ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 17th July 2020, 10:35 AM   #41
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Most criminal convictions are not for murder and rape. And under this law, even murderers and rapists can vote if they complete their sentences, including fines and debts. What's your point?
No. That is not under this law. They still have the same ability to appeal to the Governor but they are explicitly excluded from this. My point is pretty clear. Voters voted on the specifics of the law that was in front of them. They were ok with certain disenfranchisement. You don't get to go back and claim they meant something different than what was plainly written, voted on, and approved.



Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I personally would have no problem with them voting. It's an outlier. I think everyone above the age of 18 not only should vote, but be required to vote. And that includes people that are incarcerated.

Voting is not only a right, it is a responsibility.
That's fine as a personal view. But this thread isn't that.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:45 AM   #42
Sherkeu
Graduate Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 1,489
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
It isn't and it's both.


BS. The United States is one nation. I'm an American who just happens to live in Washington. Who can vote in Florida directly affects me on the other side of the continent so I'm a stakeholder.

in Washington, those on parole or probation for a criminal conviction cannot vote. The difference is that there isnt the language of 'fines' being paid.
Maybe look in your own backyard instead of across the country to another jurisdiction of voters. Vermont felons don't lose their right to vote. What is wrong with Washington that they do not do that as well?

The only reason people care about Florida is because it is a swing state.
The best idea to rid the country of their obsession for zooming in on just a few states that decide elections is to do ranked voting by district and get rid of 'winner take all first past the post' crap. But that is another topic and States get to decide such things.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:46 AM   #43
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I personally would have no problem with them voting. It's an outlier. I think everyone above the age of 18 not only should vote, but be required to vote.
I'll go further than that. Failing to vote should be a felony.

ETA:
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 17th July 2020 at 10:47 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:47 AM   #44
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But the default position for a democracy should be that every citizen should vote and every citizen should be able to vote, unless there are specific, lawful exceptions like felons under sentence. Anything that impedes voting degrades democracy.
That's the point. Florida has made laws that carve out lawful exceptions. .

We use to lawfully enslave people of color.
We use to lawfully deny anyone without property the vote.
We use to lawfully deny women the vote.
We use to lawfully deny people of color the vote.
We use to lawfully discriminate against homosexuals.

Just because something is lawful, doesn't make it right.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th July 2020 at 10:51 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:48 AM   #45
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,364
If punishment for crimes is really about rehabilitation, enfranchising felons to vote would be a logical outcome of the process. If the penalty is one or both incarceration and restitution, these should be the only prerequisites.

Other tacked-on costs and fees should not factor into it. After all, non-felons owing all manner of fines are not prohibited.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:50 AM   #46
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I'll go further than that. Failing to vote should be a felony.

ETA:


No. Australia has it right. It's a small fine. The point isn't to punish people for not voting. The point is to impress on people that they have a responsibility to participate in the society.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:53 AM   #47
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,037
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Who cares? You're disenfranchising people from voting because of their economic status. It's just another example of the power of money. Poor people go to jail because they can't pay bail. The system frequently blackmails them to plead guilty or stay incarcerated.

The fact is you don't want them to vote because you think they might vote against your candidates.

The fact is you don't want them to vote because you think they might vote against for your candidates.


It's quite reasonable to have a policy to strip the vote from people who have committed serious crimes, because they have shown an inability to play by the rules (laws) that that very democracy has set up, so why should they get a say in those rules?

However, I am in favor of even prisoners, not just former ones, voting, because I don't like the loophole of laws getting passed to throw you in jail, with no way to address the wrongness or abuse of laws by changing the representatives. Granted this is mostly theoretical.

Somehow I don't think your rationale passes the strikethru humor I posted above. Am I wrong?
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

Last edited by Beerina; 17th July 2020 at 10:54 AM.
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:54 AM   #48
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
That's fine as a personal view. But this thread isn't that.
The hell it isn't. I made the damn thread.

We're talking about disenfranchising a million voters over economic considerations. It's a defacto poll tax.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 10:59 AM   #49
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 30,037
"Democracy" is a buzzword shouted by politicians who want more power, to decrease freedom. If it gets in the way, they want to get around it somehow.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:08 AM   #50
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Beerina View Post
The fact is you don't want them to vote because you think they might vote against for your candidates.

It's quite reasonable to have a policy to strip the vote from people who have committed serious crimes, because they have shown an inability to play by the rules (laws) that that very democracy has set up, so why should they get a say in those rules?
However, I am in favor of even prisoners, not just former ones, voting, because I don't like the loophole of laws getting passed to throw you in jail, with no way to address the wrongness or abuse of laws by changing the representatives. Granted this is mostly theoretical.

Somehow I don't think your rationale passes the strikethru humor I posted above. Am I wrong?
This is the classic argument justifying the disenfranchisement of these individuals. And I have to agree, that on the surface the argument sounds good. But the problem is the inherent inequity in its application. It discriminates not only against minorities, but people of color. And it does so deliberately.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 17th July 2020 at 11:12 AM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:13 AM   #51
Lennart Hyland
Muse
 
Lennart Hyland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 592
Lets hope they were Trump-voters...
__________________
L.H 1919 - 1993 R.I.P

Unfortunately the 911truth movement web site does not allow any opinions contrary to their own, or I would have presented my views. David Scott - CTBUH Chairman
Lennart Hyland is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:16 AM   #52
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In a post-fact world
Posts: 90,704
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
But the default position for a democracy should be that every citizen should vote and every citizen should be able to vote, unless there are specific, lawful exceptions like felons under sentence. Anything that impedes voting degrades democracy.
That's only one form of democracy, though. So long as power resides within the masses, it's a democracy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:17 AM   #53
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
If punishment for crimes is really about rehabilitation, enfranchising felons to vote would be a logical outcome of the process. If the penalty is one or both incarceration and restitution, these should be the only prerequisites.

Other tacked-on costs and fees should not factor into it. After all, non-felons owing all manner of fines are not prohibited.
YES!

Also, you could hardly call it a punishment either when you consider the number of people who don't vote. It certainly isn't a deterrent to crime.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:27 AM   #54
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
in Washington, those on parole or probation for a criminal conviction cannot vote. The difference is that there isnt the language of 'fines' being paid.
Maybe look in your own backyard instead of across the country to another jurisdiction of voters. Vermont felons don't lose their right to vote. What is wrong with Washington that they do not do that as well?

The only reason people care about Florida is because it is a swing state.
The best idea to rid the country of their obsession for zooming in on just a few states that decide elections is to do ranked voting by district and get rid of 'winner take all first past the post' crap. But that is another topic and States get to decide such things.
Quote:
If you were convicted of a felony in Washington State, your right to vote is restored as long as you are not under the authority (in prison or on community custody) of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Once your right is restored, you must re-register to vote in order to receive a ballot.

If you have questions about your status with DOC, you can call (800) 430-9674.

Restoring your right to vote

If you were convicted of a felony in a Washington State court, your right to vote is restored unless you are currently under the authority of DOC (in prison or on community custody). If you have questions about whether you are on community custody, call DOC at (800) 430-9674.
If you were convicted of a felony in another state or in federal court, your right to vote is restored as long as you are not currently incarcerated for that felony.
Once your right to vote is restored, you must re-register in order to receive a ballot. You can re-register online with VoteWA, by mail, or in person.
You do not lose the right to vote for a misdemeanor conviction or a conviction in juvenile court.
No, there is a huge difference. But I agree the State of Washington should restore the right to vote to even those on probation or on parole.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 11:42 AM   #55
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,994
Some perspective:
Quote:
Until 2018, Florida was one of three states that imposed a lifetime voting ban on former felons. Like most felon-disenfranchisement laws, Floridaís was a 19th-century relic drafted to keep newly freed black slaves from having a political voice. It continued to exert its racially biased effect into the 21st century, when more than one in five black Floridians were ineligible to vote because of a criminal conviction.
......
Florida Republican officials, apparently terrified that too many of their constituents would suddenly flood the polls, vote Democratic and endanger their hold on power, jumped into action. They passed a law that interpreted the amendment to require the payment of all fines, fees and restitution imposed by a court before the right to vote would be restored.
.....
Many donít even know the size of their debt, because Florida doesnít maintain a statewide system to track who owes what.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/21/o...ng-rights.html
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 01:07 PM   #56
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
The hell it isn't. I made the damn thread.

We're talking about disenfranchising a million voters over economic considerations. It's a defacto poll tax.
No, it's the direct application of the of the Amendment, voted on by the people of Florida. You can't complain about 'down with democracy' because democracy had an end result you don't agree with. The voters have the direct power to fix this. But you would rather they don't. Or not have to put forth the effort to do so.

If you want to complain about that, and the specifics of why you feel all felons should vote in all instances period, go ahead. Since you wanted to point to this specific event, it would make sense to not gloss over it because it is otherwise inconvenient to your point.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 01:10 PM   #57
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,066
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
No, it's the direct application of the of the Amendment, voted on by the people of Florida.
Bull ******* ****.

I'm in Florida. I voted for the Amendment. I actually read it.

The amendment, the one voted on by the people, was to restore voting rights to felons with a few actual spelled out exceptions (that I didn't fully agree with but they were actually spelled out honestly and fairly in the amendment.)

This whole "Okay now find any excuse and loophole to keep them from voting" is pure Republican voter suppression.

Here is the actual, not Republican made up after the fact, complete and total amendment that was on the ballot in 2018.

Quote:
A "yes" vote supported this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.
60% voted Yes. There's no mention of fines, no mentions of a process ("automatically"), no mention of any other expections beyond the murder and felony sexual offense.

**** off with "But that's what the people wanted!"
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 17th July 2020 at 01:12 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 01:25 PM   #58
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
No, it's the direct application of the of the Amendment, voted on by the people of Florida. You can't complain about 'down with democracy' because democracy had an end result you don't agree with. The voters have the direct power to fix this. But you would rather they don't. Or not have to put forth the effort to do so.

If you want to complain about that, and the specifics of why you feel all felons should vote in all instances period, go ahead. Since you wanted to point to this specific event, it would make sense to not gloss over it because it is otherwise inconvenient to your point.
I disagree. There are certain rights that as a nation we should recognize as inviolable regardless of what a majority of one state's voters might say.
The government shouldn't be able to restrict freedom of expression within reason.
The government shouldn't be able to restrict one's right to pray to their fairy tale god.
The government shouldn't be able to invade someone's privacy without probable cause of some illegality or health related reason.
The government shouldn't violate anyone's political participation. That means protesting, petitioning the government for redress and voting.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 01:29 PM   #59
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Bull ******* ****.

I'm in Florida. I voted for the Amendment. I actually read it.

The amendment, the one voted on by the people, was to restore voting rights to felons with a few actual spelled out exceptions (that I didn't fully agree with but they were actually spelled out honestly and fairly in the amendment.)

This whole "Okay now find any excuse and loophole to keep them from voting" is pure Republican voter suppression.

Here is the actual, not Republican made up after the fact, complete and total amendment that was on the ballot in 2018.



60% voted Yes. There's no mention of fines, no mentions of a process ("automatically"), no mention of any other expections beyond the murder and felony sexual offense.

**** off with "But that's what the people wanted!"
Thanks for this Joe.

Just goes to show that Republicans LIE ABOUT ANYTHING EVERYTHING.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 01:47 PM   #60
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Bull ******* ****.

I'm in Florida. I voted for the Amendment. I actually read it.

The amendment, the one voted on by the people, was to restore voting rights to felons with a few actual spelled out exceptions (that I didn't fully agree with but they were actually spelled out honestly and fairly in the amendment.)

This whole "Okay now find any excuse and loophole to keep them from voting" is pure Republican voter suppression.

Here is the actual, not Republican made up after the fact, complete and total amendment that was on the ballot in 2018.

So..
Quote:
No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.

Since the ruling judge referenced promotional material directly addressing the need to pay fees and restitution, it is obviously something that was discussed. Do you think the wording was accidental? This is the fault of the people in your state. It was obviously something that needed to be made clear, and was not in an attempt to give the most positive spin on the issue as to garner the most votes.

And again, you can fix this. As well as the myriad of other issues that the implementation of this has brought up, such as the lack of ability for the court to even give timely accounting of what is actually owed. But this isn't about fixing the problems, its about getting voters before November. Let the problems continue, unfixed, as long as the underlying voter base can be lured to one camp or the other.

Last edited by rdwight; 17th July 2020 at 01:48 PM.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 02:06 PM   #61
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,066
[quote=rdwight;13160349]So..

Since the ruling judge referenced promotional material directly addressing the need to pay fees and restitution, it is obviously something that was discussed. Do you think the wording was accidental? This is the fault of the people in your state. It was obviously something that needed to be made clear, and was not in an attempt to give the most positive spin on the issue as to garner the most votes.[ /QUOTE]

*Speaking very slowly* These fines are not part of their sentences. They are not laid down by the juries during their sentencing. They are tacked on, with no oversight, but various entities. And as noted there is literally no way to pay them in most cases since they are "phantom" fees that doesn't actually exist. They are pure, simple attempts by the right to criminalize being poor by pretending extra-judicial punishments are part of their sentences.

Try another lie.
__________________
- I don't know how to convince you that facts exist
- I don't know how to convince you that you should care about other people

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 17th July 2020 at 02:08 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 02:39 PM   #62
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Speaking very slowly* These fines are not part of their sentences. They are not laid down by the juries during their sentencing. They are tacked on, with no oversight, but various entities. And as noted there is literally no way to pay them in most cases since they are "phantom" fees that doesn't actually exist. They are pure, simple attempts by the right to criminalize being poor by pretending extra-judicial punishments are part of their sentences.

Try another lie.
So, they were referenced in promotional material, and by the proponents of the amendment, for what purpose? The specific wording of the amendment was done by accident, an oversight or on purpose? Excluding fees, which I feel like should have been specifically referenced as exempt, are you honestly going to put forward that restitution is not part of a sentence? That it is extra-judicial?

You want to avoid actually addressing what I said because then you would have to admit your simplistic position is not the full truth. Since you are based in Florida, what specific bills are being put forward to fix the underlying issues you reference in regards to fees and penalties? Seems like people are fine with ex-felons being handicapped by court fees and penalties and the impact they have on their life as long as they have a right to vote this November.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 04:51 PM   #63
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here is the actual, not Republican made up after the fact, complete and total amendment that was on the ballot in 2018.
Brilliant! I suggest you point this out to all the liberal justices who completely missed this argument (possibly because that is not the complete and total amendment that was on the ballot in 2018). Here's the actual text:

Quote:
FULL TEXT: Article VI, Section 4. Disqualifications.— (a) No person convicted of a felony, or adjudicated in this or any other state to be mentally incompetent, shall be qualified to vote or hold office until restoration of civil rights or removal of disability. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, any disqualification from voting arising from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of all terms of sentence including parole or probation. (b) No person convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense shall be qualified to vote until restoration of civil rights. (bc) No person may appear on the ballot for re-election to any of the following offices: (1) Florida representative, (2) Florida senator, (3) Florida Lieutenant governor, (4) any office of the Florida cabinet, (5) U.S. Representative from Florida, or (6) U.S. Senator from Florida if, by the end of the current term of office, the person will have served (or, but for resignation, would have served) in that office for eight consecutive years.
(Words underlined are additions; words stricken are deletions)
It's not even the ballot summary:

Quote:
BALLOT SUMMARY: This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation. The amendment would not apply to those convicted of murder or sexual offenses, who would continue to be permanently barred from voting unless the Governor and Cabinet vote to restore their voting rights on a case by case basis.
Don't know where you came up with it, but it's wrong. The words "all terms of their sentence" appear quite plainly in both.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 05:44 PM   #64
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Thanks for this Joe.

Just goes to show that Republicans LIE ABOUT ANYTHING EVERYTHING.
Just goes to show you might want to double-check Joe's claims. Not going to say he lies like all Democrats, but he was plainly wrong, and there were clues--note that the wording he claimed is in the past tense:

Quote:
A "yes" vote supported this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.
That is not common; all the ballot propositions I have seen in my life have either been phrased in the future tense ("A yes vote shall have the effect of....") or the present tense as in the actual ballot summary ("This amendment restores the voting rights....")
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:00 PM   #65
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Just goes to show you might want to double-check Joe's claims. Not going to say he lies like all Democrats, but he was plainly wrong, and there were clues--note that the wording he claimed is in the past tense:


Quote:
A "yes" vote supported this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to automatically restore the right to vote for people with prior felony convictions, except those convicted of murder or a felony sexual offense, upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation.
That is not common; all the ballot propositions I have seen in my life have either been phrased in the future tense ("A yes vote shall have the effect of....") or the present tense as in the actual ballot summary ("This amendment restores the voting rights....")
Seems pretty damn clear to me that a reasonable voter's impression on that initiative's wording that they intended

to "automatically restore the right to vote ...upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation."

Nowhere does it mention court fees or fines.

Joe seems spot on.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:08 PM   #66
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Seems pretty damn clear to me that a reasonable voter's impression on that initiative's wording that they intended

to "automatically restore the right to vote ...upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation."

Nowhere does it mention court fees or fines.

Joe seems spot on.
If that were the actual text of the amendment I'd probably be agreeing with you. So you might want to ask Joe where he got that wording from, because is not the the complete and total Amendment as he claimed, and it is not even the ballot summary. As I noted, it is written in the past tense, which indicates it was written by someone after the fact.

ETA: Found it. It's from Ballotpedia. It's somebody's attempted rowback of the measure, but if you scroll down you can see the actual text and the ballot summary.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 17th July 2020 at 06:24 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:15 PM   #67
rdwight
Muse
 
rdwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 618
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Seems pretty damn clear to me that a reasonable voter's impression on that initiative's wording that they intended

to "automatically restore the right to vote ...upon completion of their sentences, including prison, parole, and probation."

Nowhere does it mention court fees or fines.

Joe seems spot on.
This is honestly getting tedious. Here is literally the transcript from the lawyer FOR Amendment 4, explaining TO the Supreme Court of Florida.


Quote:
>> THIS INCLUDES THE COMPLETION OF THE TERMS OF
PROBATION, RIGHT?

>> YES, SIR. IT'S, IT SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES ALL MATTERS INCLUDED IN THE SENTENCE INCLUDING PROBATION AND PAROLE. SO THAT MEANS ALL MATTERS, ANYTHING THAT A JUDGE PUTS IN A SENTENCE.

>> SO IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE FULL PAYMENT OF ANY FINES?

>> YES, SIR. YEAH, ALL TERMS MEANS ALL TERMS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE COMPLETED ALL TERMS, AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD VERIFY THAT.

>> SO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WOULD VERIFY THAT. SO ONCE A PERSON PAYS ALL THEIR FINES, COMPLETES THEIR PAROLE, COMPLETES THEIR PROBATION, THAT INFORMATION IS SENT TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE?

I am not saying you or people pushing this angle are lieing, but you are at the very least either uninformed or ignoring anything that doesn't match your view. You are arguing for what you wanted it to be, not what it was and was advertised as.

Last edited by rdwight; 17th July 2020 at 06:20 PM.
rdwight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:43 PM   #68
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by rdwight View Post
This is honestly getting tedious. Here is literally the transcript from the lawyer FOR Amendment 4, explaining TO the Supreme Court of Florida.


I am not saying you or people pushing this angle are lieing, but you are at the very least either uninformed or ignoring anything that doesn't match your view. You are arguing for what you wanted it to be, not what it was and was advertised as.
No. What I am referring to is what was presented to the voters and not some lawyer's talk and fine print.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 06:58 PM   #69
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
No. What I am referring to is what was presented to the voters synopsized incorrectly on a webpage and not some lawyer's talk and fine print the actual text of the Amendment.
FTFY
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 07:12 PM   #70
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
FTFY
Hardly. That is called "spin".
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 07:17 PM   #71
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 10,994
This debate ignores the fact that numerous sources say there is no state mechanism for a convict to determine whether he owes money, and if so why and how much. But the threat of a potential felony prosecution will keep him from even trying to vote, even if he doesn't owe anything. That's what's pernicious here. If the IRS thinks you owe money, they will send you a bill calculated to the penny, and tell you how to contest it. If you don't get a bill or a notice, you can presume you're okay. If Florida isn't willing to do the same thing with alleged fines and penalties for ex-cons, then they should be invalidated.

How 'bout this: When an ex-con registers to vote, the state would have 30 days to inform him and the registrar of any money he still owes, with proof. If no timely notice is provided, he would be free to vote legally.

Last edited by Bob001; 17th July 2020 at 07:21 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 08:52 PM   #72
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Hardly. That is called "spin".
You have yet to acknowledge that Joe did not post the actual ballot language, but an incorrect synopsis written after the fact from a website.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 08:58 PM   #73
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
This debate ignores the fact that numerous sources say there is no state mechanism for a convict to determine whether he owes money, and if so why and how much. But the threat of a potential felony prosecution will keep him from even trying to vote, even if he doesn't owe anything. That's what's pernicious here. If the IRS thinks you owe money, they will send you a bill calculated to the penny, and tell you how to contest it. If you don't get a bill or a notice, you can presume you're okay. If Florida isn't willing to do the same thing with alleged fines and penalties for ex-cons, then they should be invalidated.

How 'bout this: When an ex-con registers to vote, the state would have 30 days to inform him and the registrar of any money he still owes, with proof. If no timely notice is provided, he would be free to vote legally.
I agree here; if payment of the fines is important, then there must be a procedure to provide the ex-convict with a complete and accurate accounting of the sum owed.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th July 2020, 09:24 PM   #74
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,364
"All terms of the sentence", I presume to be those as prescribed by the trial judge, as the penalty arising from the conviction of the crime itself. If this includes a fine or financial restitution, then indeed such would be "terms of the sentence."

What about court or administrative costs, which I interpret to not pertain directly to the punishment for the crime? These I see as an adjunct of sorts, being cost recovery for the administration of the judicial process.

The penalty for the crime is a more or less universal constant, at least on the books and within a state. But administrative costs could be arbitrary, varying wildly by county. This latter arbitrariness would be an unfair burden, with luck of sorts being a factor.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2020, 06:21 AM   #75
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,180
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I agree here; if payment of the fines is important, then there must be a procedure to provide the ex-convict with a complete and accurate accounting of the sum owed.
And if they government can't provide that information, should the ex-convict be allowed to vote in the 2020 election?
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2020, 06:29 AM   #76
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by Random View Post
And if they government can't provide that information, should the ex-convict be allowed to vote in the 2020 election?
I realize that the 2020 election is the only thing that matters in the world, and that if this argument were playing out, say, in Idaho, nobody'd be paying attention. So I will cheer you up and say yes, they should be allowed to vote. That said, keep in mind that I am just some rando on the internet.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2020, 09:50 AM   #77
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
You have yet to acknowledge that Joe did not post the actual ballot language, but an incorrect synopsis written after the fact from a website.
I don't know that at all. I noticed you haven't posted it.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2020, 01:35 PM   #78
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,824
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I don't know that at all. I noticed you haven't posted it.
You need to work on your noticing.

ETA: Where Joe's summary came from.

Maybe I should let you go on and on about how the wording said "automatically", and said "upon completion of their sentences." But it might embarrass others.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 18th July 2020 at 01:39 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th July 2020, 01:42 PM   #79
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,277
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
So? .
The "so" would be that the group who put in the blood and sweat to get this done clearly communicated they were fine with it while you likely didn't do the work....I will defer to those who did the work.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th July 2020, 09:19 AM   #80
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 25,541
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
You need to work on your noticing.

ETA: Where Joe's summary came from.

Maybe I should let you go on and on about how the wording said "automatically", and said "upon completion of their sentences." But it might embarrass others.
Nowhere in that does it say fines or fees.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.