Taxation without representation

[Ten oz]

Taxation without representation is a well worn slogan familiar to most in the western world. Yet throughout the world's democracies and more specifically in the U.S. millions who pay taxes do not have the right to vote. Green card holders, visa holders, and those in the U.S. on deferred action pay taxes yet have no right to vote. Depending of the state U.S. born citizens can be denied their right to vote pending run ins with the law. In Western Democracies what should the standard be? Should paying taxes guarantee you a right to a vote, should a right to a vote be guaranteed regardless of taxation, or should govts be able to restrict voting to tax paying individuals based on which ever caveats they choose?

Quote

 

A trip to her local polling place may have earned a Texas woman five years behind bars.

Crystal Mason was sentenced to five years in prison this week after she voted in the 2016 election while on parole, according to Dallas ABC affiliate WFAA. Mason was on parole after serving time for a federal tax crime, her lawyer said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/texas-woman-sentenced-years-prison-illegally-voting-2016/story?id=54143848

 

In Texas a U.S. born and raised citizen is being charged with a crime for voting. She is being charged with voter fraud yet she is one person and cast just one vote. 

[Sensei]

If somebody lost voting rights, because of committing some crime, he/she certainly should not be on the list of voters. They made mistake to put her on the list, in the first place.

Analogously, if somebody lost driver's license, it should be taken, and then it'll be easily identified because it's missing.

Certainly, she should not be prosecuted just because somebody made mistake and included her on voter's list. Somebody might have no idea (or forget it) that lost civil rights.

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

If somebody lost voting rights, because of committing some crime, he/she certainly should not be on the list of voters. They made mistake to put her on the list, in the first place.

Analogously, if somebody lost driver's license, it should be taken, and then it'll be easily identified because it's missing.

Certainly, she should not be prosecuted just because somebody made mistake and included her on voter's list. Somebody might have no idea (or forget it) that lost civil rights.

 

My question is whether or not tax paying members of a society should have a right to vote. A person on parole, a felon who served their time, and etc are members of society who still are able to work, buy property, buy stock, and do any number of things which contribute to taxation and GDP yet they can be denied the right to vote. Do you feel that is acceptable?

 

[Sensei]

25 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

My question is whether or not tax paying members of a society should have a right to vote. A person on parole, a felon who served their time, and etc are members of society who still are able to work, buy property, buy stock, and do any number of things which contribute to taxation and GDP yet they can be denied the right to vote. Do you feel that is acceptable?

If somebody lost civil rights, he/she can't vote, that's the whole "punishment" of losing civil rights, isn't?

She had no idea that she lost civil rights, and cannot vote.

 

Edited March 31, 2018 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

If somebody lost civil rights, he/she can't vote, that's the whole "punishment" of losing civil rights, isn't?

She had no idea that she lost civil rights, and cannot vote.

 

You still aren't addressing the question. I understand what happened in the story I link as an example of someone who had their voting rights stripped. 

[Outrider]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Taxation without representation is a well worn slogan familiar to most in the western world. 

And its just a slogan. If I cross state lines and buy a candy bar and pay the sales tax should I be allowed to vote in that state? I think not. China pays tariffs on their imports do they get to vote?

If you want to talk about specific classes of people we might find some agreement but not much on your two examples so far.

I didn't read your link but the sentence seemed unduly harsh to me. But I am ok with certain convictions disqualifying the perpetrator from voting. 

As far as non citizens voting yeah I would be against that. We need to fix our immigration policies in the worst way and .make the path to citizenship more straightforward so immigrants who live and work here can rightfully participate in our society. I think you have the cart before the horse on this example.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

My question is whether or not tax paying members of a society should have a right to vote. A person on parole, a felon who served their time, and etc are members of society who still are able to work, buy property, buy stock, and do any number of things which contribute to taxation and GDP yet they can be denied the right to vote. Do you feel that is acceptable?

 

In the US constitution, it specifically restricts voting rights to citizens. I don't find that to be an unreasonable position.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

In the US constitution, it specifically restricts voting rights to citizens. I don't find that to be an unreasonable position.

I agree for the most part. However I don't think (personal opinion) those who wrote the constitution had the forethought to envision a time when one would own property they pay taxes on, own businesses they pay taxes on, have jobs they pay taxes through, and yet still wouldn't be be unable to obtain legal status. Also we are talking about the same document which initially restricted voting to white male land owners. Only through amendments were Black people, Women, and etc extended the right to vote. Thanks to SCOTUS determining that money is speech and corporations are people wealthy non citizens are free to lobby the U.S. govt with money all they want provided it is in the name of U.S. corporations they own and or advocate for. Seems like a huge grey area which like most grey areas favors rich people over everyone else. If someone's sole permanent residence in the U.S. and they are paying income tax, property tax, or corporate tax to the U.S. I feel they should be entitled to vote. If nothing else their votes can be akin to Washington DC's Congress Representative who lacks full procedural voting ability. Some amount of voice should be earned through paying into the system.

As for U.S. citizens; all should be allowed to vote. Considering that laws change over time and it is elected representatives who change them I find the idea of preventing those who are being most encumbered by current laws from voting to be against the spirit of democracy, taxation without representation, and one person one vote. 

1 hour ago, Outrider said:

And its just a slogan. If I cross state lines and buy a candy bar and pay the sales tax should I be allowed to vote in that state? I think not. China pays tariffs on their imports do they get to vote?

If you want to talk about specific classes of people we might find some agreement but not much on your two examples so far.

I didn't read your link but the sentence seemed unduly harsh to me. But I am ok with certain convictions disqualifying the perpetrator from voting. 

As far as non citizens voting yeah I would be against that. We need to fix our immigration policies in the worst way and .make the path to citizenship more straightforward so immigrants who live and work here can rightfully participate in our society. I think you have the cart before the horse on this example.

If I bought a candy bar in Alabama I can not vote in Alabama. That is true. If I bought some land, a condo, a house, or etc in Alabama I would be able to claim residency and vote in Alabama. Nothing would prevent me from switching my residency between DC and Alabama often as I liked provided I own property (had an address) in each. Also a corporation or organization from outside Alabama can pure all the money they want into Alabama political races. We just saw that with Jones vs Moore. So I don't feel it is entirely as cut and dry. 

China doesn't get to vote in elections, nor should they, but they do get to directly negotiate with our govt. POTUS doesn't pick up the phone, host at the White House, and personally visit every country in the world. China definitely gets access.  

[Outrider]

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

 Thanks to SCOTUS determining that money is speech and corporations are people wealthy non citizens are free to lobby the U.S. govt with money all they want provided it is in the name of U.S. corporations they own and or advocate for. 

 

17 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Also a corporation or organization from outside Alabama can pure all the money they want into Alabama political races.

Again I see these as problems that need to be fixed. I don't see how giving felons and non citizens the right to vote fixes them.

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 

Again I see these as problems that need to be fixed. I don't see how giving felons and non citizens the right to vote fixes them.

The non citizen issue is more complicated. I think creating pathways to citizenship is the easiest answer. However I see no reason why felons should be kept from voting. I understand not allowing prison inmates to vote. While incarcerated any number of a persons rights are withheld. However once that debt to society is paid and an individual is back out in regular society why should voting be the lone right which continues to be denied? Felon are allowed to work, own property, own businesses, and etc. A felon can even be elected to Congress. If a felon can serve in Congress why can't they vote?

Quote

 

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was convicted on seven felony counts of corruption in late October. Stevens ran for reelection Nov. 4 against Democrat Mark Begich

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/felons-in-office/

 

 

[Outrider]

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The non citizen issue is more complicated. I think creating pathways to citizenship is the easiest answer.

Ok we are on the same page here. Good deal!

We need to promptly decide which illegals deserve amnesty (most of them) and then revamp the whole system. Not gonna happen but needs to.

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

However I see no reason why felons should be kept from voting.

Did you know this was state law? I didn't. Maybe its not as big a problem as you think.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights.aspx

Quote

 

In Maine and Vermont, felons never lose their right to vote, even while they are incarcerated. 

In 14 states and the District of Columbia, felons lose their voting rights only while incarcerated, and receive automatic restoration upon release.

In 22 states, felons lose their voting rights during incarceration, and for a period of time after, typically while on parole and/or probation. Voting rights are automatically restored after this time period. Former felons may also have to pay any outstanding fines, fees or restitution before their rights are restored as well. 

In 12 states felons lose their voting rights indefinitely for some crimes, or require a governor’s pardon in order for voting rights to be restored, or face an additional waiting period after completion of sentence (including parole and probation) before voting rights can be restored.

 

So you just have a beef with 12 states.

Also voting rights are not all felons stand to loose. For one employers may discriminate if they wish.

https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-rights-do-convicted-felons-lose/

Quote

 

Some of the most common rights lost or severely curtailed by a felony record include:

Voting

Traveling abroad*

The right to bear arms or own guns

Jury service

Employment in certain fields

Public social benefits and housing

Parental benefits

 

*This may be enforced by the country the felon wishes to visit. 

12 hours ago, Ten oz said:

A felon can even be elected to Congress. 

No I did not know that and yes I am against it.

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

Did you know this was state law? I didn't. Maybe its not as big a problem as you think.

Yes I was aware and I think that makes it huge problem. As we very recently saw in 2016 how States votes matters more than how people vote at large. With an electoral system like ours allowing states to pull peoples voting rights or create addition hoops to jump can be the difference in who wins and loses. Take Florida for example. Trump won Florida by 1% yet in Florida 10% of adults weren't eligible to vote. In Florida's African American community it was 21%( Clinton won 88% of the African American vote nationally ).

Quote

 

Across the nation, one in 13 African-American adults cannot vote because of a felony conviction. In Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia, more than one in five African-Americans cannot vote.

Experts cite disparities in sentencing as the underlying cause: A black person is more likely to be convicted of a felony than a white person who committed the same crime. The incarcerated population tends to include disproportionately higher numbers of low-income people and minorities.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/06/us/unequal-effect-of-laws-that-block-felons-from-voting.html

 

 

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

No I did not know that and yes I am against it.

If there were a national standard for what a felony was I'd agree but there isn't. State by state the U.S. has different standards. Even within a state different individuals receive different sentences for similar crimes. Economics and race being variables which seem to play a big role. So I don't feel a felon should be automatically disqualified from office. All felons aren't murderers and rapists. Currently students across the country are getting felony charges for selling Adderall  (a study aid) on campus. Yes it is bad to sell Adderall but I don't  think it should disqualify someone from office 20-30 years down the road. 

 http://ktvo.com/news/local/student-faces-felony-charge-for-handing-out-adderall-before-school

http://www.wbtv.com/story/34102327/mom-warns-of-student-adderall-use-after-son-charged-with-felony

7 hours ago, Outrider said:

Also voting rights are not all felons stand to loose. For one employers may discriminate if they wish.

Employers can discriminate for any number of reasons: experience, education, credit history, and etc. No law implemented by govt, local or federal, bars a felon from having a job. 

[Ten oz]

From the U.N.'s  Human Rights Council report on poverty in the U.S. 

Quote

 

19. In a democracy, the task of government should be to facilitate political participation by ensuring that all citizens can vote and that their votes will count equally. However, in the United States there is overt disenfranchisement of more than 6 million felons and exfelons, which predominantly affects Black citizens since they are the ones whose conduct is often specifically targeted for criminalization. In addition, nine states currently condition the restoration of the right to vote after prison on the payment of outstanding fines and fees. A typical outcome is that seen in Alabama, where a majority of all ex-felons cannot vote.

20. Then there is covert disenfranchisement, which includes the dramatic gerrymandering of electoral districts to privilege particular groups of voters, the imposition of artificial and unnecessary voter identification requirements, the blatant manipulation of polling station locations, the relocation of Departments of Motor Vehicles’ offices to make it more difficult for certain groups to obtain identification, and the general ramping up of obstacles to voting, especially for those without resources. The net result is that people living in poverty, minorities and other disfavoured groups are being systematically deprived of their right to vote.

21. It is thus unsurprising that the United States has one of the lowest turnout rates in elections among developed countries, with only 55.7 per cent of the voting-age population casting ballots in the 2016 presidential election.  Registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the United States than in just about any other OECD country. Only about 64 per cent of the United States voting-age population was registered in 2016, compared with 91 per cent in Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 96 per cent in Sweden and nearly 99 per cent in Japan

http://undocs.org/A/HRC/38/33/ADD.1

 

One argument I often hear in defense of Trump is that he was elected. That per the democratic process he was made president so now we all have some sort of civic duties to work through these trying times with him (Trump) as our leader and continue respecting the office. However 5 members of his campaign have already plead guilty to crimes during the election and we know that Republicans have cultivated a system of disenfranchisement, particularly in Southern States, for decades. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million, 6 million predominately black (and Southern) weren't allowed to vote at all, and the U.S. has the lowest voting participation percentage in the developed world. This isn't what Democracy looks like!

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Ten oz said:

This isn't what Democracy looks like!

This is what it looks like when the only people being represented are those wealthy enough to skew results unnaturally and force their viewpoint on the rest of the population. Enough wealth buys you tailor-made news coverage (since the news no longer is required to truthfully inform), social media storms painting whatever picture suits your agenda, and lobbyists who will actually make your illicit gains legal.

This country is NOT made up of moderate conservatives and extreme conservatives, but that's the way our representatives vote, compared to the rest of the major nations. That should tell us we have no representation that isn't bought with extreme wealth.

[Ten oz]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is what it looks like when the only people being represented are those wealthy enough to skew results unnaturally and force their viewpoint on the rest of the population. Enough wealth buys you tailor-made news coverage (since the news no longer is required to truthfully inform), social media storms painting whatever picture suits your agenda, and lobbyists who will actually make your illicit gains legal.

This country is NOT made up of moderate conservatives and extreme conservatives, but that's the way our representatives vote, compared to the rest of the major nations. That should tell us we have no representation that isn't bought with extreme wealth.

It is why I roll my eyes so strongly at those who use mid ground and work between the aisle platitudes. There simply is no middle ground to be had. The current system is not designed for compromised solutions. It is a take everything you can get and F%$# everyone else system.

We need a national standard for national election which ensures the right to vote for every citizen who pays taxes. Ones IRS filing should double as their voter registration. 

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

This country is NOT made up of moderate conservatives and extreme conservatives, but that's the way our representatives vote, compared to the rest of the major nations.

We used to think the Republican Party was largely conservative with some racist and extremist elements at the margins. Now, we realize instead that it’s largely a racist amd extremist party with some conservative elements at the margins. 

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

This is what it looks like when the only people being represented are those wealthy enough to skew results unnaturally and force their viewpoint on the rest of the population. Enough wealth buys you tailor-made news coverage (since the news no longer is required to truthfully inform), social media storms painting whatever picture suits your agenda, and lobbyists who will actually make your illicit gains legal.

This country is NOT made up of moderate conservatives and extreme conservatives, but that's the way our representatives vote, compared to the rest of the major nations. That should tell us we have no representation that isn't bought with extreme wealth.

That's enlightening. I never thought of it that way. So,  the US has got a significant problem whereby the governance and media reflects the whims of those that can afford it.

[Phi for All]

59 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

That's enlightening. I never thought of it that way. So,  the US has got a significant problem whereby the governance and media reflects the whims of those that can afford it.

Very well put. And every week they do more to whittle away at the regulations that are in place to keep just such from happening. If Americans were ever asked straight out if they want to remove more regulations that allow extremist wealthy folks to get away with murder, the vast majority would say no. And that's not how our leadership votes.

[Ten oz]

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That's enlightening. I never thought of it that way. So,  the US has got a significant problem whereby the governance and media reflects the whims of those that can afford it.

We claim to be the freest country in the world yet have the highest prison population. We have millions who have lost the right vote. The UN says 6 million people but that is just felons and ex-felons. Add in the people prevented from voting because they are on probation and what not the number is probably closer to 10 million. People are are still allowed to do everything else in society (work, marry, have kids, go to Disneyland, etc) they just can't vote. They still pay taxes at the local, state, and federal level but can't vote. 

Of course that is just the tip of the iceberg. Tens of millions more are disenfranchised a variety of other ways. I focused on those banned from voting by law because it is one of the easier issues to fix. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I would be inclined to say that every citizen should be allowed to vote, felon or not, though I can see concerns about what region their vote is counted in. If, say, they were incarcerated in one region after life in another, or others, where should their vote be competed for and count toward? Allowing inmates of a penitentiary attached to a small town being allowed to vote for town council could amount to "inmates running the asylum", but OTOH why should they not vote nationally?

If there are enough felons (or those of violent crimes) to effect the vote, maybe the reasons should be given more focus.

[iNow]

Unfortunately right now, we must fight to allow just democrats to vote, or merely those with darker complexion. 

[Ten oz]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would be inclined to say that every citizen should be allowed to vote, felon or not, though I can see concerns about what region their vote is counted in. If, say, they were incarcerated in one region after life in another, or others, where should their vote be competed for and count toward? Allowing inmates of a penitentiary attached to a small town being allowed to vote for town council could amount to "inmates running the asylum", but OTOH why should they not vote nationally?

If there are enough felons (or those of violent crimes) to effect the vote, maybe the reasons should be given more focus.

The laws vary greatly by state. There are 6 various ranging from felons permanently losing their right to vote to felons being about to vote from prison, Here. As a result the number of felons who cannot vote varies greatly by State. For example in Florida 1.7 million felons cannot vote. That is a significant number when one considers that in the 2016 election 9.1 million votes were cast in FL and just 110 thousand separated Trump and Clinton. Even if only a quarter of the 1.7 million felon who can't vote had been allowed to and chose to participate it would have had a dramatic impact. In Kentucky over a quarter of all African Americans cannot vote. In all 6 million people throughout the country cannot vote. Here is an overview of the 10 worst states, Here. Not surprisingly 7 of the 10 are southern states and 8 of the 10 are reliably Conservative states.

7 hours ago, iNow said:

Unfortunately right now, we must fight to allow just democrats to vote, or merely those with darker complexion. 

Unfortunately too many people take for granted that the U.S. has a fair Democratic system. When something like 2016 happens despite evidence of corruption/illegality most people just accept that Clinton lost due to uninspired campaigning and too much baggage. Meanwhile Republicans systematically disenfranchise voters at every level they can to inch out victories. As noted above Trump won FL by 110 thousand votes yet 1.7 million people in FL weren't allowed to participate  (21% of the African American community). In GA Trump won by 200 thousand votes and 250 thousand weren't allowed to vote. Republican are stealing elections, packing city and state legislatures, and further rigging the system to steal more elections. Meanwhile Democrats sit around and debate the likability of their Candidates. It is comically naive, willfully ignorant, and sometimes makes me feel like Democrats deserve to lose. Likability isn't going to get it done. At some point Democrats need to confront the tipping of the scales (voter suppression & voter disenfranchisement) that are giving away elections. FL gave the election to Bush back in 2000 and here we are 18 years later and Democrats still are fighting aggressively in FL to combat the problem. It is unforgivable. One can't win from losing!

[J.C.MacSwell]

8 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The laws vary greatly by state. There are 6 various ranging from felons permanently losing their right to vote to felons being about to vote from prison, Here. As a result the number of felons who cannot vote varies greatly by State. For example in Florida 1.7 million felons cannot vote. That is a significant number when one considers that in the 2016 election 9.1 million votes were cast in FL and just 110 thousand separated Trump and Clinton. Even if only a quarter of the 1.7 million felon who can't vote had been allowed to and chose to participate it would have had a dramatic impact. In Kentucky over a quarter of all African Americans cannot vote. In all 6 million people throughout the country cannot vote. Here is an overview of the 10 worst states, Here. Not surprisingly 7 of the 10 are southern states and 8 of the 10 are reliably Conservative states.

Unfortunately too many people take for granted that the U.S. has a fair Democratic system. When something like 2016 happens despite evidence of corruption/illegality most people just accept that Clinton lost due to uninspired campaigning and too much baggage. Meanwhile Republicans systematically disenfranchise voters at every level they can to inch out victories. As noted above Trump won FL by 110 thousand votes yet 1.7 million people in FL weren't allowed to participate  (21% of the African American community). In GA Trump won by 200 thousand votes and 250 thousand weren't allowed to vote. Republican are stealing elections, packing city and state legislatures, and further rigging the system to steal more elections. Meanwhile Democrats sit around and debate the likability of their Candidates. It is comically naive, willfully ignorant, and sometimes makes me feel like Democrats deserve to lose. Likability isn't going to get it done. At some point Democrats need to confront the tipping of the scales (voter suppression & voter disenfranchisement) that are giving away elections. FL gave the election to Bush back in 2000 and here we are 18 years later and Democrats still are fighting aggressively in FL to combat the problem. It is unforgivable. One can't win from losing!

That is one nasty statistic!

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

That is one nasty statistic!

What is the rule in Canada? 

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

What is the rule in Canada? 

Felons can vote, even while incarcerated.