Quote:
Originally Posted by ogallalabob
Th state has a law that allows for this dispute to be resolved in 30 days. Even if they wait until after the election it only will take 30 days to resolve it.
There are numerous posts in this thread defining disenfranchising and yes it applies to situations where the actions are rendering a persons vote less effective. ie allowing those a vote who should not vote renders someone vote as less effective in that it cancels out a legitimate vote.
Not only is the wikipedia definition flawed because it only discusses disenfranchising the right to vote whilst people can be disenfranchised of any right and it adds in the "less effective" language that no respectable dictionaries do, that isnt even what it means by "less effective or ineffective".
It also doesnt cancel out a legitimate vote at all. It will cancel out a small fraction of one percent of legitimate votes. In this case we are talking perhaps 35 voters in a state of 19 million, of which around 8 million will vote. That is 0.0004375% even before we try and consider that these ineligible voters can be cancelling themselves out thus making their effect much smaller.
Again, this isnt a problem. Too many people voting is illegal and it should be prosecuted fairly like any other crime but if just one person is disenfranchised of their right to vote the measure has failed.
What Florida is doing is presuming guilt asking people to prove innocence in order to keep a constitutionally guaranteed right, arguably the most sacred right of all. There is a reason the justice system starts at a presumption of innocence then works forward to proving guilt for any other crime on the books.