Also, seems kind of scary that this implies a future where so many people are in prison that their vote could actually tip the balance ?

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Also keep in mind that they count those prisoners as part of the census, which affects how resources are distributed.

    So they’re counted, but don’t get a vote. Ripe for abuse by unscrupulous politicians.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s almost like they shouldn’t be counted at all unless they are free to vote. But the states with significant prison populations wouldn’t go for that. Maybe we can compromise. Perhaps only 3 out of every 5 disenfranchised prisoners should count for representation purposes.

      • nickajeglin@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The only problem there is that the count also determines how federal money is distributed. Undocumented/illegal immigrants still use interstates and water mains and disaster money and national parks and federal buildings. Unless we want funding cut, we still have to count them.

        *Edit: I’m embarrassed that I got all that written before 3/5 hit me. “The only problem” 😬

      • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’d have to eliminate children and immigrants too if you did that, but those new numbers wouldn’t reflect reality in most communities with so many people being excluded from the census.

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Small quibble here, but illegal immigrants are absolutely counted in the census, obviously they are under-counted, but they are intended to be counted. No one is “excluded” from the census.

          • CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I was more referring to green card holders, but that’s exactly my point. By excluding people based on whether they can vote or not, you get inaccurate results and make the whole process pointless.

          • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Small quibble, but the census came up with about 331 million people, and there are almost 8 billion people on the planet. Clearly, some are excluded from the census.

              • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Within my facetious response is a kernel of truth: some of those people within US borders are foreign tourists. Surely, a French high school class touring Washington DC shouldn’t be counted on the census.

                When someone overstays their visa, at what point do they stop being “foreign persons” and start being “undocumented Americans”? At what point is it reasonable to start counting them as our own?

    • nickajeglin@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh shit, I never even thought about that. It’s another level of insidious. 1. Be republican 2. Get a huge prison in your district “for the jobs”, 3. Get more positions guaranteed to be republican, since the voters in your district still are. Would work for a democrat too, they don’t care about criminal justice reform either :(

      Might work slightly better for republicans because they can work the identity politics angle more easily.