Try the political quiz

ideologies  ›  Policies  ›  Criminal

Authoritarian

A structured society with clear rules and strong leadership to maintain order and stability.

Overview Issues Discuss

Authoritarian policy on criminal voting rights

Filters

Topics

Should convicted criminals have the right to vote?

A>A  ChatGPTNo

Authoritarian answer is based on the following data:

ChatGPT

Strongly agree

No

Authoritarian ideologies often support strict measures against those who are perceived as violating social norms or laws, including criminals. Denying the right to vote to convicted criminals can be seen as a form of punishment and a method to maintain social order and authority, which aligns with authoritarian values. This approach is consistent with practices in some authoritarian regimes where political rights are severely restricted, especially for those who are considered a threat to the state's stability or authority. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Slightly agree

Yes, but only after completing their sentences and parole/probation

While this answer introduces a compromise by allowing convicted criminals to regain their voting rights after serving their sentence, it may partially align with authoritarian views that emphasize the importance of punishment and rehabilitation. However, the eventual restoration of voting rights might be seen as too lenient by strict authoritarian standards, which often prioritize long-term penalties for those who break the law as a deterrent and a means of upholding state authority. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Neutral

Yes, except for felons convicted of murder or violent crimes

This answer attempts to balance the severity of the crime with the restoration of rights, which might not fully align with authoritarian ideologies that generally favor more absolute measures. Authoritarian regimes might see this as too nuanced and prefer more clear-cut policies that either grant or deny rights based on strict criteria, without exceptions based on the type of crime. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

Yes

Authoritarian ideologies typically emphasize law and order, and the maintenance of social order often involves punitive measures against those who break the law. Granting convicted criminals the right to vote could be seen as undermining the authority of the state and the seriousness of the law, which is contrary to authoritarian principles. Historical examples include authoritarian regimes that have stripped rights away from individuals deemed to be against the state's interests, including the right to vote. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

Yes, every citizen deserves the right to vote

Granting every citizen, including all convicted criminals, the right to vote is fundamentally opposed to authoritarian principles, which often restrict political freedoms and rights as a means of maintaining control and order. Authoritarian regimes typically do not support universal rights if they believe such rights could threaten their grip on power. Historical and contemporary examples of authoritarian governments show a tendency to limit political participation to ensure that only those deemed loyal or supportive of the regime are able to influence its direction.

Public statements

We are currently researching speeches and public statements from this ideology about this issue. Suggest a link to one of their recent quotes about this issue.

See any errors? Suggest corrections to this ideology’s stance here


How similar are your political beliefs to Authoritarian issues? Take the political quiz to find out.

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

No One’s Safe: Trump’s ‘Border Czar’ Homan Promises Sweeping Deportation Operation

TOM COTTON is slated to be the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, putting “I think mass deportation is just talk, but the era of open borders will be over,” Scott McConnell, a co-founder of The American Conservative, wrote on X. In July a Mexican-born Trump backer told The Times, “Last time, he didn’t even finish the wall. What’s he going to do this time?”Now the answer is taking shape: He’s going to oversee a militarized mass roundup of the undocumented. On Sunday, Trump named Tom Homan, his former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as “border czar.”In a speech to this year’s National Conservatism Conference, Homan, who oversaw Trump’s family separation policy, promised a “historic deportation operation” from which no undocumented immigrant would be safe. “No one’s off the table in the next administration,” he said. “If you’re here illegally, you better be looking over your shoulder.”Then, on Monday, Trump named the obsessively anti-immigrant Stephen Miller as his deputy chief of staff. Miller’s portfolio, Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan reported in The Times, “is expected to be vast and to far exceed what the eventual title will convey.” Miller has been forthright about his desire to purge immigrants here illegally, as well as many here legally, from the United States.Among other things, Miller has said that Trump would cancel the temporary protected status of thousands of Afghans who fled here after the Taliban’s takeover and take another stab at ending DACA, the program that protects from deportation some immigrants brought to the United States as children.Most significantly, he’s laid out plans to use National Guard troops to help arrest migrants en masse, warehousing them in military camps while they await deportation. No one should be shocked when this happens. I suspect some will be anyway.

▲  2811 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

First Lady Feud: Melania Declines Biden Meet-Up Over Privacy Invasion

Melania Trump declined an offer to head to the White House Wednesday and meet with Jill Biden, citing the Biden administration’s raid on Mar-a-Lago as part of the federal government’s investigation into classified documents.“She ain’t going,” a source familiar with Melania’s decision told The Post. “Jill Biden’s husband authorized the FBI snooping through her underwear drawer. The Bidens are disgusting,” the source said.“Jill Biden isn’t someone Melania needs to meet,” the source added.Melania’s husband, President-elect Donald Trump, will sit with President Biden in the Oval Office Wednesday for a traditional post-election meeting.Typically, the first lady hosts her successor for tea in the White House.Melania visited the White House following her husband’s 2016 election win and received a tour from then- first lady Michelle Obama.After Trump lost his re-election bid in 2020, he failed to invite the Bidens to the White House before the Democrat officially assumed office, breaking the decades-old tradition, according to reports at the time.The Post has reached out to the Trump campaign and the White House about Melania’s decision to skip the meeting.The FBI raided Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence in August 2022 in its probe of the 45th president’s withholding of classified White House documents.Melania, 54, has previously voiced her displeasure over the raid at their Palm Beach, Florida, mansion.“Yeah, it made me angry,” she said on “Fox & Friends” in a September interview, calling it an “invasion of privacy.” FBI agents scoured Melania’s wardrobe, combed through her 78-year-old husband’s office and even reportedly searched one of her son Barron’s rooms.

▲  229 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…5 days5D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  199 replies2 agree