>>>>>>>>>Florida has over 30,000 felons registered to vote, which is in violation of Florida law. The story says Ds outnumber Rs by 2 to 1. I'll bet that is new math. My experience says it's more like 100 to 1. More to follow. . . .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbfelons1012sboct12,0,3762352.story
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I have to admit I'm a bit amazed that any state has a law that says a citizen can't vote. 10 states have this sort of law - astonishing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Don't do tha crime, if ya can't do tha time, don't do it! . . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>According to the article 25,000 of the 30,000 have done their time. Do you want to go on punishing them? Not baiting you, honest question.
>>>>>
>>>>>The answer is they should follow the law. In Tennessee, they can vote again, if they go before the court that convicted them and petition for a restoration of rights. Oh, and they have to stay out of jail. These thugs in Florida haven't done what they are supposed to do, so they should not be allowed to vote. Personally, once a person has served their time, and gone through the procedures, I have no problem. It's about following the law, not the party, or the fact they are criminals. However, if they ever get another felony convictioin, I think they should be exiled to the middle of the ocean.
>>>>
>>>>Follow the law, yes - but it's the law itself that I have a problem with. I think this handful of states that excludes these people from voting unless they go though some 'restoration of rights' process just have it all wrong. As for these "thugs" in Florida, as you call them, I don't see how you can call all 30,000 of these people "thugs" - and furthermore some of them probably assume that since they're released and served their time that they CAN vote (like they can in most of the other states).
>>>>Someone please explain to me what possible benefit there could be by not letting these people vote?
>>>
>>
>>>The benefit is that it is a loss of rights because of their past actions.
>>
>>Riiight - which is of no benefit to anyone! So you're suggesting that someone who committed a crime in 1970 and got a felony rap for it is somehow unfit to vote? Or that it is somehow benefiting society by stripping them of their rights? hahahahaha...dude that's ridicilious!
>>
>>>Whether or not YOU like the law doesn't matter. The legislature of these states passed those laws, and it is up to them to change them. Until then, they should follow them. They are not SUGGESTIONS.
>>
>>Well duh. The point I was making was that it's an unfair, impractical, and kinda dumb law - especially considering the fact that MOST states are smart enough to figure that out. Obviously the people living in those states need to write to their legislatures and work on having the law changed - that or these 30,000 "thugs" you were harping about should setup residence in more than one state so they can at least vote.
>
>That's up to the people in those states. Who appointed you God anyway? Would I be correct in assuming you have an "issue" in the past, and that is why you are so passionate about the rights of felons?

Don't have any past issues myself, however I know several people who do as does pretty much everyone these days. It's not really the rights of felons that I'm passionate about, it's the rights of ALL people. Wasn't trying to play God or anything - but I just find it insane that these people can be screwed with for the rest of their lives for a mistake that was made years ago in their youth. Obviously one has to be practical - for example I don't have a problem with the government restricting the right for a felon to own a gun and be required to see a judge to restore that right (hey if they shot someone then maybe they shouldn't be allowed to have a gun) - but to vote? Come on - surely you can't think that it's right.