It could be argued that individuals who are elected or appointed to be public officials who have not been convicted of a crime are not less likely to commit a crime once in an office of public trust
thus making the distinction between being a convicted felon or not immaterial as to whether an individual class has a propensity to commit a crime.
Where the argument for universal suffrage regardless of criminal conviction would cause controversy for specific classes is for particularly heinous criminal convictions; that is, for example, child molestation and rape; for which victims might contest that the individual should be out of prison at all due to the lack of ability to rehabilitate such individuals, irrespective of the punishment meted out by, in some cases, very lengthy or not very length prison sentences, depending on how much actual political power the party has.
Referring to the list of politicians who have been convicted of crimes which compromised the public trust, the fact that they violated the public trust, there is little reason to believe that they would not do so again for their own personal material gain or incessant desire to be in a position which provides a means to control masses of people and abuse their public power.
However, those two arguments fail to demonstrate that a convicted child molester or rapist or a politician convicted of embezzlement or accepting bribes while in office would effect their individual civic judgment as to the local vote for the issuance of bonds by the government for road improvements or public school infrastructure improvements, notwithstanding the fact that their rationale for road improvements or school infrastructure improvements might be for purely personal motivations.
Thus, there should be a relation to the disenfranchisement, whether for a period of time, or durante vita, to the particular item to be voted on.
Disenfranchising individuals committed to being involved in the voting process does not stop individuals from organizing other people to vote or otherwise being active politically.
The aim of disenfranchisement of citizens is twofold: punishment for crimes against society and marking the individual as unworthy of trust within that society.
One could argue that public safety agents who murder innocent citizens should have their vote taken for life, though so few of those individuals are even prosecuted for the murders they commit Police shootings of unarmed black people have not ended. But top-level political conversations about them have., whether they are convicted of a crime or not, because they are murdered with impunity, even in their own backyard.
So, criminals are already allowed to vote, before they are caught and convicted of a crime, and when they commit a crime against a particular class that is allowed to vote though does not have the political power to stop themselves from being murdered by individuals who will more than likely not be charged with murder for shooting unarmed citizens.
A vote does not equate to political power. Punishments, if any, are meted out to some, while others receive no punishment for their actions.
Allowing convicted criminals to vote will not change the result of the electoral college, not stop certain classes of individuals from being murdered in the public by public officials.
Thus, the vote to be meaningless for some, regardless if they are a convicted criminal or not, they can be slaughtered on their own property or in the streets, or in their vehicles with children and their family inside the vehicle. And since the vote is meaningless for certain classes, it makes no difference as to the balance of power if they are allowed to vote. Criminals that have no convictions vote.
There is no substantial difference between allowing a convicted pedophile to vote and allowing public safety agents who empty their firearm clip without realizing how many rounds they have fired, striking and ultimately murdering an unarmed citizen with impunity. For their victims life will never be the same, or will have ended at their hands. For some classes, the ability or being "allowed" to vote cannot alone change their status or improve their lives.
For some the vote is a token novelty while the real criminals commit real crime without being charged with any crime and no vote will change that political reality for them within the given political system.
Convicted criminals should be allowed to vote because the vote is of no significant value to the ruling class and its enforcement agents.