My comment is on political systems, so I'm not sure where you are going with your question, but I'll bite. Maybe you are struggling with my English. Would it better if I said no two people are equal (instead of, all people aren't created equal). Are you saying everyone on this forum is equal? I have no idea where I fall in the stack ranking and don't concern myself with it, where do you see yourself?
I am suggesting that some people believe all people are equal and other people believe no two people are equal. The latter may be an elitist or perhaps have feeling of inferiority. Thus I ask where you see yourself. You ask where I see myself and it is possible I am having a problem with your use of English as I might suggest that no two people on this forum are "equivalent" but I would say all the general members are "equal". So I see myself as equal to any other member here. I see myself as equal to any other citizen of my country. I see myself as equal to people who are richer than me, poorer than me, smarter than me or less intelligent. We all have equal rights and are thus equal.
I don't see myself as elitist or as inferior. I see myself as competent. It seems you are talking about rights and I am talking about individual characteristics and abilities. Being equal and having equal rights are two different things. I agree we should all have the same rights and opportunities, regardless of our differences. I'm talking about talents and skills being equal. Nature and nurture isn't the same for anyone. Trying to understand your logic a little more. Do you see yourself as equal to a person who is thief, but not equivalent to that person?
Seems we are close but into debatable area. I have equal rights, responsibilities and entitlements as a thief, unless that thief has been sentenced and is serving time wherein he has been forced to forfeit those rights until his debt to society is paid. So he is my equal before being convicted AND after paying the price. This makes me wonder if those who are serving time in prison when an election is called may or may not vote. I could look it up, but its just an academic curiosity.
Pretty common question for Google. I only typed in "can inm" before Google auto filled "can inmates vote", the answer being: Seems fair enough to me.
What is the biggest issue of democracy? That you can only vote for available candidates. There is no way to say: “I don't like these candidates.“ Or I want other candidates. And candidates have to own lots of money to power their campaign for their vote. Therefore you will see only richer peoples in the parliament. And if you don't go voting, other will do it. See UK what happens if people don't go voting.
Oops, turns out that isn't the answer. That was just one state. Seems that this is an issue that each state gets to decide on. There are many states that do not allow convicts to vote even after they have served their debt to society. Both sides of the issue seem to have some valid arguments. MAP: States Where Convicted Felons Can’t Vote
