Arguments Against Voting Equations

States determine for the most part who is eligible to vote. Their laws can exclude large numbers of people from polls and create variation of voting throughout the country. For example, all state but Maine and Vermont prohibit prison inmates from voting. Majority of states also refuse to let people vote if they are on parole. There are ten states total that has permanently banned all convicted felons from voting. If states wanted to permit a 16 year old to vote, they could do that, however no state has yet done this. These rules are important, because it can prevent a certain group of people from voting. This has affected voter turnout by overall decreasing a state’s population of voting. The possible discrimination this creates among income
That they are a result of a loss of freedom, and democratic rights for the duration of a prison sentence. The main point of this is to the offender that criminal behavior results in a loss of freedom and rights (Chapman, 2016). The strongest argument I have read is the one Johnathan Aitkens wrote. He explained his view point very politically, as well as ethically. The weakest argument I have read was that felons should not be trusted on choosing our leaders, because they are angry at the sheriff’s department. Laws should not ban an entire group of people, based on one person’s bad decision. This was failed scientifically, politically, and ethical. After spending an enormous time researching both sides of the argument, I still believe convicts should have the right to vote after they finished their time in prison. Considering out of all fifty states, only ten has permanently banned felons from voting altogether. There are higher voter turnouts, because the other states allow them to vote. They still have some sort of restrictions, however once they complete that, they are allowed to vote. The weakness on this position is the fact that there are going to be ex-convicts that take this for granted. However, it should not affect our system of