Officials Object To Sex Offenders Voting In New York School Polling Places

[Cellblock2429]

Highly unconstitutional in my opinion.

Someone who steals a car when they are 17 because they were stupid should not be punished for the rest of their life.

A felony-level criminal can join the military and serve their country then they should be able to vote.

I don't think they should lose the right to vote at all, even while incarcerated. You don't lose the fundamental right to marry while incarcerated so why should you lose the fundamental right to vote?

I'd like to see these laws challenged.

I have no problem with them not being able to vote while incarcerated, then again I would not allow them to marry either.

And while we're at it, let's also suspend their right to free speech, their protection against self incrimination, their right to a lawyer, their protections against cruel and unusual punishment....hell, let's go ahead and just eliminate their right to life altogether.

That is what people like DOTR would like. No guns, no voting, no free speech, no private property.

You're no better. If you will arbitrarily remove one right just because you can, what's to stop yo from doing the same with other rights? Depriving someone of their rights as punishment for a crime must have a logical basis that contributes to the well being of society. If not, then it's nothing more than a petty tyranny.

The most serious removal or rights is a death sentence, which is [allegedly] valuable to society in that it eliminates the most exceptional dangerous risks faced by society. The effectiveness of the death penalty, and even the appropriateness of its continued use, may be open for debate. But there is no doubt that applying the death penalty as mere legislative or judicial vengeance would be tyranny. The same requirements apply to any other deprivation of rights.

Do you even understand why voting rights are taken away from felons in the first place? It's an old (largely outdated) principle that equates felonies with dishonesty, itself being rooted in the vision of government being divinely established to execute God's will. Serious sin equated to serious crimes, and therefore indicated a severe lack of moral character. Felons were, therefore, people who engaged in the kind of serious offenses that made them wholly and eternally untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

As such, convicted felons were expected to wear an eternal stigma the rest of their lives. They were not suitable for jury duty, nor was their witness testimony admissible in a court preceding. They could be precluded from holding public office and other penalties as well. All of this was based on the premise that their bad moral character made them entirely untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

Over time, this idea has gradually been abandoned. Felons were eventually allowed to testify as witnesses in court, and though their felony history was admissible for purposes of impeaching their testimony a jury was now able to decide for themselves if they found the testimony credible. New rules and precedents would place limitations on how a past conviction could be invoked for impeachment, such as limiting the scope only convictions within the past ten years and excluding convictions that would be more prejudicial than of probative. These new rules indicated a rejection of the beyond redemption hypothesis.

Nowadays, crime is largely (though not entirely) treated as a function of willful behavior, and less as a function of inherent character. People don't become criminals because the devil made them do it, they become criminals because they choose to engage in behaviors that have (allegedly) harmful consequences for society. The deprivation of rights as punishment is based on the removal of the individual from society during incarceration, while upholding the individual's personal rights otherwise. So the convict can be detained and held, they can be denied the right to vote while incarcerated (because they aren't a member of society while incarcerated), and otherwise have their freedoms limited based on "the context of their surroundings." But they cannot be denied rights when there is no substantive benefit to society in general to be gained. Society gains nothing by depriving an inmate of the right to marry.

The problem with post-incarceration denial of rights stems from this and other transitions in the concepts of felony criminal behavior, and its rightful punishments. What constitutes a felony in modern times has very little to do with the value of a person's character, and increasingly has less and less to do with severity of harm to society caused by a behavior. Instead, felony classification has been transitioning into a largely deterrent mechanism, and/or a classification for the severity of sentencing that has been statutorily made available (again, mostly with an aim at deterrence). Non-felonies can often become felonies through escalating classifications for repeat offenses, leading to an increasing proportion of the population to have their rights deprived by decree.

/—-/ And in addition, convicted felons tend to vote democRAT.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I don't think they should lose the right to vote at all, even while incarcerated. You don't lose the fundamental right to marry while incarcerated so why should you lose the fundamental right to vote?

I'd like to see these laws challenged.

I have no problem with them not being able to vote while incarcerated, then again I would not allow them to marry either.

And while we're at it, let's also suspend their right to free speech, their protection against self incrimination, their right to a lawyer, their protections against cruel and unusual punishment....hell, let's go ahead and just eliminate their right to life altogether.

That is what people like DOTR would like. No guns, no voting, no free speech, no private property.

You're no better. If you will arbitrarily remove one right just because you can, what's to stop yo from doing the same with other rights? Depriving someone of their rights as punishment for a crime must have a logical basis that contributes to the well being of society. If not, then it's nothing more than a petty tyranny.

The most serious removal or rights is a death sentence, which is [allegedly] valuable to society in that it eliminates the most exceptional dangerous risks faced by society. The effectiveness of the death penalty, and even the appropriateness of its continued use, may be open for debate. But there is no doubt that applying the death penalty as mere legislative or judicial vengeance would be tyranny. The same requirements apply to any other deprivation of rights.

Do you even understand why voting rights are taken away from felons in the first place? It's an old (largely outdated) principle that equates felonies with dishonesty, itself being rooted in the vision of government being divinely established to execute God's will. Serious sin equated to serious crimes, and therefore indicated a severe lack of moral character. Felons were, therefore, people who engaged in the kind of serious offenses that made them wholly and eternally untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

As such, convicted felons were expected to wear an eternal stigma the rest of their lives. They were not suitable for jury duty, nor was their witness testimony admissible in a court preceding. They could be precluded from holding public office and other penalties as well. All of this was based on the premise that their bad moral character made them entirely untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

Over time, this idea has gradually been abandoned. Felons were eventually allowed to testify as witnesses in court, and though their felony history was admissible for purposes of impeaching their testimony a jury was now able to decide for themselves if they found the testimony credible. New rules and precedents would place limitations on how a past conviction could be invoked for impeachment, such as limiting the scope only convictions within the past ten years and excluding convictions that would be more prejudicial than of probative. These new rules indicated a rejection of the beyond redemption hypothesis.

Nowadays, crime is largely (though not entirely) treated as a function of willful behavior, and less as a function of inherent character. People don't become criminals because the devil made them do it, they become criminals because they choose to engage in behaviors that have (allegedly) harmful consequences for society. The deprivation of rights as punishment is based on the removal of the individual from society during incarceration, while upholding the individual's personal rights otherwise. So the convict can be detained and held, they can be denied the right to vote while incarcerated (because they aren't a member of society while incarcerated), and otherwise have their freedoms limited based on "the context of their surroundings." But they cannot be denied rights when there is no substantive benefit to society in general to be gained. Society gains nothing by depriving an inmate of the right to marry.

The problem with post-incarceration denial of rights stems from this and other transitions in the concepts of felony criminal behavior, and its rightful punishments. What constitutes a felony in modern times has very little to do with the value of a person's character, and increasingly has less and less to do with severity of harm to society caused by a behavior. Instead, felony classification has been transitioning into a largely deterrent mechanism, and/or a classification for the severity of sentencing that has been statutorily made available (again, mostly with an aim at deterrence). Non-felonies can often become felonies through escalating classifications for repeat offenses, leading to an increasing proportion of the population to have their rights deprived by decree.

/—-/ And in addition, convicted felons tend to vote democRAT.

Which in your mind is more than enough reason to deny them a basic right.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I have no problem with them not being able to vote while incarcerated, then again I would not allow them to marry either.

And while we're at it, let's also suspend their right to free speech, their protection against self incrimination, their right to a lawyer, their protections against cruel and unusual punishment....hell, let's go ahead and just eliminate their right to life altogether.

That is what people like DOTR would like. No guns, no voting, no free speech, no private property.

You're no better. If you will arbitrarily remove one right just because you can, what's to stop yo from doing the same with other rights? Depriving someone of their rights as punishment for a crime must have a logical basis that contributes to the well being of society. If not, then it's nothing more than a petty tyranny.

The most serious removal or rights is a death sentence, which is [allegedly] valuable to society in that it eliminates the most exceptional dangerous risks faced by society. The effectiveness of the death penalty, and even the appropriateness of its continued use, may be open for debate. But there is no doubt that applying the death penalty as mere legislative or judicial vengeance would be tyranny. The same requirements apply to any other deprivation of rights.

Do you even understand why voting rights are taken away from felons in the first place? It's an old (largely outdated) principle that equates felonies with dishonesty, itself being rooted in the vision of government being divinely established to execute God's will. Serious sin equated to serious crimes, and therefore indicated a severe lack of moral character. Felons were, therefore, people who engaged in the kind of serious offenses that made them wholly and eternally untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

As such, convicted felons were expected to wear an eternal stigma the rest of their lives. They were not suitable for jury duty, nor was their witness testimony admissible in a court preceding. They could be precluded from holding public office and other penalties as well. All of this was based on the premise that their bad moral character made them entirely untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

Over time, this idea has gradually been abandoned. Felons were eventually allowed to testify as witnesses in court, and though their felony history was admissible for purposes of impeaching their testimony a jury was now able to decide for themselves if they found the testimony credible. New rules and precedents would place limitations on how a past conviction could be invoked for impeachment, such as limiting the scope only convictions within the past ten years and excluding convictions that would be more prejudicial than of probative. These new rules indicated a rejection of the beyond redemption hypothesis.

Nowadays, crime is largely (though not entirely) treated as a function of willful behavior, and less as a function of inherent character. People don't become criminals because the devil made them do it, they become criminals because they choose to engage in behaviors that have (allegedly) harmful consequences for society. The deprivation of rights as punishment is based on the removal of the individual from society during incarceration, while upholding the individual's personal rights otherwise. So the convict can be detained and held, they can be denied the right to vote while incarcerated (because they aren't a member of society while incarcerated), and otherwise have their freedoms limited based on "the context of their surroundings." But they cannot be denied rights when there is no substantive benefit to society in general to be gained. Society gains nothing by depriving an inmate of the right to marry.

The problem with post-incarceration denial of rights stems from this and other transitions in the concepts of felony criminal behavior, and its rightful punishments. What constitutes a felony in modern times has very little to do with the value of a person's character, and increasingly has less and less to do with severity of harm to society caused by a behavior. Instead, felony classification has been transitioning into a largely deterrent mechanism, and/or a classification for the severity of sentencing that has been statutorily made available (again, mostly with an aim at deterrence). Non-felonies can often become felonies through escalating classifications for repeat offenses, leading to an increasing proportion of the population to have their rights deprived by decree.

/—-/ And in addition, convicted felons tend to vote democRAT.

Which in your mind is more than enough reason to deny them a basic right.

/-----/ No. I think felons should lose their rights as punishment and deterrent to others. Should felons lose their right to own a firearm?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And while we're at it, let's also suspend their right to free speech, their protection against self incrimination, their right to a lawyer, their protections against cruel and unusual punishment....hell, let's go ahead and just eliminate their right to life altogether.

That is what people like DOTR would like. No guns, no voting, no free speech, no private property.

You're no better. If you will arbitrarily remove one right just because you can, what's to stop yo from doing the same with other rights? Depriving someone of their rights as punishment for a crime must have a logical basis that contributes to the well being of society. If not, then it's nothing more than a petty tyranny.

The most serious removal or rights is a death sentence, which is [allegedly] valuable to society in that it eliminates the most exceptional dangerous risks faced by society. The effectiveness of the death penalty, and even the appropriateness of its continued use, may be open for debate. But there is no doubt that applying the death penalty as mere legislative or judicial vengeance would be tyranny. The same requirements apply to any other deprivation of rights.

Do you even understand why voting rights are taken away from felons in the first place? It's an old (largely outdated) principle that equates felonies with dishonesty, itself being rooted in the vision of government being divinely established to execute God's will. Serious sin equated to serious crimes, and therefore indicated a severe lack of moral character. Felons were, therefore, people who engaged in the kind of serious offenses that made them wholly and eternally untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

As such, convicted felons were expected to wear an eternal stigma the rest of their lives. They were not suitable for jury duty, nor was their witness testimony admissible in a court preceding. They could be precluded from holding public office and other penalties as well. All of this was based on the premise that their bad moral character made them entirely untrustworthy and beyond redemption.

Over time, this idea has gradually been abandoned. Felons were eventually allowed to testify as witnesses in court, and though their felony history was admissible for purposes of impeaching their testimony a jury was now able to decide for themselves if they found the testimony credible. New rules and precedents would place limitations on how a past conviction could be invoked for impeachment, such as limiting the scope only convictions within the past ten years and excluding convictions that would be more prejudicial than of probative. These new rules indicated a rejection of the beyond redemption hypothesis.

Nowadays, crime is largely (though not entirely) treated as a function of willful behavior, and less as a function of inherent character. People don't become criminals because the devil made them do it, they become criminals because they choose to engage in behaviors that have (allegedly) harmful consequences for society. The deprivation of rights as punishment is based on the removal of the individual from society during incarceration, while upholding the individual's personal rights otherwise. So the convict can be detained and held, they can be denied the right to vote while incarcerated (because they aren't a member of society while incarcerated), and otherwise have their freedoms limited based on "the context of their surroundings." But they cannot be denied rights when there is no substantive benefit to society in general to be gained. Society gains nothing by depriving an inmate of the right to marry.

The problem with post-incarceration denial of rights stems from this and other transitions in the concepts of felony criminal behavior, and its rightful punishments. What constitutes a felony in modern times has very little to do with the value of a person's character, and increasingly has less and less to do with severity of harm to society caused by a behavior. Instead, felony classification has been transitioning into a largely deterrent mechanism, and/or a classification for the severity of sentencing that has been statutorily made available (again, mostly with an aim at deterrence). Non-felonies can often become felonies through escalating classifications for repeat offenses, leading to an increasing proportion of the population to have their rights deprived by decree.

/—-/ And in addition, convicted felons tend to vote democRAT.

Which in your mind is more than enough reason to deny them a basic right.

/-----/ No. I think felons should lose their rights as punishment and deterrent to others. Should felons lose their right to own a firearm?

Only till their sentence is served and they have paid back their debt to society, the same with voting.

 

[Rustic]

What a pathetic attempt to deny someone their right to vote.

Sex offenders deserve an awful existence...

 

[DOTR]

“In one oft-cited 2002 study, sociologists looked at voting patterns in Florida during the 2000 election and concluded that Al Gore would have carried the state, and the Electoral College, over George W. Bush had voting rights been extended to people with felony records. The same study looked at 400 Senate elections from 1978 and 2000 and found that seven may have been reversed in favor of Democrats if not for felony disenfranchisement.”

Find the study here.

7 out of 400!

You see what I mean by shallow? More interested in defending democrats than truth arent you. Felons give Democrats the edge. Never republicans. It may be a slight edge but apparently it is worth pursuing for them. It doesnt turn every race. But according to the study it always improves the Democrats odds.

And if felons could vote Al Gore would have been President. You ignored that in your dishonest answer.

Couldn't they use seven more senators right now? Or even two more Too bad. Kavenaugh is the next SC justice...and the slight edge felons would have given Democrats is something you will have to regret not having.

7 out of 400 is statistically insignificant and falls within the margin of error of the study.

You are dumber than a box of rocks


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

LOL.. Now you are desperate enough to make up sciency sounding objections? Do tell...what is the "margin of error" in this report and where is it cited?

(1) no margin of error is given. You made that up.

(2) a margin of error would apply to each statistical analysis. Not to how many races would have been changed by such analysis.

Once again...the shallowest interpretation possible. Mr Libertarian LOL

Let me give you the real results of this paper, conducted with scientific rigor, which you did not read and will never read.

View attachment 216758

My, poor little child, you read one page of a study and think that tells the whole story. Every study has a built in margin of error as every study has to make assumptions, and those assumptions are never proven, just assumed.

Here is the whole thing since you link only gives one page....https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/faculty/documents/Democratic_Contraction.pdf

From the study...
Nevertheless, we must also note a number of caveats to these findings.

First, our counterfactual examples rely upon a ceteris paribus assumption-that nothing else about the candidates or elections would change save the voting rights of felons and ex-felons.
Second, our estimated vote choice and turnout analysis matched nonfelons to felons on the basis of region, gender, race, age, labor force status, marital status and education. Although nonfelon voters resemble felons in many respects, we cannot be certain that the experience of criminal conviction itself may not suppress, (or conversely, mobilize) political participation. Our analysis of new survey data on this question provides some reassurance that our turnout and party preference estimates are reasonable, although the Youth Development Study results do not constitute a conclusive test of the effects of felony convictions on political behavior.
Third, our analyses have assumed that felon disenfranchisement laws are well enforced, and that felons and ex-felons do not attempt to vote in disregard of these laws.

Yeah here is the reason it is always a losing game to try and speak reason to a liberal. You have asked several times for evidence that felons vote democrat. And I knew that any evidence would be treated in this fashion.
So back to the normal way of speaking to liberals and leftists.




What is the margin of error? You claimed to see one in this report. But you cant present it.

 

[DOTR]

Like, I stated, I had never heard it used. You still didn't answer the question because it is a concept and not a law. Some states use that as justification for disenfranchisement perhaps, but other do not, hence your failure to justify it's significance as it is not universal in application. Simply because you advocate it, does not mean it is correct.

So what was your question then that did not get answered? I think I did. You asked where the law is written. Each states laws are covered on the websites I gave you. What more do you want? Or is this an example of getting what you asked for and being sorry for it?
If you dont understand the legal concepts or cultural history behind it then that is a failure of education. I cant fix that with a link.

I have a family member who is a convicted felon.

Somehow I am not surprised

Whether you believe it or not, he is a conservative in his politics,

No I dont believe it but that is irrelevant. So what if he is? Unless you want to slide down the liberal slope to insanity (1) we shouldn't change law to benefit a group even if it benefited someone other than democrats (which it wouldn't) and (2) it is a liberal fallacy that the exception negates the rule. Felons in general are Democratic voters. By a huge margin. The Democrats also lay claim to support from abortionists, pornographers, homosexuals, atheists, illegals, NAACP, welfare recipients, Hollywood billionaires, the media, transsexuals, feminists and many other perverted special interest groups. That felons vote for Democrats is really not that shocking.

and served a considerably longer federal sentence than one can ever be considered in state courts. Why? His crime was discovered by federal law enforcement rather than by the state. He also has lost his right to vote and his second amendment rights, none of which had anything to do with the crime he committed, admitted guilt and served his sentence without incident. Why should he suffer this civil death when offenders in other states do not suffer the same fate?

If he ran afoul of Federal Law then all offenders in any state suffer the same fate. Did you go to high school?
There is a huge problem with Federal over reach however. That is where you should be concentrating.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Like, I stated, I had never heard it used. You still didn't answer the question because it is a concept and not a law. Some states use that as justification for disenfranchisement perhaps, but other do not, hence your failure to justify it's significance as it is not universal in application. Simply because you advocate it, does not mean it is correct.

So what was your question then that did not get answered? I think I did. You asked where the law is written. Each states laws are covered on the websites I gave you. What more do you want? Or is this an example of getting what you asked for and being sorry for it?
If you dont understand the legal concepts or cultural history behind it then that is a failure of education. I cant fix that with a link.

I have a family member who is a convicted felon.

Somehow I am not surprised

Whether you believe it or not, he is a conservative in his politics,

No I dont believe it but that is irrelevant. So what if he is? Unless you want to slide down the liberal slope to insanity (1) we shouldn't change law to benefit a group even if it benefited someone other than democrats (which it wouldn't) and (2) it is a liberal fallacy that the exception negates the rule. Felons in general are Democratic voters. By a huge margin. The Democrats also lay claim to support from abortionists, pornographers, homosexuals, atheists, illegals, NAACP, welfare recipients, Hollywood billionaires, the media, transsexuals, feminists and many other perverted special interest groups. That felons vote for Democrats is really not that shocking.

and served a considerably longer federal sentence than one can ever be considered in state courts. Why? His crime was discovered by federal law enforcement rather than by the state. He also has lost his right to vote and his second amendment rights, none of which had anything to do with the crime he committed, admitted guilt and served his sentence without incident. Why should he suffer this civil death when offenders in other states do not suffer the same fate?

If he ran afoul of Federal Law then all offenders in any state suffer the same fate. Did you go to high school?
There is a huge problem with Federal over reach however. That is where you should be concentrating.

Apparently you did not attend high school because there are so many examples in this post where you did not read what I wrote.

I am so sick and tired of you panty waist wannabe intellectuals whose only claim to fame is the inability to communicate using the English language.

As to my relative's crime, I will glady tell you to go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on, you smarmy, ignorant piece of shit.

Have a nice day!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

/—-/ And in addition, convicted felons tend to vote democRAT.

You mean, the ones who can't vote?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ And in addition, convicted felons tend to vote democRAT.

You mean, the ones who can't vote?

/——/ They can in NY

 

[Tresha91203]

Feel free to provide the rules in NY City for early voting.

Thanks!

Yeah they even have instruction for our Spanish speaking friends ... Absentee Voting | New York State Board of Elections
How hard was that to find? Not very hard.

Here is who can submit an absentee vote in NY (from your link)

• Absent from your county or, if a resident of New York City absent from said city, on Election Day.
• Unable to appear at the polls due to temporary or permanent illness or disability; or because you are the primary care giver of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled.
• A resident or patient of a Veterans Health Administration Hospital.
• Detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony.

None of these would apply to the people in this situation, thus they do not qualify for absentee voting.

Also, absentee voting is not the same thing as early voting.

It would be FAR easier to add to that list: citizens unable to vote at their assigned polling place due to legal restrictions (not allowed at schools, restraining order, whatever) than to try to accommodate pedophiles in a school. It would be FAR safer and MUCH cheaper. I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

 

[Tresha91203]

What a pathetic attempt to deny someone their right to vote.

You democrats welcome the pedophile vote.

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Republicans, unlike you democrats, dont want the votes of criminals.

<------ Republican: Once they've done their time, restore their rights...every . last . one.

 

[Tresha91203]

I am not a Dem but I do fight against those trying to take away a fundamental right and duty of each citizen.

Are you just as adamant about a convicted felon's right to bear arms after they have served their time?

Hes not a democrat; he just votes democrat.

I'd disagree with this assesment. This issue in particular goes much deeper than the superficiality of "partisanship". This a much deeper philosophical issue that centers around jurisprudence, and the philosophies regarding crime, and punishment. What it means to be a "free man"; and just what constitutes "cruel, and unusual punishment".

For me, "free man."

 

[Cellblock2429]

Feel free to provide the rules in NY City for early voting.

Thanks!

Yeah they even have instruction for our Spanish speaking friends ... Absentee Voting | New York State Board of Elections
How hard was that to find? Not very hard.

Here is who can submit an absentee vote in NY (from your link)

• Absent from your county or, if a resident of New York City absent from said city, on Election Day.
• Unable to appear at the polls due to temporary or permanent illness or disability; or because you are the primary care giver of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled.
• A resident or patient of a Veterans Health Administration Hospital.
• Detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony.

None of these would apply to the people in this situation, thus they do not qualify for absentee voting.

Also, absentee voting is not the same thing as early voting.

It would be FAR easier to add to that list: citizens unable to vote at their assigned polling place due to legal restrictions (not allowed at schools, restraining order, whatever) than to try to accommodate pedophiles in a school. It would be FAR safer and MUCH cheaper. I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

/——/ I worked as an inspector for the board of elections in NY. They use public schools because they are either super cheap to rent or they are free plus everyone know where they are. Larger communities need a big gymnasium so everyone can fit in easily.

 

[Tresha91203]

Feel free to provide the rules in NY City for early voting.

Thanks!

Yeah they even have instruction for our Spanish speaking friends ... Absentee Voting | New York State Board of Elections
How hard was that to find? Not very hard.

Here is who can submit an absentee vote in NY (from your link)

• Absent from your county or, if a resident of New York City absent from said city, on Election Day.
• Unable to appear at the polls due to temporary or permanent illness or disability; or because you are the primary care giver of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled.
• A resident or patient of a Veterans Health Administration Hospital.
• Detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony.

None of these would apply to the people in this situation, thus they do not qualify for absentee voting.

Also, absentee voting is not the same thing as early voting.

It would be FAR easier to add to that list: citizens unable to vote at their assigned polling place due to legal restrictions (not allowed at schools, restraining order, whatever) than to try to accommodate pedophiles in a school. It would be FAR safer and MUCH cheaper. I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

/——/ I worked as an inspector for the board of elections in NY. They use public schools because they are either super cheap to rent or they are free plus everyone know where they are. Larger communities need a big gymnasium so everyone can fit in easily.

I meant: Why waste all this time, money and effort to put pedophiles in a school when you can just allow them to vote at the registrars' office or the fire station? There's an easier and safer solution, so why this need to allow them in schools against the terms of their release?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Feel free to provide the rules in NY City for early voting.

Thanks!

Yeah they even have instruction for our Spanish speaking friends ... Absentee Voting | New York State Board of Elections
How hard was that to find? Not very hard.

Here is who can submit an absentee vote in NY (from your link)

• Absent from your county or, if a resident of New York City absent from said city, on Election Day.
• Unable to appear at the polls due to temporary or permanent illness or disability; or because you are the primary care giver of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled.
• A resident or patient of a Veterans Health Administration Hospital.
• Detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony.

None of these would apply to the people in this situation, thus they do not qualify for absentee voting.

Also, absentee voting is not the same thing as early voting.

It would be FAR easier to add to that list: citizens unable to vote at their assigned polling place due to legal restrictions (not allowed at schools, restraining order, whatever) than to try to accommodate pedophiles in a school. It would be FAR safer and MUCH cheaper. I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

/——/ I worked as an inspector for the board of elections in NY. They use public schools because they are either super cheap to rent or they are free plus everyone know where they are. Larger communities need a big gymnasium so everyone can fit in easily.

I meant: Why waste all this time, money and effort to put pedophiles in a school when you can just allow them to vote at the registrars' office or the fire station? There's an easier and safer solution, so why this need to allow them in schools against the terms of their release?

/----/ Because you can't make poor felons feel left out or unwanted. You'll hurt their self esteem.

 

[Tresha91203]

Yeah they even have instruction for our Spanish speaking friends ... Absentee Voting | New York State Board of Elections
How hard was that to find? Not very hard.

Here is who can submit an absentee vote in NY (from your link)

• Absent from your county or, if a resident of New York City absent from said city, on Election Day.
• Unable to appear at the polls due to temporary or permanent illness or disability; or because you are the primary care giver of one or more individuals who are ill or physically disabled.
• A resident or patient of a Veterans Health Administration Hospital.
• Detained in jail awaiting Grand Jury action or confined in prison after conviction for an offense other than a felony.

None of these would apply to the people in this situation, thus they do not qualify for absentee voting.

Also, absentee voting is not the same thing as early voting.

It would be FAR easier to add to that list: citizens unable to vote at their assigned polling place due to legal restrictions (not allowed at schools, restraining order, whatever) than to try to accommodate pedophiles in a school. It would be FAR safer and MUCH cheaper. I don't understand the reasoning behind this.

/——/ I worked as an inspector for the board of elections in NY. They use public schools because they are either super cheap to rent or they are free plus everyone know where they are. Larger communities need a big gymnasium so everyone can fit in easily.

I meant: Why waste all this time, money and effort to put pedophiles in a school when you can just allow them to vote at the registrars' office or the fire station? There's an easier and safer solution, so why this need to allow them in schools against the terms of their release?

/----/ Because you can't make poor felons feel left out or unwanted. You'll hurt their self esteem.
View attachment 217028

Frankly, I don't see how this is good for anyone at all. It is stupid to let known pedophiles in a school. It is dangerous for the children and an unneeded (cruel IMO) temptation for any pedophile trying not to reoffend.