LogFAQs > #942241425

On one hand, I get the broader logic of not allowing it. Somebody with enough resentment toward their society to break its laws can potentially be expected to vote in a way that harms it, or at least doesn't benefit the law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, being able to say "you broke one of the laws I wrote so now you can't vote against me" has incredible potential to be abused to suppress votes, which is really bad (see: the aforementioned example of the war on drugs). Even if that abuse isn't specifically intended by those writing laws, the degree to which the justice system favours the rich means preventing felons from voting will inevitably have more of a suppressive effect on poor and middle-class voters. As much as it intuitively makes sense, there also isn't really much reason to believe that a convicted felon is likely to vote against society's best interests, since most felonies don't suggest any particular desire to bring about the collapse of society as we know it (treason aside, obviously).

It feels like it makes sense if you don't think too much about it, so I understand why people generally don't have an issue with taking the right to vote away from felons, but ultimately, I would say it likely does more harm than good.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.