Dan

Senator Brian Schatz basically proposes this.
He is a member of Senate leadership. He's one of the 4 whips, (Warren and Warner are the two Vice Leaders above him)



Should it be done?

Bonus Q: should formerly incarcerated citizens be allowed to vote?

Poll incoming.

Bandoman

Yes! Let's make them states and let their voices be heard.

Mabuse

No, and the fact that dems want votes so bad they’ll accept criminals’ votes should probably tell you something.

Supermallet

Yes, and also yes.

Supermallet

What a hot take!

Dan

That one I'd be iffy about too... I see both sides.

Bandoman

Why should felons who have served their time and repaid their debt to society be denied the right to vote?

Bronkster

Yeah, hmm. My initial reaction is "no", but I'd need more information about exactly which "formerly incarcerated" people we're talking about. The term is too broad for me to be comfortable with. And the fact that I feel qualifications should be set, I would almost lean more towards no. Someone who was locked up for smoking pot I have no problem with. Armed robbery? Fuck 'em.

As for the territories becoming states - Not sure I see a reason to not go for it.


edited to add (now that the poll is there) - gotta admit my ignorance about the Northern Mariana Islands.

Draven

This.

And yes to making them all states.

Ginwen

PR and Washington DC both have more people than Wyoming, so yes. The others are all under 200,000, so no, but could maybe be combined or something. I know they are pretty different from each other but deserve some say in federal politics, so their vote should be worth something.

And if you’ve done your time, you should get to vote.

Supermallet

The more you disenfranchise people, the harder you make it for them to advance their interests within the system, and engage productively within the system. The less people can productively engage with a system, the more they will try to find ways to break that system they feel stuck in. Seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face to deny the vote to people who went to prison and finished their sentence, because all you’re doing is telling them the only avenue open to them is more crime.

And when you factor in the crime statistics in this country regarding race, you’ll see that this disproportionately affects people of color, which is of course the point behind denying them the vote in the first place.

Bandoman

Come on, Man, that's just common sense! We can't have people actually invested in the system. How will we game it?

mapasu

Why add more? 2/3 of the Country does no vote.

cultshock

I'm good with all of it.

JasonX

You’ve admitted to a felony and multiple counts of fraud on this forum. If you believe criminals shouldn’t be able to vote, would you voluntarily agree to stop voting? If not, do you think that criminal acts only matters if people are caught doing them?

Breakfast with Girls

Puerto Rico would be ranked 30/52 in terms of population, and Columbia (formerly "District of") would be 50/52, ahead of Vermont and Wyoming. They should absolutely be states.

Of course, this will require Democrats holding the presidency and simple majorities in both houses of Congress. In the prime universe, as opposed to our mirror universe, this happened between 2009 and 2010.

Sean O'Hara

It's something we should do on general principles, but as a solution for our current crisis there's a much simpler and easily achievable goal -- lift the cap on the House size. Right now it's limited to 435 members, which means even if we add PR and DC, it'd just take a couple representatives away from the big states.

Under the current system, California has 53 reps to Wyoming's 1 even though its population is almost 70 times larger. If we mandated one rep for every 100,000 people, California would get 395, and Wyoming 6. And because this would lead to smaller districts, gerrymandering would be much harder.

But the best part is, the Electoral College is tied to the size of Congress, so increading the size of the House would also undercut the power of rural states in Presidential elections.

Mabuse

What? I’m dying to hear the examples.

JasonX

See your gun thread. Also, you didn’t answer my questions.

tasha99

I've never understood why felons can't vote after they've served their time. Seems like they should be done and allowed to reenter society with the same meager say in what's going on as the rest of us. Not being able to vote while in prison makes sense, or even while on parole.

WCChiCubsFan

The disenfranchisement of ex-felons is not universal. In some states they are allowed to vote.

Breakfast with Girls

None of that addresses the Senate.

sracer

...because the idea that they have "repaid" their debt is a misnomer.

Felons (at least those of the non-white collar variety) come out of prison with an indelible mark that makes it near impossible for them to become productive members of society. I know a few and it is really disheartening to see them really want to take a different path but can't because the doors of opportunity are closed to them.

The Republican party has branded themselves as the party of "law and order". It was the law that put those felons behind bars. Given that, especially when some laws are designed to target certain demographics, there's a very good likelihood that most of those felons would vote for Democrats.

The Democrats aren't pushing for a mainstreaming of felons after time served, but simply to restore their right to vote. The conclusion that I draw is that they're simply interested in their vote.

JasonF

If you think the Democrats aren’t pushing for post-incarceration remedies as part of their broader platform on criminal justice reform, you’re not paying attention.

JasonF

DC and PR, definitely. The other territories are too sparsely populated. I don’t know if there are enough cultural similarities to allow the VI to vote with PR, but that’s one option. All the pacific territories combined are half the population of Wyoming. I’m not sure what’s the solution is there.