Glenn Reynolds plugged himself into a wall socket, like any good cyborg.

Of course, the current fries his still-human brain, but who cares? CYBORG REPUBLICAN CARES NOT FOR BIOLOGICAL BRAINSTUFFS

And of course this misses the point by a mile.  There’s no reason for (most*) felons to be disenfranchised in the first place.  It’s time to abolish this despicable law.

*I’ll make an exception for those convicted of tampering with elections or for treason, spying for a foreign power, or similar betrayal of country.

...felons can vote in Florida.  They just have to have their rights restored first, which is neither a terribly long nor arduous process from what I understand.

I mean, obviously the guys still in prison aren’t eligible to vote and should have been purged from the lists until such time as they are released and petition to have their rights restored, but somebody just having a felony conviction doesn’t mean much until you’ve verified that they haven’t gone through that process.

the guys still in prison aren’t eligible to vote and should have been purged from the lists until such time as they are released

Seems superfluous. They have access to ballot boxes in prison?

The Florida Constitution provides:

No person convicted of a felony . . . shall be qualified to vote . . . until restoration of civil rights . . .

Voters who represent themselves as qualified to vote by the act voting, knowing that their civil rights have not been restored, commit fraud.  That’s why Professor Reynolds referred to it as “voter fraud” rather than “voter registration fraud.”  That the government may have negligently failed to purge the registration is irrelevant to the fraudulent intent.  Your bank may mistakenly credit your account with $1 million, but if you withdraw it knowing it’s not yours you’ve committed a punishable offense.  Voters who try to exercise a right they know is not theirs commit fraud.

Voters who represent themselves as qualified to vote by the act voting, knowing that their civil rights have not been restored, commit fraud.

You may want to reread the linked article.  Heck, reread Jesse’s post—these are pre-existing registrations from before these people were convicted felons.  There is no evidence that they’ve tried to illegally vote, just evidence that the state didn’t bother to remove them from the voter rolls after their convictions.  If you have evidence that people who weren’t dropped from the rolls voted anyway, please present it.

If you have evidence that people who weren’t dropped from the rolls voted anyway, please present it.

As you said, “you may want to reread the linked article”:

The Sun Sentinel discovered that at least 4,900 felons turned out in past elections.

The Professor’s concern about voter fraud is that they may do it again, taking advantage of those unpurged, prexisting registrations.

Mnem:

If you have evidence that people who weren’t dropped from the rolls voted anyway, please present it.

You might want to re-phrase that request, considering that the GOP has officially re-defined the word “evidence” to mean “some shit I just made up.”

Henrietta:

The Sun Sentinel discovered that at least 4,900 felons turned out in past elections. The Professor’s concern about voter fraud is that they may do it again, taking advantage of those unpurged, prexisting registrations.

Did the Sun Sentinel also discover that these felons knowingly and intentionally turned out to vote with the express purpose of voting fraudulently? Did the “Professor”? Because if not, this is all just a bunch of bullshit.

This is exactly Jesse’s point. Bureaucratic oversight isn’t fraud. Implying otherwise is extremely dishonest.

Did the Sun Sentinel also discover that these felons knowingly and intentionally turned out to vote with the express purpose of voting fraudulently?

The act of “turning out to vote” implies sufficient mental capacity to (1) remember it’s election day, (2) remember where to go to vote and (3) make a decision of who to vote for.  I would submit that anyone capable of doing that is capable of (1) remembering that they’re a convicted felon who spent at least a year in prison and (2) remembering that they never petitioned to get their civil rights restored.

So yes, released felons who vote always knowing commit fraud.  To imply otherwise is extremely dishonest.

I never said that “bureaucratic oversight” is fraud.  I said the voting by felons is fraud.  If there were more bureaucratic oversight they might be stopped from committing fraud, but, hey, since there isn’t they commit fraud.

It’s certainly shopkeeper oversight to leave the doors open overnight, and coat-check negligence to give away an untagged or mistagged coat to someone who doesn’t own it.  But the shop thief and the coat thief are, to pluralize their conduct, thieves.

But I’m sure you understood all of this after my first post.

So yes, released felons who HAVE NOT RESTORED THEIR RIGHTS BUT STILL vote always knowing commit fraud.  To imply otherwise is extremely dishonest.

How do you know that the 4900 felons had not had their rights restored? DOES the sainted sun-sentinel say?

Uh, prior post should’ve contained a “fixed that for ya.”

So yes, released felons who vote always knowing commit fraud.

Unless, of course, their rights have been restored.  Your evidence that the 4,900 who voted had not had their rights restored is ... where, exactly?

Something just occurred to me—if you commit a felony in another state and then move to Florida, are you ineligible to vote in Florida?  I doubt that when you get released from prison they hand you a list of all of the states where you’re no longer eligible to vote just in case you happen to move to one of them.

If someone who was a convicted felon in Pennsylvania moves to Florida and registers to vote, has s/he committed fraud?  After all, ex-felons are allowed to vote in Pennsylvania.

The link shows that felons are simply still registered from prior, legal, non-fraudulent registration - not that they registered against state law after they were freed or that anyone submitted false registrations on their behalf.

Actually, upon closer reading, it says no such thing.  It saying NOTHING about whether the people registered before their convictions.  It says NOTHING about whether the registrations were “legal” and “non-fraudulent.”  All it says is that those felons “should have been stripped of their right to vote” and that the Secretary of State “has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and so many new voter registrations.”  So for all we know, ACORN may have registered them all in the past week.

“They have access to ballot boxes in prison?”

Folks serving a sentence for a misdemeanor conviction or imprisoned while awaiting trial may be able to vote on absentee ballots.  I vaguely recall a lawsuit pertaining to that, but I don’t remember how (or if) it was decided, so I really don’t have any idea how feasible that’d be.  My guess given Florida’s less-than-sterling record on prisoners’ rights would be that they don’t, but of course “currently incarcerated” does not necessarily translate into “will be incarcerated in November.” Assuming you’re going back to the same address and care to vote, there’d be no impediment to the involuntary casting of a disallowed vote if you were ignorant of the conviction having disenfranchised you and the list was inaccurate.

Henrietta:

The act of “turning out to vote” implies sufficient mental capacity to (1) remember it’s election day, (2) remember where to go to vote and (3) make a decision of who to vote for. I would submit that anyone capable of doing that is capable of (1) remembering that they’re a convicted felon who spent at least a year in prison and (2) remembering that they never petitioned to get their civil rights restored.

So yes, released felons who vote always knowing commit fraud. To imply otherwise is extremely dishonest.

Heh. That’s like saying that the fact that you’re capable of posting on a blog frequented by people who are a hell of a lot smarter than you is proof that you’ve never in your life made an argument that wasn’t logically ironclad. Oh, and then claiming that anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

I never said that “bureaucratic oversight” is fraud. I said the voting by felons is fraud. If there were more bureaucratic oversight they might be stopped from committing fraud, but, hey, since there isn’t they commit fraud.

Your problem is that you’ve made this claim based on absolutely nothing other than your very own personal assumptions. The fact remains that you have provided precisely zero actual, real-world evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of anyone at all. All you’ve done is to declare without substantiation that it’s axiomatically impossible for a felon to vote non-fraudulently.

It says NOTHING about whether the registrations were “legal” and “non-fraudulent.” All it says is that those felons “should have been stripped of their right to vote” and that the Secretary of State “has failed to remove thousands of ineligible felons because of a shortage of workers and so many new voter registrations.” So for all we know, ACORN may have registered them all in the past week.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was the first thing that popped into your mind, good little propagandist that you are. But you’re still left with the problem that filling in a pretty sketchy article with whatever conspiracy theories would be most ideologically useful to you isn’t the same thing as making a sound argument.

See, that’s the problem with sophistry. If the things you say don’t actually make any sense under scrutiny, it doesn’t matter whether or not they look like an argument. But it’s always nice to be reminded that there are people who can’t (or won’t) understand the difference. So thank you for that, at least.

Hands up, everyone who thinks that Florida, a state known for just plain losing track of children in foster care, for purging thousands of people who weren’t felons from its voter rolls, adequately informs every convicted person of their status with respect to voter registration and voting.

ACORN.

Plus voting rights for felons in Florida have been restored.

http://www.floridacapitalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081004/CAPITOLNEWS/810040331

That’s like saying that the fact that you’re capable of posting on a blog frequented by people who are a hell of a lot smarter than you is proof that you’ve never in your life made an argument that wasn’t logically ironclad.

No, it’s like saying that felons know they’re not supposed vote, and so commit fraud when the do.
And next time, try for an analogy that’s somewhat decipherable. 

The fact remains that you have provided precisely zero actual, real-world evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of anyone at all.

No, I’ve presented evidence of thousand of felons voting when they know they’re not eligible.  Dan, trying taking a course at Harvard Law without being admitted, and then trying claiming you didn’t know you were trespassing when security hauls you out of the building.

All you’ve done is to declare without substantiation that it’s axiomatically impossible for a felon to vote non-fraudulently.

Well, actually I’d say it’s “Constitutionally” impossible rather than “axiomatically.”  But very well, Dan—I’ll concede there might be one felon who doesn’t know he’s not supposed to vote.  You live in Florida, right?

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was the first thing that popped into your mind, good little propagandist that you are.

You haven’t identified a single inaccuracy in my statement.  And you as you admit the article’s “sketchy”, you’ll have to also admit that Taylor was being the propagandist for saying it said the very things that I point out it did not.  So:

(1) Re-read Professor Reynolds’ post.
(2) Re-read Taylor’s post.
(3) Re-read the article linked by Reynolds and Taylor.
(4) Re-read my posts (carefully, this time).
(5) Repeat (1)-(4)
(6)  You stand corrected!

“Well, actually I’d say it’s “Constitutionally” impossible rather than “axiomatically.””

...so felons who’ve gone through the legal process to become re-enfranchised are casting constitutionally-invalid votes?  Do the many, many states which allow this know?

And next time, try for an analogy that’s somewhat decipherable.

Admitting that you’re too stupid to read or think well enough to parse an analogy that wasn’t particularly complicated really isn’t the best way to convince anyone that you have the slightest clue how to conduct a sound argument.

The fact remains that you have provided precisely zero actual, real-world evidence of fraudulent intent on the part of anyone at all.

No, I’ve presented evidence of thousand of felons voting when they know they’re not eligible.

Really? Where did you do that? All I saw was you asserting that they knew they weren’t eligible, based on nothing more than your own self-serving assumptions.

I’m beginning to think that you don’t know what the word “evidence” means.

All you’ve done is to declare without substantiation that it’s axiomatically impossible for a felon to vote non-fraudulently.

Well, actually I’d say it’s “Constitutionally” impossible rather than “axiomatically.” But very well, Dan—I’ll concede there might be one felon who doesn’t know he’s not supposed to vote.

Well, now that you’ve admitted that your assertions are completely unfounded, you can split all the semantic hairs you want.

See, that’s the problem with just making shit up as you go along. Inevitably, someone will ask you to connect your spit-flecked maunderings to reality, and then what are you going to do? Your narcissism won’t allow you to admit that you’ve just been bullshitting the whole time, so your only choice is to just keep on bullshitting.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that was the first thing that popped into your mind, good little propagandist that you are.

You haven’t identified a single inaccuracy in my statement.

Well, other than the fact that it’s all made right the fuck up, no there aren’t any inaccuracies.

Isn’t that how sophistry is supposed to work? Or are you admitting that you can’t even do that right?

And you as you admit the article’s “sketchy”, you’ll have to also admit that Taylor was being the propagandist for saying it said the very things that I point out it did not.

In light of the argument you’re attempting to make, that’s probably the single most hypocritical thing you could have possibly said.

So:

(1) Re-read Professor Reynolds’ post.
(2) Re-read Taylor’s post.
(3) Re-read the article linked by Reynolds and Taylor.
(4) Re-read my posts (carefully, this time).
(5) Repeat (1)-(4)
(6) You stand corrected!

You know, you could have dispensed with that entire preening, masturbatory post and just written “heads I win, tails you lose” over and over and over again. Because given the evidence you’ve presented, it’s not clear that you’re capable of any more intellectual sophistication than that.

You can always tell the ones who confuse confidence and competence by the way they jump up and down and declare victory no matter what anyone says to them.

Let’s not forget the original purpose of the felony voter rules, hmmm?

[I]t is no coincidence that the War On Drugs heated up after the civil rights movement achieved a set of huge victories that gave this country a moment of hope for something like racial equality. Now we have a country where 1 in 15 black people are currently in jail.

Amanda Marcotte, “The brainless, pointless War On Drugs”, March 6, 2008

One should also remember that a real wave of felony disenfranchisement laws gained steam at around this time.  As the law in the USA currently stands::
* only two US states have no laws on voting by felons;
* only inmates convicted of a felony are barred from voting (with their right to vote restored upon release from prison) in 13 states;
* felons (in prison and on parole) are barred from voting but can vote upon completion of parole in 5 states;
* inmates, parolees, and probationers are barred (and so can vote only upon completion of all supervised release) in 20 states;
* inmates, parolees, probationers, and ex-felons are completely barred from voting (restoration of voting varies by state) in 10 states.

Given that Blacks are grossly disproportionately represented in the American prison population it should come as no surprise that every single state of the former Confederacy is found in the two categories with the toughest restrictions, as are three states which were Confederate Territories in whole or in part, as are three states that remained in the Union but had majority-Reb populations, and “bleeding Kansas”, which is currently aggressively pro-GOP.  (Further, many of the felony disenfranchisement laws in the Old South started during Reconstruction as the former Confederate states cast about for ways to prevent their’n newly free and unacceptably uppity niggers from votin’.)

Don’t forget that these lists don’t have to be accurate to stop a person from voting.  By way of example: many, many people in Florida (mostly Black) in the notorious 2000 presidential election found themselves unable to vote because of being erroneously listed as having felony convictions, and could not get their right to vote restored in time or at all.  (It was, I’m sure that we all agree, just a coincidence that the list was provided by a Texas GOP firm to a state with a GOP governor, a GOP legislature and a GOP Secretary of State - Katherine Harris - who was disgustingly overt about her efforts to stop people from voting Democrat.  And most Blacks vote Democrat.  Just a coincidence.)

People who moan endlessly about false or allegedly false registrations are often to usually to always dead set against having an effective voter registration system which operates outside private intervention and partisan interference.  They can whine all they want about the integrity of the system but what they are really making a case for is maintaining a flawed, prejudiced, ineffective, partisan and often rigged system.