered to vote, so why do people think prisoners would bother. Anyone serving a prison term of one year or more shouldn't get a vote untill they are released anyway.

Half the population outside of prison and are eligible to vote don't bother voting? Isn't that too much of a stretch with the statistics, Jack?

Don't think so Starlight, you only have to look at the recent voting for Police Commisioners, nowhere near half the population voted, some areas no one turned out to vote, some where complaining of only 5% tuning out. That says a lot about British voters, if they don't like a thing they stay at home.

by **Ivan** Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:18 pm

Starlight is certainly correct in one respect; 65% voted in the 2010 general election. The lowest turnout recorded for a general election since the First World War was 58% in 2001, when it was patently obvious that Labour under Tony Blair would slaughter the Tories under the crass leadership of 'baseball cap' Willie.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/news/vote2001/hi/english/newsid_1376000/1376575.stm

by oftenwrong Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:13 pm

Parliamentary interest will now be suspended whilst Lord Levison's Report takes centre stage.

by starlight07 Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:53 pm

jackthelad wrote:
starlight07 wrote:
jackthelad wrote:If prisoners were allowed to vote, how many would bother, half the population on the outside of prison who are eligible to vote can't be bothered to vote, so why do people think prisoners would bother. Anyone serving a prison term of one year or more shouldn't get a vote untill they are released anyway.

Half the population outside of prison and are eligible to vote don't bother voting? Isn't that too much of a stretch with the statistics, Jack?

Don't think so Starlight, you only have to look at the recent voting for Police Commisioners, nowhere near half the population voted, some areas no one turned out to vote, some where complaining of only 5% tuning out. That says a lot about British voters, if they don't like a thing they stay at home.

Jack, I don't know if we should generalise and extrapolate. I read somewhere the reasons why some people didn't 'bother' voting was because they didn't know which political party to vote for and that there was chaos (of what I'm not exactly sure).

The link below shows the general election turnout since 1945 (in percentage). You'll note the percentage to be above 50% for all the years till 2010.

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 29, 2012 4:44 pm

2010 was the year in which the British Public came to realise that The Houses of Parliament no longer met their requirements. Nor was ever likely to do so as currently constituted.

by stuart torr Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:33 pm

I personally believe that prisoners should be allowed the vote but dependent on their crime?
Providing the crime is not classed as serious such as rape or murder or serious bodily harm, then I believe prisoners should have the vote.

by oftenwrong Sat Oct 25, 2014 10:38 pm

It's tempting to just say that there is a lot of wooly thinking about imprisonment, but the reality is that not enough thought goes into the process. What is the objective? On a simple level it's to remove from Society people who don't recognise any obligation to that Society. To protect ourselves from those who have done us harm, and to use the term of incarceration to teach them citizenship.

Upon conviction, a person loses the description "previously of good character", together with a loss of the privilege to be regarded as harmless. If the legal sanction is to be deprived of their liberty, it must surely follow that the person's "civil rights" are similarly curtailed.

by stuart torr Sun Oct 26, 2014 6:27 pm

I have a neighbor OW who has been in jail for thieving, and when he first got out he was still on parole, does that mean that you would not have made friends with him like I did?

by **Ivan** Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:34 pm

We’re supposed to live in a democracy, although that’s arguable when we have a hereditary monarchy, an unelected upper house and first-past-the-post in the lower house. Notwithstanding that, I’ve always assumed that a democracy is a system where everyone has the right to vote, and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) seems to concur.

There is cause for concern when politicians start chipping away at what are universal rights. The Tories have done this with child benefits, and if they get re-elected who is to say that they won’t reduce still further the number of people who are entitled to them? Some Tories would also like to restrict pensioner entitlements such as the winter fuel allowance, television licences and bus passes, on the basis that not everyone needs them (though the cost of means-testing may actually exceed any savings).

I believe it was Michele Bachmann (but it could have been another Tea Party nutter) who suggested that people receiving any form of welfare shouldn’t be entitled to vote. Both the Republicans and the Tories seem to look for ways of making it more difficult to vote; in the case of the latter, that involves individual registration, no doubt in the hope that those who aren’t Tories will be less likely to get around to registering.

Now the Tories are determined to deny the ECHR adjudication that prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once the principle is clearly established that voting is not for everyone, how can we be sure that they won’t, if you’ll excuse the pun, take a few leaves from the Tea Party and argue that if you’re receiving benefits you aren’t entitled to vote? And then what, pensioners? You always have to look out for the thin end of the wedge with the Tories.

by Sponsored content