Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S.

Rebuttal: Con says “I can hardly believe anyone would make the argument that they would want violent psychopaths and organized crime members to be casting votes from inside of the penitentiary.” It is not that I want or desire that psychopaths to vote, that would be irrelevant. The fact is that they should retain that right, otherwise they are victims of tyranny. Such would be a violation of the founding principles of this nation. Con says “I can accept what you and your peers want. I can not accept you meddling in my community and forcing us to bend to your totalitarian will. Mind your own business. Not every community will have the same wants as yours.” Again, this is not about what I want, rather about what is right. Taking away someone’s ability to have a say in how they are governed is the totalitarian path. You may not want to have felons vote, I accept that is your view but, as you said it…. perhaps you should mind your own business and not force others to bend to your totalitarian will. Con says “The Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government.” While I agree that the Declaration of Independence is not a law, it was very well thought out. It was a cry for freedom from an oppressive government. Much of the grievance was a lack of representation in that oppressive government. Is this not a synonymous example for those who have their right to vote tyrannically taken from them. Con says “The Declaration of Independence is not a carefully thought out law but a cry for freedom from an oppressive centralized government. Your proposal here is to have a centralized government make a law to force states to act against our own will. Laws are violent things.” My opponent seems intent at straw manning my position. Rather, my position is that such a law that retained felon’s right to vote would curtail rule of the mob, or tyranny of the majority. Thus preserving freedom is on the side of voting rights, and totalitarian side is restricting such a vote. Con says “We designate an act a crime because it is injurious to public welfare. If you look at all such crimes you will find that someone is a victim and that victim has been deprived of their Human Rights. Their right to pursue life liberty and happiness. I see no problem in denying these offensive criminal their rights.” Again, my opponent’s arguments miss the mark. I certainly believe that when a crime is committed that action should be taken to preserve the liberty of others, often resulting in imprisonment and other actions. My issue is not in punishing crime, it rests solely on the right to vote. Con says “We deny inside traders access to the markets. Child molesters are denied privacy. Computer criminals are denied the use of the Internet. All are denied the use of weapons for self-defense. These decisions, as clearly prescribed in The Constitution of the United States of America, are left to the states.” Each are great example of how freedom is preserved by the action taken. How does taking a Felon’s right to vote protect other’s freedom. In the U.S. there are 5.58 Million Felons who are limited in voting rights. (1) There are 207.5 Million eligible voters. Giving felons the right to vote would hardly create a problem as it is would amount to 2% of the voter pool. Add that fact to con's view that we have "Zero Representation because cause a ratio of representative to constituent is a million to one. That ridiculous ratio does not make a "Representative Democracy".” As Con seems to think voting abilities negligible due to numbers, as well as numbers show the minority that is felons in this nation, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no danger or freedom to be lost by allowing felons to vote. The only loss of freedom would result in taking away the right to vote from the felons themselves. Extended arguments: If the right to vote is taken away, our entire system of government cannot live up to its primary purpose. In the interest of our government filling its purpose, or in other words, securing the unalienable rights afforded to all men, it is only reasonable to conclude that Felons should have voting rights in the modern U.S. I noticed on con’s profile that he has the following quote… "I may not agree with what you have to say but i will fight to the death for your right to say it" This nicely demonstrates the underlying principle. Regardless of our personal feelings of felon’s views, there is no loss in freedom or danger in allowing them to vote. Therefore it is their right that they should vote, and such a right should be protected from the tyranny of the majority. (1)http://sentencingproject.org...