From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Tue May 27 2003 - 16:38:26 MDT
> (spike66@attbi.com <spike66@attbi.com>):
>
>> Any citizen leery of the cops or not wanting the hassle
>> forbidden to vote?
> Not at all. Citizens leery of cops and not wanting the
> hassle may *choose* not to vote (which is fine with me)
> but they are not *forbidden* to vote. Convicted felons
> and wanted criminals would be forbidden to vote.
>
> Of course the felons could move to California and still
> vote, as often as they wanted.
Let's not forget that some of those folks not wanting to
encounter police merely have arrest warrants based on
suspicion, and have not yet been convicted of any crime,
or else have warrants for things that the state really has
no business prosecuting. I, for example, had a warrant for
my arrest issued in Nevada for failure to insure my car to
state standards (it has now passed the statute of limitations).
If Nevada had had the Florida system, it would have been
impossible for me to go to the polls to vote out those
legislators that were in the pocket of the insurance companies
that caused the mess.
And frankly, I never understood why felons are denied the
vote if they are mentally competent. Are they not equally,
if not more, affected by legislative choices than we are?
The argument that they have willingly surrendered their
right to participation in society falls on deaf ears with me,
because I don't for a moment make the assumption that just
because something is a felony, it must be morally wrong.
-- Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/> "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 27 2003 - 16:49:12 MDT