top of page
Search
EDMOND ARREY

Should incarcerated felons share an equal right to vote in state and federal elections?


Hard to be on a particular side on this, but this is what I think. What I think we should do first is worry about the very fashion of voting as it is today. My reasoning is: as many of us have witnessed, that it is only true that many millions of people who vote have only managed to vote themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant or a hegemonic system. Look at our histories from Asia to Europe, from Africa to the Americas, it’s simply so. Ironically for those voted into a place, the very act and fashion of voting is simply a sport by them.

However the political brass of most republican organizations (countries) has managed to culture a sense of duty in voters of interest in this largely privatized activity. Mind you, I said voters of interest not the general voter. Firstly, this means the votes of voters of interest is already conditioned. This in turn implies that what one chooses in a vote does not necessarily secure one’s real desire. If this phenomenon is nearly apt in its implication, then should all and everyone in the first place have a right to vote? Isn’t voting for someone voting for something that someone said they believed in like you, and promised you it? Wouldn’t that also make one’s gains from a vote a direct result of the losses of another? Isn’t it implicit in the context of the political function of rights that they were designed to protect minorities from majorities? Should individual rights be subject to a public vote? Mind you that an individual is the smallest minority.

Answering the question I say yes incarcerated felons should have the right to vote in state but not federal elections. This is my reasoning:

First, an incarcerated felon is an absolute minority because he/she is an individual. This implies that he/she must naturally have the right to vote as it is simply the political function of rights. However, we must first reconstruct the voting fashion of the country such that a neutral instance could always guarantee fairness and legitimacy in the process. This neutral instance can neither be lobbied or lobbies and officers in this body can only be elected with the backing of their raw talent not political affiliation. This instance could be in the form of independent community councils or depoliticized secretaries of state.

Secondly, once we are comfortable in our neutral voting checker organizations, we must then consult with states to determine their different levels of conservatism vs. liberalism as it is only a federal thing to do.

Subsequently there is the question of incarcerated felons in a state: which makes them citizens of a state. Then they are individuals who are beneficiaries to the political function of rights, and who are subject to a state’s laws whilst in such a state. Now, if the phenomenon of voter of interest as described above is true in its consequence, then it will only make sense that the incarcerated felon in a state shall retain his political function of rights as an absolute minority (individual), but only such that his voting interests were determined by the socio-political dynamic of the state he/she was in. This way his/her interests cannot federally affect the interest of same individuals in other states. This will guarantee that the political brass of competing organizations (candidates) make their topics of interest more directed in order to have legitimacy and reference. This especially includes courting the incarcerated felon population with relevant issues in elections.

Edmond Arrey

1 view0 comments
bottom of page