Given the current discussion on political apathy in the US I think this data fits well into this pattern.
Looking at the voter turnout for United States (2016) of the of voting-age population you have merely 55.70% voting. (For comparison, the scale goes up to 87.21% in Belgium). Only roughly HALF of the population casts their votes in federal elections. Since a lot of the current policing decisions are made on a state or local level where voter turnout is even worse, this is a democracy in crisis.
What could be the drivers for this? I think you get a hint if you look at the other column, where you see the % of voter turnout based on registration. In most countries listed here, these numbers are almost identical because you are registered as a voter by default if you are a citizen. OR, if you are in the US, the % climbs to a whopping 86.80%, illustrating what a negative impact this system has.
Let people vote. Get rid of this ridiculus competition to cut and slice voter districts to party needs (gerry-mandering) and stop suppressing voters by other means if you want a system that actually allows politicians to work for their voters and not for donors / special interest groups that keep you paid.
And this isn't an idea that Trump came up with himself, he's just said the quiet part out loud. So, if we take it as given that Republican politicians and strategists are motivated to restrict the franchise by the same belief this means they believe they cannot obtain power under a properly administered democracy yet they believe they have a right to govern. There are an awful lot of people in the US with only a very transactional relationship to the idea of democracy.
It’s what we all know: current GOP ideals do not line up with majority representation. The GOP would be forced to change its policy to fall in line with the people’s will: a true tragedy, I know. We currently have a tyranny of minority.
Would this imply that the democrat party does align with the majority? If you believe that, this is not my experience.
For me personally, as a libertarian, I would say I agree with about 60% with the GOP platform, and about 20-30% with the Democrat platform. this used to be higher but the recent misadventure of the democrats in to "democratic socialism" and other left authoritarian policy positions has seen me really want to pull back from and oppose the democratic party more so then I have in the past
In this moment, to me, it seems strange to agree with 60% of republican policy but to to disagree with 70% democratic policy on the grounds of authoritarianism.
For example by and large I agree with the current actions of the Republicans and Trump in the realm of Foreign / trade Policy. While I am not a huge fans of tariff's our trade agreements have been lopsided not in the favor of the US for many decades now. It was not in anyway a fair or "free" trade, they here gifts to large multinational corporate looking to lower labor costs and avoid environmental regulations that their smaller competitors could not
I am also 100% anti-intervention so Trump pulling the military out of many nations I am 100% in agreement with, something the Democrats just a few years ago also agreed with but modern democrats can not be seen sharing any position with the Orange Man at all, ever.
Now on the domestic Front. I am largely in-favor of the Corporate Tax Cuts, Largely in favor of most of the Deregulation that has occurred. I have largely agreed with Trumps Supreme Court Nominees.
Immigration and Law Enforcement is the 2 area's I disagree with the GOP on, with immigration however democrats have gone off the deep in wanting to open up all Social Welfare programs to anyone that want to come here from anywhere. I 100% oppose that as it is economically unfeasible. I support the idea of open immigration as long as spending on Social welfare programs is controlled. I also oppose the creation of a new Universal Healthcare entitlement which is a cornerstone of the Democrat party platform
When it comes to domestic law Enforcement I oppose the GOP almost completely.
One easy change with major effects (that is law in almost all OECD countries IIRC) would be to have votes only on sundays or official holidays. Having to vote on a work day disproportionally disadvantages workers.
Also, what's up with these horrible queues at polling places? In my country (Czechia), I rarely have to wait when I come to the polling place.
We have one polling place (one ballot box, one comitee, about two places where you're required by law to fill your ballot) per maybe couple thousands citizens. These places are usually in a local school for the district. During the election, they are open Friday afternoon till 8 PM and Saturday till 2 PM. We have fully tabulated results by late Saturday. We don't have to register, the verification is done through a central registry, we just have to prove our identity at the polling site.
Frankly, I think U.S. deserves a comprehensive electoral reform. Americans should demand it in a general strike.
Interesting that % of registered voters that vote in the US is incredibly high (86%) even if the number of registered voters is low (hence the low % of eligible voters actually voting). 86% is right up there with countries like Belgium and Australia where voting is compulsory and the obligation to vote (or turn up at a polling place…) is enforced.
Switzerland seems odd on the face of it to me - what explains low turnout for registered voters? Too many elections/votes? Voter fatigue?
There's no common official record on where someone lives in the US, as well as many other countries in the anglosphere. You don't officially register at an address when you move there, although updating drivers licenses which are state issued are sometimes optionally connected to voter registrations (which are often county or municipality-managed).
> There's no common official record on where someone lives in the US
When a US colleague transferred from our US office to our European office they were surprised and a little shocked that they were required to register their address with the local authorities. They felt that the government had no right to know where they lived.
For me, as a European, I was quite surprised about the opposite. How is it possible to have a functioning government without proper records about who lives where?
Only after the realization that the US does not keep records about who lives where did things like voter registration make sense to me.
My explanation for swiss voter turnout: if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Two anecdotes:
- the presidency rotates among members of the executive committee, on a yearly basis. Cynically, the president exists so if a foreign head of state wants to have dinner, they have someone with whom to do it.
- when a referendum comes to the ballot, we don't just have to vote it up or down. The government gets a chance to say "yes, we agree this is a problem, but we'd suggest solving it this other way". Those are two options. The third (and I believe this is most popular) is "meh, it's working fine as it is".
Anyway, compared to US politics[1], swiss politics is wonderfully sedate. I'd like to think that's because the politicians are here to make the country run more smoothly, so the rest of us have better things to do.
Edit: and yes, we receive all balloting material by mail, and return it by mail. No problem. It works.
[1] is this because there are no center parties?
Q. Why is US politics like the Cupid Shuffle?
A. To the right, to the right, to the right, to the right /
To the left, to the left, to the left, to the left
So how do the electorate hold the executive to account if they say the will do x instead of y but actually do nothing or something else entirely?
Can you have a reference back on a subsequent referendum to a motion that was remitted in a previous referendum - that's technically the democratic way to do it.
It's hilarious how deeply ingrained the insanity is. Registering to vote is just not a thing outside the US. The percentage of people who come to vote, then vote is all of them.
The same sort of dogwhistles about 'voter fraud' have been getting airtime in the media as well so I'm sure it won't be long before we have widespread disenfranchisement, just like in the US.
Both are of course among the word's oldest democracies so were set up when just convenient ideas like maintaining a big book of everyone's names or mailing ballots to everyone was surely impossible.
There have been lots of updates though. Several states allow same-day registration and at least one state does not require registration at all.
For the USA, I’m fairly sure it’s more the idea that it’s not the government’s concern where people live. Why would free citizens have to tell the government where they live?
For the UK, it might be more the UK mantra “if it ain’t completely and utterly broke, don’t fix it”. They tend to love traditions, even if they have become somewhat impractical.
For the UK, keeping a central register also was a bit easier than one would think, as women and most men didn’t have the right to vote until the middle/late 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867:
“Before the Act, only one million of the seven million adult men in England and Wales could vote; the Act immediately doubled that number. Moreover, by the end of 1868 all male heads of household were enfranchised as a result of the end of compounding of rents.”
(If I understand it correctly, “compounding of rents” is where landlords pay the property taxes that renters have to pay, increasing rent accordingly. Because only those paying property tax were eligible to vote, a side effect was that many renters weren’t allowed to vote)
In Belgium _every_ citizen is automatically registered.
I feel you are comparing apples to oranges. If every citizen in the US was registered, then how do the numbers compare then?
The other registration, ie. not the automatic one, in Belgium applies to foreigner who live in Belgium and want to have some say in local elections. I can't even see how this kind of registration even compares to the voter registration in the US. Well, they both have the word "registration" but it isn't even remotely the same.
If you need help interpreting the numbers of registration vs voting, let me know. I can search the real numbers and break them down to citizen (auto-registration) and non-citizens (who could register but didn't) and non-voters (both categories combined but didn't show up at the election)
There have been made some studies in Switzerland [1][2] why turnout is usually somewhere between 40 and 45%. Main reasons:
* Not interested.
* Not competent enough to make a decision.
* Social isolation.
* Frustration.
* Some participate in other ways than voting.
Some other interesting facts from 2015 [3]:
* 30% turnout of young people between 18 and 30 years.
* 67% turnout of old people between 65 and 74 years.
* 53% of men participate, 46% of women participate.
* Old women do participate less than young women, possibly because Switzerland introduced votes for women very late in 1971.
* The concordance system [4] leads to less fluctuations in the composition of the government. It's not like in the US, where you have only 2 completely different parties fighting each other. So, less changes, less reasons to go to vote.
* Many people are happy with the status quo. Another reason to skip voting.
1971 having been due to holdouts who are so conservative that to this day they vote* by physically assembling and holding up hands. (this year postponed due to the 'rona).
Despite that, since 1971 there have been 5 female presidents from 3 different parties: Calmy-Rey, Dreifuss, Leuthard, Sommaruga, Widmer-Schlumpf (some having served more than once)
Switzerland is a confederation and has lots of referendums, where the entire population decides on a policy, not on who should decide on policies. Both limit the power of the national government.
Belgium does not prosecute people not showing up. I can say that for a fact.
But if they prosecuted you, here's what you are facing:
(In art. 210 "kieswetboek" or "voting law book" for our english readers)
For a first offense, the judge may verbally reprimand you! (oh noes!)
In extreme circumstance, they could give you a fine. That fine is less than a speeding ticket or the fine the city council could give you for... let's say... "eating a sandwich while sitting on the stairs in front of a public building" (?!).
Should you persist in your "evil" and "devilish" ways and got called before a judge 4 (four) times for not voting. Then they can take away your right to vote for 10 years[1]. This is the equivalent of saying: "Oh, you don't want to vote! Now you don't get to vote and won't be prosecuted for it"
The low fines, even if the judge imposed them, and the ridiculousness of this article made prosecutors say: "We got better things to do". So the law is: everyone needs to vote, but if you feel strongly about not voting... we're not going to bother.
[1] It is bit more complicated than that. But for most citizens who don't want to vote, it wouldn't make a difference.
This should surprise nobody. I live in a blue state. My vote is practically meaningless because of the electoral college system. Yes, there's some signalling to be done, but on affecting the short term outcome? Nada.
MLK has a great quote, "“Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." That's exactly what our current presidential race offers to many young people. Trump is perceived as the guy with absolute misunderstanding and ill will with corrupt greed. But Joe Biden's a turd. He was pro segregation in the 70s. That should be an absolute non-starter to many people, but here he is as the "best option" with a healthy political career 40 years later. I don't especially believe he's a racist individual but his recent comments show he has grossly shallow understanding of race relations, among other things.
The only thing that could disenfranchise me more would be concern that the actual voting process had been compromised.
It is useful for signalling. It is meaningless on the actual election outcome. If everyone disenfranchised voted for people they thought were good but unlikely to win, you'd maybe get enough of a signal to change the party line in future elections. But that's incredibly hard and similarly meaningless at small scale. Getting people to vote for first order effects is difficult. Try getting them to vote for second order effects. There's no political machine to get out the vote for virtuous ideas that have no chance of winning in the right now.
That is precisely the problem. I don't give either of the two viable presidential candidates consent to govern. They're illegitimate to me. There are also no particularly noteworthy third party candidates on the radar to offer a throwaway signalling vote.
MLK said a riot is the language of the unheard. Huge swaths of the country are completely ignored. I'm not one of the ones particularly suffering for that, but it's deeply frustrating.
For future, please consider your local-most issues, policies, politics. I guarantee you will have an impact.
Ages ago I got worked up about a pet issue, became an activist, then graduated into politics, then policy.
Retail, local, face-to-face politics and policy isn't anything like what people assume. It still sucks, because politics.
But it's also amazing. My org does endorsement interviews. Dozens every year. Meeting and talking to judicial candidates, ranging from local to state supreme courts, has been the best civics lesson I've ever gotten. For example.
And I've also had the chance to support many up-and-comers, some who will surely become Representatives, Senators, and Governors. And they've heard progressive views on election integrity and voting rights from someone they know and trust, during their formative years.
1) bullshit. Voting is most definitely about winning. Less so in which systems which grant power proportional to the votes received, but true nonetheless. The president affects war, civil rights, corruption, inequality, culture, and numerous essential facets of society. Huge numbers of people don't like Joe Biden but will vote for him simply because they don't want trump to win. I probably would too if I lived in a swing state.
2) I've pretty clearly addressed that the are secondary components to voting like signalling your view. These views are largely ignored by the political process at the presidential level.
There's primaries and state and local elections and in many states there are referendum. Thinking of voting as something that is only done every four years for president is one of the problem with voting in the US.
If anything, the Democratic party is far too broad already even compared to a modern Labour party. I think the platform is more alienating than the breadth, in this case.
Is this really relevant, though? Republican democracy means that the people are sovereign within the laws they themselves have set up and may change; universal suffrage means that everyone[0] may vote. But isn't the choice not to vote itself just as much of a signal as voting? I know that some countries have compulsory voting, but that has always rubbed me the wrong way. If someone simply wishes to sit out, that seems to me to be his right.
Given the reasonably-established effect of weather on elections[1], I am uncertain that forced votes are particularly high-information votes.
In direct response to your first point, I would argue that it is you right to not vote. That being said, as it is THE fundamental right in democracies, you should not need to jump through any hoops whatsoever to vote. Especially as evidence suggests this leads to the people in power making use of that to stay in power.
On a side note: the idea that felons are unable to vote strikes me as totally wrong. What's the reasoning behind that? Why on Earth would you do that to a person? I cannot think of any scenario where this does not only have negatives consequences (alienating convicted felons even further from communities etc.). The only upside is pandering to those who feel that punishment is an important aspect of criminal justice. (This in itself deserves debate.)
It’s intentional, of course. Suppressing the vote of young or nonwhite people is a well established practice in America. Oftentimes voting districts are so gerrymandered that everybody knows which way the district will vote anyway so why bother? And voter registration laws make it very time consuming to prove residency for people who have to move often.
57 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 112 ms ] threadLooking at the voter turnout for United States (2016) of the of voting-age population you have merely 55.70% voting. (For comparison, the scale goes up to 87.21% in Belgium). Only roughly HALF of the population casts their votes in federal elections. Since a lot of the current policing decisions are made on a state or local level where voter turnout is even worse, this is a democracy in crisis.
What could be the drivers for this? I think you get a hint if you look at the other column, where you see the % of voter turnout based on registration. In most countries listed here, these numbers are almost identical because you are registered as a voter by default if you are a citizen. OR, if you are in the US, the % climbs to a whopping 86.80%, illustrating what a negative impact this system has.
Let people vote. Get rid of this ridiculus competition to cut and slice voter districts to party needs (gerry-mandering) and stop suppressing voters by other means if you want a system that actually allows politicians to work for their voters and not for donors / special interest groups that keep you paid.
The people in power don’t actually want this.
For me personally, as a libertarian, I would say I agree with about 60% with the GOP platform, and about 20-30% with the Democrat platform. this used to be higher but the recent misadventure of the democrats in to "democratic socialism" and other left authoritarian policy positions has seen me really want to pull back from and oppose the democratic party more so then I have in the past
For example by and large I agree with the current actions of the Republicans and Trump in the realm of Foreign / trade Policy. While I am not a huge fans of tariff's our trade agreements have been lopsided not in the favor of the US for many decades now. It was not in anyway a fair or "free" trade, they here gifts to large multinational corporate looking to lower labor costs and avoid environmental regulations that their smaller competitors could not
I am also 100% anti-intervention so Trump pulling the military out of many nations I am 100% in agreement with, something the Democrats just a few years ago also agreed with but modern democrats can not be seen sharing any position with the Orange Man at all, ever.
Now on the domestic Front. I am largely in-favor of the Corporate Tax Cuts, Largely in favor of most of the Deregulation that has occurred. I have largely agreed with Trumps Supreme Court Nominees.
Immigration and Law Enforcement is the 2 area's I disagree with the GOP on, with immigration however democrats have gone off the deep in wanting to open up all Social Welfare programs to anyone that want to come here from anywhere. I 100% oppose that as it is economically unfeasible. I support the idea of open immigration as long as spending on Social welfare programs is controlled. I also oppose the creation of a new Universal Healthcare entitlement which is a cornerstone of the Democrat party platform
When it comes to domestic law Enforcement I oppose the GOP almost completely.
We have one polling place (one ballot box, one comitee, about two places where you're required by law to fill your ballot) per maybe couple thousands citizens. These places are usually in a local school for the district. During the election, they are open Friday afternoon till 8 PM and Saturday till 2 PM. We have fully tabulated results by late Saturday. We don't have to register, the verification is done through a central registry, we just have to prove our identity at the polling site.
Frankly, I think U.S. deserves a comprehensive electoral reform. Americans should demand it in a general strike.
Switzerland seems odd on the face of it to me - what explains low turnout for registered voters? Too many elections/votes? Voter fatigue?
When a US colleague transferred from our US office to our European office they were surprised and a little shocked that they were required to register their address with the local authorities. They felt that the government had no right to know where they lived.
For me, as a European, I was quite surprised about the opposite. How is it possible to have a functioning government without proper records about who lives where?
Only after the realization that the US does not keep records about who lives where did things like voter registration make sense to me.
Two anecdotes:
- the presidency rotates among members of the executive committee, on a yearly basis. Cynically, the president exists so if a foreign head of state wants to have dinner, they have someone with whom to do it.
- when a referendum comes to the ballot, we don't just have to vote it up or down. The government gets a chance to say "yes, we agree this is a problem, but we'd suggest solving it this other way". Those are two options. The third (and I believe this is most popular) is "meh, it's working fine as it is".
Anyway, compared to US politics[1], swiss politics is wonderfully sedate. I'd like to think that's because the politicians are here to make the country run more smoothly, so the rest of us have better things to do.
Edit: and yes, we receive all balloting material by mail, and return it by mail. No problem. It works.
[1] is this because there are no center parties?
Q. Why is US politics like the Cupid Shuffle?
A. To the right, to the right, to the right, to the right / To the left, to the left, to the left, to the left
So how do the electorate hold the executive to account if they say the will do x instead of y but actually do nothing or something else entirely?
Can you have a reference back on a subsequent referendum to a motion that was remitted in a previous referendum - that's technically the democratic way to do it.
See the link zubspace gave above about collegiality (Concordance); what I've referred to as the "executive committee" is exactly the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Council_(Switzerland)
As to your specific questions, I'll do some research for the details and get back to you...
Could you please elaborate on "remit"? I'm not sure what you mean.
General information: https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/referendum/
They have a large number of single issue referendums multiple times a year.
There were 10 in 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Swiss_referendums
The same sort of dogwhistles about 'voter fraud' have been getting airtime in the media as well so I'm sure it won't be long before we have widespread disenfranchisement, just like in the US.
They simply cannot send every citizen a letter (or email).
(The UK is in the same boat)
There have been lots of updates though. Several states allow same-day registration and at least one state does not require registration at all.
For the UK, it might be more the UK mantra “if it ain’t completely and utterly broke, don’t fix it”. They tend to love traditions, even if they have become somewhat impractical.
For the UK, keeping a central register also was a bit easier than one would think, as women and most men didn’t have the right to vote until the middle/late 19th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867:
“Before the Act, only one million of the seven million adult men in England and Wales could vote; the Act immediately doubled that number. Moreover, by the end of 1868 all male heads of household were enfranchised as a result of the end of compounding of rents.”
(If I understand it correctly, “compounding of rents” is where landlords pay the property taxes that renters have to pay, increasing rent accordingly. Because only those paying property tax were eligible to vote, a side effect was that many renters weren’t allowed to vote)
It’s absolutely a thing in Australia and NZ, and in the world’s largest democracy, India, too.
https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/ https://vote.nz/enrol-to-vote/enrol-check-or-update/ https://eci.gov.in/voter/voter-registration/
I feel you are comparing apples to oranges. If every citizen in the US was registered, then how do the numbers compare then?
The other registration, ie. not the automatic one, in Belgium applies to foreigner who live in Belgium and want to have some say in local elections. I can't even see how this kind of registration even compares to the voter registration in the US. Well, they both have the word "registration" but it isn't even remotely the same.
If you need help interpreting the numbers of registration vs voting, let me know. I can search the real numbers and break them down to citizen (auto-registration) and non-citizens (who could register but didn't) and non-voters (both categories combined but didn't show up at the election)
* Not interested.
* Not competent enough to make a decision.
* Social isolation.
* Frustration.
* Some participate in other ways than voting.
Some other interesting facts from 2015 [3]:
* 30% turnout of young people between 18 and 30 years.
* 67% turnout of old people between 65 and 74 years.
* 53% of men participate, 46% of women participate.
* Old women do participate less than young women, possibly because Switzerland introduced votes for women very late in 1971.
* The concordance system [4] leads to less fluctuations in the composition of the government. It's not like in the US, where you have only 2 completely different parties fighting each other. So, less changes, less reasons to go to vote.
* Many people are happy with the status quo. Another reason to skip voting.
[1] https://www.aargauerzeitung.ch/schweiz/warum-die-mehrheit-sc...
[2] https://www.beobachter.ch/politik/wahlen-2019/wahlen-2019-wi...
[3] https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/eidgenoessische-wahlen-2019/wahle...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordance_system
Despite that, since 1971 there have been 5 female presidents from 3 different parties: Calmy-Rey, Dreifuss, Leuthard, Sommaruga, Widmer-Schlumpf (some having served more than once)
* as they have since 1403 https://www.ai.ch/politik/landsgemeinde
Switzerland is a confederation and has lots of referendums, where the entire population decides on a policy, not on who should decide on policies. Both limit the power of the national government.
However, reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Switzerland, voter turnout is low in their referendums, too.
But if they prosecuted you, here's what you are facing:
(In art. 210 "kieswetboek" or "voting law book" for our english readers)
For a first offense, the judge may verbally reprimand you! (oh noes!) In extreme circumstance, they could give you a fine. That fine is less than a speeding ticket or the fine the city council could give you for... let's say... "eating a sandwich while sitting on the stairs in front of a public building" (?!).
Should you persist in your "evil" and "devilish" ways and got called before a judge 4 (four) times for not voting. Then they can take away your right to vote for 10 years[1]. This is the equivalent of saying: "Oh, you don't want to vote! Now you don't get to vote and won't be prosecuted for it"
The low fines, even if the judge imposed them, and the ridiculousness of this article made prosecutors say: "We got better things to do". So the law is: everyone needs to vote, but if you feel strongly about not voting... we're not going to bother.
[1] It is bit more complicated than that. But for most citizens who don't want to vote, it wouldn't make a difference.
MLK has a great quote, "“Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will." That's exactly what our current presidential race offers to many young people. Trump is perceived as the guy with absolute misunderstanding and ill will with corrupt greed. But Joe Biden's a turd. He was pro segregation in the 70s. That should be an absolute non-starter to many people, but here he is as the "best option" with a healthy political career 40 years later. I don't especially believe he's a racist individual but his recent comments show he has grossly shallow understanding of race relations, among other things.
The only thing that could disenfranchise me more would be concern that the actual voting process had been compromised.
MLK said a riot is the language of the unheard. Huge swaths of the country are completely ignored. I'm not one of the ones particularly suffering for that, but it's deeply frustrating.
For future, please consider your local-most issues, policies, politics. I guarantee you will have an impact.
Ages ago I got worked up about a pet issue, became an activist, then graduated into politics, then policy.
Retail, local, face-to-face politics and policy isn't anything like what people assume. It still sucks, because politics.
But it's also amazing. My org does endorsement interviews. Dozens every year. Meeting and talking to judicial candidates, ranging from local to state supreme courts, has been the best civics lesson I've ever gotten. For example.
And I've also had the chance to support many up-and-comers, some who will surely become Representatives, Senators, and Governors. And they've heard progressive views on election integrity and voting rights from someone they know and trust, during their formative years.
2) I've pretty clearly addressed that the are secondary components to voting like signalling your view. These views are largely ignored by the political process at the presidential level.
Given the reasonably-established effect of weather on elections[1], I am uncertain that forced votes are particularly high-information votes.
0: well, not children or felons
1: e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5463178/
On a side note: the idea that felons are unable to vote strikes me as totally wrong. What's the reasoning behind that? Why on Earth would you do that to a person? I cannot think of any scenario where this does not only have negatives consequences (alienating convicted felons even further from communities etc.). The only upside is pandering to those who feel that punishment is an important aspect of criminal justice. (This in itself deserves debate.)