I agree with this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html

I think while incarcerated, the states can indeed suspend the right to vote, but only suspend it during incarceration.

I agree with the article's last paragraph:

Voting is not a privilege; it is the basic right that defines a citizen. Those denied it are, in effect, stateless -- people without a country. This is not a partisan issue, but one of basic human rights. People who have paid their debt to society should have their rights restored.

I can see the logic behind not allowing criminals currently incarcerated to vote. Still, the article was spot-on when with this: (That "anti-law enforcement bloc" notwithstanding, we've managed very nicely to elect plenty of criminals to office without any help from ex-felons).

Interesting it focuses on 'ex-felons' not 'felons.' I don't think anyone wants to tackle discussing allowing those currently serving time to vote - that would be political death.



>>Actually, we pretty much agree on all this. I am completely in favor of a voter/citizen registry that is as good as technology can provide and actual voting that is accurate and techonologically fool proof (until, of course, technology delivers a better fool)
>>
>>It will never happen because the GOP has a lot of nutjobs that think the government is going to put tracking devices in the fillings in their teeth and the Democrats have a lot of nutjobs who are afraid that if you somehow filter out felons, illegal aliens and people who are too drunk, lazy or stupid to get their act together to vote you will seriously eat into their base vote.
>
>Isn't it scary, that the country with the largest atomic stockpile is run by two parties with so many nutjobs...
>
>And I actually don't understand the Dems, being afraid that filtering out some guys would filter out more of their voters than the others - isn't IQ the best distributed commodity on Earth? How many people do you hear complaining about not receiving their fair share?
>
>I don't quite understand the reasoning behind disallowing felons to vote. They are still citizens. And there's a chance that they may be felons because of an unfair law, which would be changed by voting for a different legislature - and then if those who would vote for it are felons by that law, such a law would be forever.
>
>But then, with a choice of only two parties, and having to choose them as a package... whoever wins would do maybe 20% of the things you'd agree with, 20% of things you don't care about, 20% of what you disagree with but voted for them because they promised NOT to do them, and the remainder is what you just don't like. The percentage with the other party is just a tad worse, so... "when you got to choose, any way you look at it you lose".