Felon Disenfranchisement

[BmorePat87]

Poll taxes and tests that were designed to shut down black voters also effected poor white voters, but the people in power still implemented them because in the long run it meant more success in elections.

If you're disenfranchising equal numbers of white and black people, you're going to win elections. The white people offset in terms of party affiliation while the black people more drastically impact the electoral success of your opponents.

[Dill]

(04-18-2018, 04:54 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: So your claim is the purpose or reason for this is driven by racism, despite the fact the majority of disenfranchised voters are [very likely] white?

Unsurprisingly [sarcasm], it's hard to get the total/exact numbers - which the absolute numbers would be the relevant criteria to making a claim it's race based.  While minorities are disproportionately disenfranchised, it's likely still the case they are outnumbered by white felons.

Only numbers I could find was in Florida, 56% of disenfranchised voters were white....70% in Minnesota.

And, you know, most of those white felons are probably skinheads and they vote 100% Republican (or so I've heard).

LOL, but suppose those white felons are not all skinheads and their vote divides evenly between both parties, while the vote of their black colleagues does not?  Removing a proportionally higher number of blacks from voter rolls could not have much effect when 9 of 10 regularly vote Democrat? And the disenfranchisers don't know that?

Minnesota, a "Yankee" state not known for its history of voter disenfranchisement by race, only denies the vote to felons serving time or "on paper"--not permanently.https://www.revisor.mn.gov/st  atutes/?id=609.165
609.165 RESTORATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS; POSSESSION OF FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.
Subdivision 1.Restoration.
When a person has been deprived of civil rights by reason of conviction of a crime and is thereafter discharged, such discharge shall restore the person to all civil rights and to full citizenship, with full right to vote and hold office, the same as if such conviction had not taken place, and the order of discharge shall so provide

So I don't discern much effort to shave off minority votes there.

Florida is a different story. http://www.sentencingproject.org/the-facts/#map

It is not hard to get "exact numbers" of whom has been disenfranchised and where.  Why fight so hard to deny this history?

[Dill]

(04-18-2018, 10:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: MORE white fellons - a majority, in fact - are disenfranchised than black fellons.  If that makes the law racist, then the law is REALLY BAD at racism.
Geez, next you're going to tell me welfare reform is racist eventhough there's more white people on welfare.

Back in the 19th century, politicians in states like Mississippi and Alabama initiated voter disenfranchisement by directing it selectively to crimes they thought more likely to be committed by blacks.

http://www.prrac.org/full_text.php?item_id=7794&newsletter_id=63
The disenfranchisement laws adopted in a number of Southern states were not at all subtle, often requiring the loss of voting rights only for those offenses believed to be committed primarily by blacks. In Mississippi, for example, the 1890 constitutional convention called for disenfranchisement for such crimes as burglary, theft, arson and obtaining money under false pretenses, but not for robbery or murder. In the words of a Mississippi Supreme Court decision several years later, blacks engaged in crime were “given rather to furtive offenses than to the robust crimes of the whites.”

Other Southern states – Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia -- followed this pattern as well in their targeting of “furtive offenses.” The intent of such policy was made clear by the author of the Alabama constitution provision, who, according to Andrew Shapiro, writing in the Yale Law Journal, "estimated the crime of wife-beating alone would disqualify sixty percent of the Negroes." Thus, by the convoluted logic of these provisions, a man would be disenfranchised if convicted of beating his wife but not if convicted of killing her. Alabama’s constitution also barred voting for anyone convicted of crimes of “moral turpitude,” including a variety of misdemeanors. Here, too, the intent and effect were quite obvious, resulting in ten times as many blacks as whites being disenfranchised, many for non-prison offenses.

One reason our Southern friends were doing it this way was because, after the passage of the 14th Amendment, explicit reference to race in laws risked legal challenge. Knowing something of past intent behind and tactics of disenfranchisement helps us look more closely at how it continues today, as the effort to disenfranchise without explicit reference to race continues.

[Dill]

(04-18-2018, 11:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Poll taxes and tests that were designed to shut down black voters also effected poor white voters, but the people in power still implemented them because in the long run it meant more success in elections.

If you're disenfranchising equal numbers of white and black people, you're going to win elections. The white people offset in terms of party affiliation while the black people more drastically impact the electoral success of your opponents.

He is stuck at "more whites"--even if the disenfranchisement helps tip elections in favor of a white political machine.

How can a law that keeps political power in the hands of white racists be racist if it affects "more whites"?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-19-2018, 01:48 AM)Dill Wrote: He is stuck at "more whites"--even if the disenfranchisement helps tip elections in favor of a white political machine.

I don't know....perhaps you can explain to me how disenfranchising more whites helps racists get elected....


I'll wait........


And wait......


Still waiting some more.....

[JustWinBaby]

(04-19-2018, 01:35 AM)Dill Wrote: Back in the 19th century,

WOW!!!!
And more WOW!!!
Going to just ignore the facts and what is happening in the TWENTY-FIRST century?!?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-19-2018, 01:16 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL, but suppose those white felons are not all skinheads and their vote divides evenly between both parties, while the vote of their black colleagues does not? 

I don't know....That sounds like a very racist presumption but I'm intrigued....

Why are you assuming blacks vote uniformly Democrat? Is it because they do?!? OMG!!!!!! How is that not racist?!?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-18-2018, 11:43 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you're disenfranchising equal numbers of white and black people, you're going to win elections.

Why? 

Can you honestly and factually answer that question without making assumptions based on skin color?

[JustWinBaby]

(04-18-2018, 11:30 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I'd recommend reading the rest of my post that completely shuts down your argument. 

I'd recommend ignoring "alternative" facts and developing a healthy, objective opinion.

The only thing you "destroyed" was your pretense of informed objectivity.

[Belsnickel]

(04-18-2018, 10:59 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: MORE white fellons - a majority, in fact - are disenfranchised than black fellons.  If that makes the law racist, then the law is REALLY BAD at racism.
Geez, next you're going to tell me welfare reform is racist eventhough there's more white people on welfare.

When you look at the impact of certain economic factors, do you look at just the top numbers to give you the best picture, or does the per capita figure provide a better idea of what is going on? When looking at comparisons between groups with different populations or economic size is it not a more accurate comparison when looking at the rate, such as spending as a percentage of GDP and other such figures?

My point here, in case it isn't clear, is that you are being deliberately obtuse. A truly colorblind policy would affect individuals along racial lines at rates proportional to their rate in overall society. Looking at rates, not numbers, is how you actually assess these sorts of things.

This should not be unfamiliar to you in any way.

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2018, 02:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't know....perhaps you can explain to me how disenfranchising more whites helps racists get elected....


I'll wait........


And wait......


Still waiting some more.....

I literally did exactly that in the last post of mine that you quoted. It was the part you cut out and ignored lol

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2018, 02:44 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I'd recommend ignoring "alternative" facts and developing a healthy, objective opinion.  

The only thing you "destroyed" was your pretense of informed objectivity.

Census figures and exit polling are "alternative facts"?

At this point you're just being willfully ignorant. If you have a rebuttal to my numbers, I'd love to hear it.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-19-2018, 08:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I literally did exactly that in the last post of mine that you quoted. It was the part you cut out and ignored lol

I wonder what percentage of the felons were active voters, prior to their convictions?

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2018, 02:42 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Why? 

Can you honestly and factually answer that question without making assumptions based on skin color?

I did... it's in the post you cut out when you responded to me. Using exit polling and census figures, I showed the total number of GOP voters and non GOP voters impacted by disenfranchisement to show a net gain for the GOP of a 2.4m voter advantage. 

You look silly repeatedly demanding that people demonstrate things that they already did.

[BmorePat87]

(04-19-2018, 08:46 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I wonder what percentage of the felons were active voters, prior to their convictions?

No clue, but even if we use current voter turnout figures to determine who would even be voting, you'll still have a significant shift in favor of White and GOP voters as we'd apply it across the board uniformly.  Over the last 5 election cycles, white voters had an average of 62.7% turnout and black voters averaged 62.1% turnout.

[Belsnickel]

(04-19-2018, 08:46 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I wonder what percentage of the felons were active voters, prior to their convictions?

Hard to say. Many are disenfranchised before ever getting the chance. Then there is also the data to show that communities with higher percentages of disenfranchised people living in them have reduced levels of political participation even among those that are eligible. There isn't enough to support causation, but it is something that is being investigated.

[SunsetBengal]

(04-19-2018, 02:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Hard to say. Many are disenfranchised before ever getting the chance. Then there is also the data to show that communities with higher percentages of disenfranchised people living in them have reduced levels of political participation even among those that are eligible. There isn't enough to support causation, but it is something that is being investigated.

Yeah, I threw that question out there hoping that someone like yourself might have access to better data bases that what a google search provides.

[Dill]

(04-19-2018, 02:41 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't know....That sounds like a very racist presumption but I'm intrigued....

Why are you assuming blacks vote uniformly Democrat?  Is it because they do?!?   OMG!!!!!!    How is that not racist?!?

Haw haw, sounds like someone has not spent much time examining/vetting definitions of racism.

To give you a bit of a jump start--critiquing racism is not itself racism, even though the critic may mention "race."

By the way, I assume blacks vote "uniformly" Democrat because polls have shown that for the last three decades. Relying on social science for data and methods of interpreting them is not in itself racist.

(04-19-2018, 02:39 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: WOW!!!!
And more WOW!!!
Going to just ignore the facts and what is happening in the TWENTY-FIRST century?!?

Whenever did placing issues in historical context constitute "ignoring the facts" and "what is happening in the TWENTY-FIRST century"?

If you can grant that white racism towards blacks has, at least historically, found legal expression in laws which restrict black voting without mentioning race, we'll be in position to determine whether that continues more or less openly today, in old or new forms. Productive conversation could follow, instead of smoke and more smoke.  Bpat and Bels have also made substantial points that you have not directly engaged. I am genuinely curious as to how you respond to them.

Less "WOW" and more "how."

[Dill]

(04-19-2018, 02:37 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't know....perhaps you can explain to me how disenfranchising more whites helps racists get elected....

I'll wait........

And wait......

Still waiting some more.....

(04-19-2018, 01:16 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL, but suppose those white felons are not all skinheads and their vote divides evenly between both parties, while the vote of their black colleagues does not?  Removing a proportionally higher number of blacks from voter rolls could not have much effect when 9 of 10 regularly vote Democrat?  And the disenfranchisers don't know that?

 

(04-19-2018, 01:16 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:    I did... it's in the post you cut out when you responded to me. Using exit polling and census figures, I showed the total number of GOP voters and non GOP voters impacted by disenfranchisement to show a net gain for the GOP of a 2.4m voter advantage.

   You look silly repeatedly demanding that people demonstrate things that they already did.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

In prison and on parole.  No one detained for criminal activity should be able to wield political power.  If you're a danger to society to the point were you have to be physically removed from it you should not have a say in how society is run.  As parole is simply a continuation of a prison sentence, i.e. being released early with the understanding that you will have restrictions based on your behavior and movement, the same logic applies.  You have yet to serve the extent of the consequences of your prison sentence.  Another massive flaw in this line of thinking is that voting under such conditions is subject to intense pressure to vote a certain way.  Using CA as an example, say the Mexican Mafia instructs all of its members to vote a certain way and to use threats against others to ensure they do as well.  If you doubt such a scenario is possible I can assure you two things; it absolutely is and it would be guaranteed to happen.  You'd essentially be sending tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands in CA) of votes in the direction that the dominant prison gang desires.  I don't know how anyone could desire such a situation.