Will America become a better society by forcing states to allow all convicted murderers, child molestors, and thieves to vote? Martin Luther King's widow thinks so, and believes it should become the next civil rights crusade. "Something is very wrong with laws that prevent any citizen from experiencing his or her democratic right, even when they have paid their debt to society," Coretta Scott King said in an address in Portland, Maine this weekend.

Leaving aside the political motivations a staunch Democrat such as King might have for endorsing such legislation, the idea is bad on many counts. People who violate the rights of others can't be trusted to serve as a steward for those rights. It's presumed that children don't possess the judgment to vote prudentially. With felons, a similar assessment is based on more than prejudice. Felons have demonstrated poor judgment. Why would anyone who cares about a society wish to expand the franchise to people who have a track record of making bad choices?

While agreeing with Winston Churchhill's maxim that democracy is the worst form of government save all others that have been tried, it is important to recognize that voting in itself isn't necessarily a good. It's how that right is used that matters most. People can vote for a man as vicious as Adolf Hitler or as virtuous as George Washington. What type of leader would the votes of convicted felons bring us?

Not all felons are murders, rapist, or child molesters. To commit a felony in some states is very easy. In Texas, for instance, if a seventeen year old writes on a school desk with a marker he is a adult felon. Should he not be allowed to vote when he is 30 years old? George Bush, did somethings in his youth(?) that could be considered criminal. It seems he has been forgiven, so much so, that he is President of the USA. If he did drugs in the past, some indicated that he did cocaine when younger. Is that a good reason to exclude him? If he had been arrested for those things he did maybe he would be allowed to vote, but that's not the person he is now.

There some laws that need to be changed and those most likely to vote to change them are people who have run afoul of those laws. I say give felons the vote.

I say the more people we can exclude from voting the better. After felons we should move the voting age up to 25 and disallow all voters who derive their income from government from voting.

As was shown when Gore staffers went to nursing homes and "helped" residents with dementia cast their vote for their candidate, voting should not be a given right for all citizens.

There should be, and are, certain rules that qualify a person that's casts a vote.

As said, we have rules about children casting votes.

Typical though are the Dems not wanting to play by no stiinking rules.

jml: You're evidence doesn't support the conclusion, which you draw, that we should change the rules banning felons from voting; rather, it suggests that many things currently considered felonies shouldn't be. I agree 100%. You're absurd example of a 17 year old writing on a desk shows this. That should not be called a "felony."

Here is a nice little argument: If all felonies that should be felonies are serious crimes against the common good, then all felons whose felonies are properly classified have shown by their behavior to disregard the common good in a serious way; and anyone who disregards the common good in a serious way should not have a say in public policy, since public policy is supposed to aim for the common good. Voting is the normal way a citizen has a say in public policy. Therefore, felons (whose felonies are properly classified) should not vote.

This argument is nothing fancy, but it's solid.

Don't let them vote. Put the jailbirds on chain gangs!