You say you're not entirely against it, can you think of a good argument FOR disenfranchising felons?
I'd say if'n they haven't fully repaid their debt to society, ie fines, etc, but they should be able to do that without Florida's type of BS. That and the double standard needs to go.
If I understand the first part correctly, you don't think they should have the right to vote (the right to representation) if they haven't fully repaid their debt to society? Why not?
Edit: What I'm getting at is why even strip the right to vote to begin with? What purpose does that serve?
I just think it's fair that they pay for their crime, although I would have no problems considering payment plans as paid from day one,. Where things get complicated in Florida, is that even if you pay for your crime, you don't get your right to vote back if'n you owe anything to the state, even if it's unrelated. Oh, and it's your problem to find it. Did I mention that it's a crime to claim you've settled everything if'n you have, even if you don't know about the debt? Yeah, now that's a lot of BS Throw in the fact that prisoners count in the census despite not being able to vote while incarcerated, and often not after. If they count they should be allowed to vote.
The FL situation sounds messed up, absolutely.
I think we can mostly all agree on "paying" the debt to society. I put that in quotes because I don't think we're taking about fines which make it the cost of doing business for those in an upper income level. I think we both agree we're talking about punishments for serious crimes.
With voting, I don't think it should be taken away at all from citizens. We should have a say in our representation even if we have violated a law. I can't think of any reason to take away voting rights as payment for a crime, can you? It's been used to control and disenfranchise minority populations since it's implementation. It continues to encourage systemic racism