I'll break down an answer for you. I have nothing else to do tonight.

I'm saying the root of this problem is optics

I'm not sure what you mean. Was this a typo, or are you saying its a matter of perspective, because you seem to think there's only one way to look at this, so this is a very confusing first sentence.

You've really not met my point. I'm not sure what it is. All you've said so far is "taking the right to vote is bad", and I'm saying "it shouldn't be granted automatically, certain behaviour should lead to the loss of this privilege".

You're once again claiming that we remove indiscriminately the rights of felons which we don't I'm drawing a parallel, I'm saying if you can see why we'd remove people from society you should be able to see why some of these people may not deserve to be given a free access pass when we allow them to return.

So we lock them up while we try to fix them. Lol. If you really think that's what's happening you're dreaming. There are many reasons for locking people away, for their own benefit is hardly near the top of the list.

We take their right to liberty because we must. Based on what. This holds the exact same weight as "we take their right to vote because we must". This statement holds no water.

Why are we then taking their right to vote? Rights are default on - we take them when we need to. Why can't kids vote? Maybe because we decide as a society who gets to be part of society and who doesn't. If we don't want kids having a say, surely you can see why we might restrict others.

So I would still need a reason to take somebody's right to vote beyond a triviality.

Raping and murdering someone isn't what I'd call a trivial matter. If you read my post I'm not saying at any point that anyone with a criminal record should be struck, i'm saying rapists/murders/other serious offenders likely don't deserve a say in elections.

What damage is a person with the vote doing? Another baseless argument. What damage is a murderer doing once they've stopped killing. Sometimes the effects of your actions should go beyond the present. Hence people convicted of serious crimes aren't given a free pass just because their sentence is up. Sometimes its prudent to take a wait and see attitude before restoring this person to full perks/freedoms within society.

If you can't provide any reason then I'll have to assume you think so for no reason. I'm telling you that someone who commits an act that sees us removing them from society shouldn't necessarily have a full say in our society. As I said originally, some can, others maybe, others no. Just as someone convicted of a crime doesn't indiscriminately end up in prison, some get off, others get a slap on the write, and others end up behind bars.

I dont need to spell out my point because hopefully you're smart enough to see why people go to prison and thus should be capable of extending that to "not trusted to vote".