Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.

November Affirmative Paul Judge Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote. I affirm. A democratic society is defined as a group of people sharing an elected or representative government that protects equality and political liberties. A felon is one who has committed a serious crime, including but not limited to assault, rape, murder and grand theft. I offer several observations regarding the resolution. First, the resolution assumes that voting is a right, and therefore the only justification for the limitation of voting rights is when it is absolutely necessary to maintain security in society or prevention violation of other rights; restricting liberty for criminals, for instance, is necessary to protect innocent people. In order to restrict voting rights, one must prove that those votes are actively harming others. Second, the value that the resolution directly addresses is democracy. Therefore, the only relevant value for the round is democracy. Democracy is the ideal of a government that derives its power directly through the people or elected representatives and also recognizes and protects equal rights and privileges. The representation of the people is the foundation of democracy; without the power of the people to express their ideas and make decisions, democracy ceases to exist. Therefore, the value criterion is the marketplace of ideas. An idea promoted by John Stuart Mills and Thomas Jefferson, the marketplace of ideas is the concept of a free exchange of ideas that leads to certain revelations about human rights or philosophy. These ideas are always changing and the only way to determine their worth is to compare them with other ideas; as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Junior said, "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market". Not allowing these ideas to compete with other ideas creates philosophical and intellectual stagnancy, allowing unjust ideas to go unchallenged. The marketplace of ideas is necessary in both creating and maintaining a democracy; without breaking free of convention and expressing certain ideas, democracy would not exist. Therefore, because the affirmative protects the marketplace of ideas, it protects democracy. Contention I: Limiting the right to vote is not necessary to protect fundamental rights. Certain rights, like the right to life and, in this resolution, the right to vote are held to be inalienable. These rights can, however, be violated only when they directly threaten the rights of other people. A police officer is justified in shooting a dangerous criminal who threatens his life or an innocent life. The negative, therefore, is tasked with the burden of proving that voting rights for felons actively denies others rights, which they can't prove. The right of a felon to vote, however, is separate from the felon voting; a right itself cannot deny another a right, only the unjust application can. Second, there is no foundation for the notion that these votes will actively deny the rights of others. Voting for a mainstream presidential candidate, for example, is a vote that will be mirrored by millions of other Americans and by no stretch of the imagination violate anyone's rights. There is no logical foundation for the idea that the individual votes of felons will harm others. In addition, the theoretical votes that could have harmful consequences are balanced out by votes outside of prison; the votes of felons alone would not be enough to create injustice. A right can only be taken away when the application itself denies human rights, and there is no reasonable foundation for the notion that a felon's vote will actively harm others. Therefore, protecting that felon's right to vote protects the marketplace of ideas by protecting expression, thus upholding democracy. Contention II: Silencing dissent and denying political liberties negates democracy. Democracy is based on the free and open exchange of ideas. The concept of a democracy itself was not created through isolated, arbitrary decision making, but combined, rational discussion. Concepts like society, democracy and rights that are explicitly stated in the resolution are all results of logical discussion. No democratic society can exist when it silences certain ideas because they go against convention. Limiting the expression of ideas is a slippery slope, and sets a precedent for further violation of free speech. The concept of denying rights to felons stems from a desire to limit dissent from the government, a totalitarian idea. Even rule by a reasonable majority is totalitarian, in that democracy is not the concept of surrendering to a %51 majority, but one that grants equal representation to all voters. Denying felons the right to vote destroys the foundation of democracy, which is the protection of equality and political liberties. This violates the marketplace of ideas, in that felons' political liberties cannot be utilized to question society; under the negative, a runaway slave would not be allowed to question the laws that imprison him. Allowing ideas that are voiced by unpopular members of society is necessary to protect the marketplace of ideas, and thus democracy. Contention III: Political liberties, such as the right to vote, are necessary to establish a fair political process and just legislation. As John Rawls wrote, justice necessitates that each person in a democratic society has an equal right to an extensive system of basic liberties. In addition, greater social or economic advantages cannot justify the violation of those rights. The right to vote is one of these liberties. Rawls also writes that all citizens have a right to take part in the democratic society; if felons are denied the right to vote, therefore, they are unable to defend themselves in a public, democratic arena. If decisions are made that affect members of a society without their consent, an isolated dictatorship is created, in which the felon has no representation in government. Political liberties are essential because they provide access to the process that determines the value of these rights, and these rights must hold a paramount value; therefore, it is unjust to hold social or economic benefits, such as preventing a ‘bad' vote, to be more important than rights. Preventing negative influences on society is a slippery slope to greater violation of rights. The idea of violating rights for benefits goes back to euthanasia programs in Nazi Germany, where patients who were braindead or suffered severe mental disabilities were euthanized in order to stimulate the economy. Once it had been established that rights could be violated for benefits, however, the groups whose rights to life were violated quickly expanded. Political liberties, therefore, must be weighed to be greater than societal welfare. Democracies are democracies not for their efficiency or the reasonability of their voters, but for the length to which they protect liberties. Valuing rights protects the marketplace of ideas, in that external factors cannot influence discussion in the theoretical marketplace, and thus justice is achieved. Because limiting the right to vote has no justification that involves protecting rights, silencing dissent rejects democracy and political liberties must be valued above social or economic benefits, democracy, the value of the round, can only be achieved through protection of the marketplace ideas, and thus you must affirm.