Reply to: Should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[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

[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]

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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Ignis Fatuus]

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.

[Mich the Tester]

So what if they get to vote?

What matters is that those who go to jail ain't got no entertainment center, no climate control, no video system, no surveillance, no freezers, no ******* ice cream, no rubbers, no women, no guns. All they should get there is *tulip*!

AIDS

Do you really want prisons to be a breeding place for STDs?

I think that would do society even more harm than whatever offences the criminals have committed.

[RichardCranium]

If convicted you lose all your rights innit.

That doesn't really work. They are still covered by Health & Safety, the right to protection from assault, the right to be kept warm, dry and fed. Essentially, all that is removed is the right to wander freely around the country.

Loads of people have spent a night in the cell.

Oh dear. First day in the new gig not go well? Have they just let you out? You didn't hit your new boss, did you?

[MarillionFan]

sent daaarn, for serious criminal activity. like 4 week porridge or more


p.s. dont be , we all spent a night in a cell. well most of us

What EO says.

If convicted you lose all you're rights innit.

Loads of people have spent a night in the cell. Which reminds me, EO, next time you get arrested can you piss in the toilet in the corner and not on the floor, makes an awful pong for the next person!

[CheeseSlice]

So what if they get to vote?

What matters is that those who go to jail ain't got no entertainment center, no climate control, no video system, no surveillance, no freezers, no ******* ice cream, no rubbers, no women, no guns. All they should get there is *tulip*!

Agree with the second bit.
Prison currently sounds like another form of 'living on benefits' but without the freedom.
What I'm wondering is if some people out there may actually prefer prison to the benefit cap system on 'the outside'.

[AtW]

So what if they get to vote?

What matters is that those who go to jail ain't got no entertainment center, no climate control, no video system, no surveillance, no freezers, no ******* ice cream, no rubbers, no women, no guns. All they should get there is *tulip*!

[scooterscot]

They can have my vote, I don't use it anyway...

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I that you should have to pay tax to vote.
.

How much tax do I need to pay to get a vote - is VAT Ok or do you mean income tax? Do you get a number of votes in proportion to how much tax you pay? Would Sir Philip Green and Lord Ashcroft be denied the vote? (or are they OK since they are Tories?)

I don't pay green fees for the local golf course so why should I get a say in the next club captain.

Not really a valid comparison is it, but then you can't have been offering it as a serious comparison surely?


As for prisoners - I have voted WGAF - as someone else pointed out, the ripper et al had the vote before they got caught, and it's not as if there is any political party standing on a criminal friendly manifesto.