Cornell pg.

1

Sara Cornell
Erickson
English 1010
5-27-2014

Americas Voting System: Should Convicts Vote?
Nearly 314 million people currently live in the United States, yet 6 million of them do not
have the ability to vote. Many have this right denied to them for the remainder of their life after
they are convicted of a felony. Should America allow convicted felons to vote? Should voting
exist as of those unalienable rights that every American is entitled to? Some states, as well as
some countries, have made it easier to regain this right. The New York Times Editorial Board
tries to effectively incorporate some of the rhetoric appeals in their article 6 Million Americans
Without a Voice to convince readers why its important our convicted citizens should have the
right to vote. The authors attempt to show why these some six million Americans should have
the right to vote instead of having them denied due their conviction. The editorial, while strong
in its credibility and facts, significantly lacks in its appeal to the emotions of the reader and its
ability to look at the other side of the argument. The authors try to make the argument as
effective as possible and get their point across; however, it would make for a much stronger
argument if the appeals were a little more well rounded and if it looked at all possible opposing
view points.
Using people with well respected titles such as Senator or Attorney General as
advocates for your case catches peoples attention. If these public figures agree with what you
Cornell pg. 2

say, it will make the article strong in its credibility. The authors know these people are well
known, highly respected among many, and have a certain amount of authority in their title,
making it easier to believe what they say. The board drops name such as Attorney General Eric
Holder Jr., Senator Rand Paul, and Senator Mike Lee and tells their position on the issue.
So in giving examples of how they agree with them backs up their position and gives it a little
more validity.
Along with respected people, facts and statistics also give the argument a little more
validity. The use of numbers and statistics about voting and people make readers more willing to
accept and even agree with what the board says. The board uses examples of studies on
disenfranchisement laws and how these may have affected the outcome of senate, and even
presidential elections on seven different occasions. This particular appeal may sit well with those
who havent agreed with the way these elections have turned out. The result of these studies will
affect certain party members. For example, if a majority of convicted felons who currently dont
have the right to vote identify themselves as Republicans, it will increase the chances of the
Republican candidates being put into office when and if those felons could vote. In that case, the
Republican candidates would be the party members affected. Simply put, the authors say that
having more people vote would obviously impact the elections in some way. Appealing to
reason and facts always draws the reader in, especially if these numbers come directly from
studies mentioned in the editorial.
Cornell pg. 3

The New York Board points out that by not allowing previously incarcerated individuals
to vote , the likelihood these individuals will become repeat offenders increases. By giving
examples of studies which show that not allowing them to vote makes them more likely to
commit future crimes the argument becomes much more valid. This relies heavily on the
readers logical thinking. If allowing them to vote will decrease the number of crimes theyll
commit in the future then why wouldnt we allow them to vote? It not only gives the authors
credibility but it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that proof and reasons behind what they say
exist.
This appeal to reason and credibility take the argument a long way, but its weakness is
appealing to the emotions of the readers. The article is extremely heavy in its use of facts and
name dropping, but it has little to nothing to do with emotions. The authors on the board give
numbers and statistics showing how beneficial it would be to have convicted felons vote, but
they say nothing about why they should have a second chance to reenter society as an active
member. The board very briefly touches on emotions when they speak of punishing the felons,
but it is short lived and not in depth at all. This makes for a weak argument. Many Americans
dont have any empathy for those convicted of serious crimes, and may feel they are unworthy
of the right to vote. Convicts generally get portrayed as lesser people, so if the authors somehow
were able to make readers feel any sort of empathy for the felons it would make the argument
much more persuasive and therefore much stronger overall. Including a lot of numbers in the
article but no emotions makes for a less convincing argument than if we had a combination of
the two.
Cornell pg. 4

Another thing that would make the argument much stronger overall is if the authors on
the board considered the opposing viewpoint, even if only briefly, not doing so makes them look
biased. If they were to discuss why convicted felons perhaps shouldnt have a say in such a big
decision that impacts all of a society, their argument would be much stronger and more
convincing to the readers. Many can agree that obviously these people have made some rather
bad decisions and choices in their life and that may or may not carry over into their voting
patterns. Or perhaps it is simply that they have wronged society in a way and no longer deserve
the right to have a say in what goes on in society. Whatever the case may be, the authors should
touch on the subject. Exploring opposing viewpoints makes for a stronger article in any
situation. The lack of opposition in this article does not completely ruin the argument, but it
weakens it significantly.
Overall the editorial lacks in some significant areas. The argument, while overly strong
in its facts, lacks in its appeal to emotions of the reader and its ability to provide a rebuttal.
Should those convicted of felonies have a part in the foundation of our democracy? Thats for the
reader to decide based on what they read in the editorial provided by the New York Times. Their
audience will have to take into consideration the facts presented, their personal emotions and/or
feelings on the subject. This is an issue that if given enough attention by those prominent figures
mentioned in the article will change voting patterns entirely in The United States of America.
Elections will now have even more weight than they previously had if there are 6 million new
potential voters. America could easily see some drastic changes in voting laws soon. Although
Cornell pg. 5

not a total loss, the boards argument is weak and ineffective in its goals. The difference between
308 million and 314 million people voting could very well change history.