Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[Mich the Tester]

There is a very important principle here, which I am surprised that nobody has mentioned amid the detail of the argument. That is the question of who is sovereign: the government or the people. I believe that in a democracy the people are sovereign, however much the constitutional history of England may have produced the doctrine that government (acting theoretically for the monarch) is sovereign. I hold with the writers of the US Declaration of Independence that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.

Voting is a superior power to governing. The vote is not a privilege given to people by government. Rather, government is a privilege and a duty given by the voters.

It is the Vote that legitimises Government, not the other way round. For this reason I believe that it is wrong for government to take upon itself the power to remove the vote.

Very eloquently put; sometimes principles are inconvenient, but that's when you need them most.

[RichardCranium]

It is the Vote that legitimises Government, not the other way round. For this reason I believe that it is wrong for government to take upon itself the power to remove the vote.

Abso-blinking-lutely!

I'm convinced.

[xoggoth]

Very well put certainly, although I don't agree with it as I'm not really a believer in democracy.

I don't believe anyone should have rights without corresponding duties and obligations, in anyone receiving from society when they do not make a reasonable effort (within their capacity) to contribute to it.

[EternalOptimist]

Good points, but the op was about what WE thought, not whether the govt has the right etc.

maybe, with the rise of the interweb, we can do away with charlatans once and for all and get some form of direct rule. rule of the people, for the people, by the web-enabled people

[Mich the Tester]

Very well put certainly, although I don't agree with it as I'm not really a believer in democracy.

The trouble with democracy is that it puts lots of idiots in charge instead of a few idiots, and mass stupidity cannot be shown to be better than the stupidity of the few. At least democracy is a sort of correcting mechanism whereby a government that really fooks everything up will eventually be dumped; unfortunately governments tend to fook things up by doing exactly what the crass majority have asked them to do.

I wonder if there may be better systems available. Perhaps a sort of 'passive democracy' like some micro states have, where the government or ruling family is not subject to votes or standard democratic controls, but doesn't have and may not gain the means to defend its power against the people and therefore must maintain some level of satisfaction among the people to keep its own position. Trouble is, that also means they won't have the power to defend the country against outside threats.

[gingerjedi]

What if a situation were to arise (unpopular war or a draconian law) and the state starts to imprison people that disagree with its ideology? Wouldn't it be dangerous to have large proportions of society unable to affect the situation?

[Mich the Tester]

What if a situation were to arise (unpopular war or a draconian law) and the state starts to imprison people that disagree with its ideology? Wouldn't it be dangerous to have large proportions of society unable to affect the situation?

yep good point