Is It a Privilege Or a Right To Vote?

[Big Guy]

There is currently a controversy in the USA because in most states, a person in prison or a convicted felon (but has served his time) does not have the right to vote.

In Canada, even persons serving time in prison have the right to vote:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90545〈=e

In the USA, the right to vote varies with the state but in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to vote even after serving their time.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

This concept (called felony disenfranchisement) varies with different countries. I always thought that voting was a constitutional right – not a privilege. I assume that the Americans consider it a privilege.

Who has it right, Canada or the USA

[bush_cheney2004]

Canada's Elections Act has not been changed to reflect the 2002 SCC decision. Voting ban is still on the books, even if not enforced.

...Of note, Parliament has still not amended the Canada Elections Act to reflect the court decision, so the prisoner voting ban is still on the books even though it is not enforced.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-prisoners-voting-1.3202010

Edited April 24, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[bush_cheney2004]

...This concept (called felony disenfranchisement) varies with different countries. I always thought that voting was a constitutional right – not a privilege. I assume that the Americans consider it a privilege.

The Americans do not assume it is a privilege. U.S. Constitution trumps "charter politics".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richardson_v._Ramirez

[Shady]

The democrat governor of Virginia made felons eligible to vote in a pathetic effort to help Hillary Clinton win that state in November.

[Moonlight Graham]

Felons are denied all sorts of rights when sent to prison.

[eyeball]

Interesting to ponder in light of the notion that voting is also a duty and in some democracies actually mandatory. I assume its fair to say ideology (as opposed to partisanship) will factor into one's pondering as well.

[GostHacked]

Interesting to ponder in light of the notion that voting is also a duty and in some democracies actually mandatory. I assume its fair to say ideology (as opposed to partisanship) will factor into one's pondering as well.

I would not hold my breath!!!

[Shady]

I think that if you value voting, don't rape or murder somebody and you won't have any problem getting to the ballot box.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey...if I give up my right to vote, does that mean I can go a murderin' and a rapin' ?

Polling precinct and registration card came in the mail last week for the 2016 election...no felonies so far I guess.

[August1991]

Who has it right, Canada or the USA

Whether FPTP or PR or even other schemes, a single vote changes nothing. For the individual voter, it is all about perception.

But for a candidate, it is something else; hence, democracy.

===

If criminals can vote, then the perception is lost.

[JamesHackerMP]

There is currently a controversy in the USA because in most states, a person in prison or a convicted felon (but has served his time) does not have the right to vote.

In Canada, even persons serving time in prison have the right to vote:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90545〈=e

In the USA, the right to vote varies with the state but in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to vote even after serving their time.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

This concept (called felony disenfranchisement) varies with different countries. I always thought that voting was a constitutional right – not a privilege. I assume that the Americans consider it a privilege.

Who has it right, Canada or the USA

We don't consider it a privilege, we consider it a right. It's just that various states haven't got their **** together and closed some loopholes in voting rights.

A right can, under certain circumstances, be taken away for criminal behavior of some sort, via due process. That's pretty standard in most democracies, that something that is still a constitutionally-guaranteed right is also constitutionally-guaranteed to be taken away via criminal conviction via due process.

Thus, that doesn't make voting in the US a "privilege".

Edited July 17, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[JamesHackerMP]

Addendum: The idea of a "privilege" to vote comes most recently from Robert Heinlein, the author of Starship Troopers and other sci-fi novels. In his fictitious "Terran Federation" you had to earn your right--or rather, your actual privilege--to vote by jumping through the hoops required by the federal constitution, in this case, two years minimum "federal service" in the military or one of its associated organizations.

That would be a "privilege" to vote. Universal suffrage--even if you have laws that say it can be taken away for committing some sort of crime--is a "right" to vote. The US is little different from Canada in that respect.

Edited July 17, 2016 by JamesHackerMP

[Archduke al-Qaddafi]

Voting should be a right for taxpayers only. The unemployed should not get a say, and votes should be weighted based on how much tax one pays.

[dialamah]

There is currently a controversy in the USA because in most states, a person in prison or a convicted felon (but has served his time) does not have the right to vote.

In Canada, even persons serving time in prison have the right to vote:

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90545〈=e

In the USA, the right to vote varies with the state but in most states, convicted felons are not allowed to vote even after serving their time.

http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000286

This concept (called felony disenfranchisement) varies with different countries. I always thought that voting was a constitutional right – not a privilege. I assume that the Americans consider it a privilege.

Who has it right, Canada or the USA

Canada, obviously.

Voting should be a right for taxpayers only. The unemployed should not get a say, and votes should be weighted based on how much tax one pays.

Why? The rich already get mostly their way because they can buy politicians. If they change the system, they might lose power, rather than gain more if it inspires those with 'lesser vote' to band together.

Also, why the hate for unemployed people? Why should people be punished for being unemployed, especially if it's through no fault of their own - injury, illness, economic downturn?

[Hal 9000]

Canada, obviously.

Why? The rich already get mostly their way because they can buy politicians. If they change the system, they might lose power, rather than gain more if it inspires those with 'lesser vote' to band together.

Also, why the hate for unemployed people? Why should people be punished for being unemployed, especially if it's through no fault of their own - injury, illness, economic downturn?

How is what he said considered "hate".

[jacee]

Voting should be a right for taxpayers only. The unemployed should not get a say, and votes should be weighted based on how much tax one pays.

A citizen is a citizen.

Except the super rich = predators.

So they should not get a vote.

The poor should get two votes, to help change the system that creates poverty.

OR

Maybe just stick to one citizen, one vote.

.

[Smoke]

It's a privilege to have rights.

[?Impact]

Voting should be a right for taxpayers only. The unemployed should not get a say, and votes should be weighted based on how much tax one pays.

Hear, hear for the return of the feudal system. The lords have spoken, and the serfs must comply.

[Hal 9000]

Municipal taxes are the worst, the renters who pay no property taxes get to vote for frivolous things that the home owners are forced to flip the bill for.

[dialamah]

Municipal taxes are the worst, the renters who pay no property taxes get to vote for frivolous things that the home owners are forced to flip the bill for.

What landlord doesn't include property taxes in the rent???

[Hal 9000]

What landlord doesn't include property taxes in the rent???

None, actually!

[dialamah]

None, actually!

Perhaps you will explain. If I were going to rent out my property, the rent would include covering the mortgage, city utilities, property taxes, insurance and any other costs associated with the property I'm renting out. That would essentially mean that the renter was paying property taxes, even if its in my name. Unless you are thinking that both the property owner and the renter should pay property taxes? Double dipping for the municipality?

Edited July 20, 2016 by dialamah

[Hal 9000]

Perhaps you will explain. If I were going to rent out my property, the rent would include covering the mortgage, city utilities, property taxes, insurance and any other costs associated with the property I'm renting out. That would essentially mean that the renter was paying property taxes, even if its in my name. Unless you are thinking that both the property owner and the renter should pay property taxes? Double dipping for the municipality?

Does rent increase every year based on tax increases, can I change my lease agreement every spring to reflect the increase? Does the municipality bill the rentor if they skip on rent? Does a homeowner still pay the taxes if the dwelling is empty?

Sorry, you can pretend that renters pay property tax, but they really don't. The owner is solely responsible for all taxes.

[dialamah]

Does rent increase every year based on tax increases, can I change my lease agreement every spring to reflect the increase? Does the municipality bill the rentor if they skip on rent? Does a homeowner still pay the taxes if the dwelling is empty?

Sorry, you can pretend that renters pay property tax, but they really don't. The owner is solely responsible for all taxes.

I can raise the rent by a limited amount each year, but certainly true that if there's a sudden jump in property taxes, it may not be enough to cover. On the other hand, if I set the initial rent amount correctly, I should be ok. Also true, I'm responsible for property taxes on my own property; why should a renter be? They don't get the benefit of appreciation on the property, nor the increasing equity as the mortgage is paid down.

[Hal 9000]

I can raise the rent by a limited amount each year, but certainly true that if there's a sudden jump in property taxes, it may not be enough to cover. On the other hand, if I set the initial rent amount correctly, I should be ok. Also true, I'm responsible for property taxes on my own property; why should a renter be? They don't get the benefit of appreciation on the property, nor the increasing equity as the mortgage is paid down.

Good, you agree that a renter is not responsible for property taxes on a property that you own - IOW, they don't pay property tax - you do! And, property tax has nothing to do with equity or mortgage. Quite often property tax is based on assessed value, but that is only a partial means to assess what the owner is able to pay. You're also saying that if your property tax jumps say 10%, you'd be unable to go to your renter and ask for 10% higher rent - why not? You should be able to if they are paying the taxes - right?.

What do you think the municipality would say if told them you'd pay half the taxes because your rental was empty half the year and therefore no renter to pay said taxes?

Edited July 20, 2016 by Hal 9000