Criminality and voting

An issue that doesn’t seem to be discussed much in this part of the world, is whether convicted criminals should be allowed to vote.

In New Zealand convicted criminals serving a sentence of three years or more are unable to vote, but in the US, all prisoners, and ex-prisoners on parole, are barred from voting in most states.

It’s been estimated that preventing criminals serving sentences from voting may well have had a significant impact on the outcome of some state and national elections. For example, the Democrats may well have lost the 2004 presidential elections, because 400,000 Black males in the crucial state of Florida were unable to vote due to criminal convictions (in Florida both currently serving, and previously convicted, felons are barred from voting).

Although criminals are likely to have a high rate of apathy in regard to voting, their low socio-economic status means they are much more likely to vote for centre-left parties than those on the centre-right.

With centre-right parties in many western countries struggling to come up with ways of taking the initiative away from the centre-left,  perhaps those with liberal voting laws (such as Canada, and a number of European states) should take a leaf from America, and consider restricting voting rights to law-abiding citizens only.

Tolerating Intolerance

One of the foolish mistakes that many liberal democracies make is granting non-democratic parties political representation.

The most infamous group to get into power through democratic election were the Nazis. The Nazis frequently ridiculed the democratic process, yet the democratic Weimar government turned the other check. Even a cursory read through Mein Kampf, should have told them that Hitler has no place in a democratic government.

In 1917, Russia’s newly elected democratic government made a similar mistake when they failed to arrest the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks also publicly broadcast their totalitarian ambitions. Kerensky’s democratic government was particularly foolish because it had the backing of the army, which could have disarmed the Bolsheviks if it had been given approval to act quickly. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the Nazi’s would have been voted in if the German electorate hadn’t been threatened by the prospect of Russian backed communists.

Even today, western democracies still allow communist organisations to register as legimiate political parties. No doubt this is to validate the superiority of democracy and capitalism, but it also smacks of complacency, if not stupidity.

Some right-liberals argue that parties that promote the interests of particular ethnic groups should also be denied political representation. However, provided such parties abide by the democratic process, and don’t use violence or intimidation to achieve their ends, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to register.

Many left-liberals in Britain regard the British National Party as an extremist party that should be outlawed. The BNP may promote views that are extreme to liberal sensibilities but it does (at least at present) respect the democratic process. In fact, the BNP is probably the second most democratic party in Britain after the Liberal Democrats. This is because it is copying the Liberal Democrat strategy of campaigning on local issues through door knocking and telephone inquiries. In fact,the BNP probably has a better idea what ordinary people actually think that the Labour government.

If parties like the BNP are excluded from government then parties that represent non-white minorities will also have to be excluded. In New Zealand, the Maori Party, rightly or wrongly, promotes the interests of particular group, yet this doesn’t seem to concern left-liberals that attack white nationalists.

Democratic governments will always risk shooting themselves in the foot when they tolerate undemocratic parties of the right or the left.