4 ms·

There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote

9 points by edward 5y ago

cable2600 5y ago
Goes back to Rome, one had to become a citizen to vote. Join the military and get mustered out as a citizen with farmland. Would not fly today.
retrac 5y ago
> send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world This only works if you are at least fairly sympathetic to either the (rather similar on this one) liberal or woke framing and values on this issue. For someone in a democracy in some part of the world that is aggressively hostile to immigration for example, it's probable they see this as something like America doubling down on one of its most misguided policies, a Democratic immigrant-favoured majority enfranchising even more immigrants to make it permanent. Maybe it's time for their country to consider repealing the right for even naturalized foreigners to vote. For someone in a more solidly liberal progressive background, it seems perplexing. Obviously you need to naturalize these people, the numerically largest and most vulnerable group that supports the moral backbone of the argument. Surely most if not nearly all of the long-term who haven't been violent criminals must become US citizens as soon as feasible. Once that is done, establish a more comprehensive asylum and refugee program and grant asylum or deport as appropriate. Everyone in the country legally as a long term resident, should have a path to citizenship. Now you have almost no residents without status, no associated human rights abuse because of it, you can be a shining beacon of liberty for the world's huddled masses, and you get to maintain self-definition of the political body. And autocratic societies will simply applaud politely or jeer, depending on whether the universal franchise is something they for PR reasons officially subscribe to. If anything. In the background, they will be insinuating it's just to pacify the American people even more. Their votes never really mattered, and neither will those of the newly enfranchised.
- eesmith 5y ago
  I was curious about places which allow non-citizen voting. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-019-00687-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-019-00687-8 says: > at least forty-five countries presently allow noncitizen residents to vote in their local, regional, or even national elections. It's behind a paywall, but from the references it seems it's possible for non-citizens in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium to vote. (One of the citations is "Local voting rights for non-nationals: experience in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium".)
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Within the EU, EEA citizens (that includes Norway) have the right to vote in local and European elections in the country they live in.
  - retrac 5y ago
    If you have non-citizen long-term residents, perhaps many, it seems a concern if they are disenfranchised politically or civically. Zainichi. Literally "in Japan". Those who were born in Japan. Today mostly children (but increasingly grandchildren) of those who came as workers in the 80s. But some go back as far as the early 20th century. In some cases they only speak Japanese, went to Japanese schools, as did their Zainichi parents and they are partially assimilated in some communities. They marry with ethnic Japanese more as the world in general slowly sheds superstitions. But they are Korean citizens and have no rights as citizens in Japan. They and their children have been granted indefinite residency, access to social welfare and a few other things. The right to vote comes up often as a subject of debate. Japan does naturalize people who are fluent and culturally assimilated and considered promising citizens, though not a great number. Zainichi are many of those. But neither country allows dual citizenship so the other must be revoked. One must choose, as far as the historical laws and attitudes of both countries were concerned. The warming of Japan - Korea exchange (shipping if perhaps not affection) has made life easier since the countries are just... closer. Reforms in recent years to allow easier naturalization or dual residency. But it isn't fundamentally resolved. It affects Korea too in ways: should the Zainichi have the right to vote in Korean elections? Now this is perhaps a policy that can sustain if such a population isn't already resident. Otherwise you get a disenfranchised population. Usually a rather small minority, at least at first. I know to some degree it is my cultural bias and blinders but this doesn't seem like a great social dynamic to have emerge.
LatteLazy 5y ago
Careful. When you actually get into it logically who can and can't vote makes zero sense at all. Kids should all get a vote for a start.
diegoperini 5y ago
In Turkey, we tested this idea by accident. Refugees were given temporary citizenship, then allowed for the real one after a while. Turns out they stay loyal to the government who allow them to stay in the country. I totally feel for them to secure their stay but it gives the ruling party a huge advantage on the elections. Total number of former and current refugees exceed 4 million which is 2 percent of the total population. It is large enough to change election results. This stuff is messy, both sides have legit arguments.
- diegoperini 5y ago
  Correction: 5 percent, not 2.
anm89 5y ago
There is no good reason the NYT should exist any more. They are the stuffed husk of the serious journalistic entity they were at one point.
- cowvin 5y ago
  You mean because they publish opinion pieces written by random people?
  - anm89 5y ago
    One of many poor editorial choices they seem to be making recently.
LatteLazy 5y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20210729065341/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/opinion/noncitizen-voting-us-elections.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210729065341/https://www.nytim...
pydry 5y ago
While I might well agree it rubs me up the wrong way when the DNC announces a talking point like this and the New York Times instinctively cheerleads. It's also, frankly, quite boring when media outlets exhibit such consistent partisanship. If a media outlet functions as a vehicle for party propaganda why bother reading? Why not go straight to the source?
- meepmorp 5y ago
  > While I might well agree it rubs me up the wrong way when the DNC announces a talking point The DNC has nothing to do with this. > like this and the New York Times instinctively cheerleads. It's an editorial, is clearly marked as such at the top, and the writer does not work for the Times. I don't really understand your comment, except that you've seemingly taken the article as an excuse to complain about how you see the NYT.
afpx 5y ago
I don't know. I'd be pretty upset if I spent many years in a place, learned the language and culture, and indoctrinated myself in the rules and beliefs all to get outvoted (and potentially cast out) by people who did none of those things. It would leave me pretty jaded with representative democracy.
underseacables 5y ago
When I think about how much money billionaires are spending to influence elections, I think the last thing we need is less restrictions on voting. The system is much too influenced by money in power as it is, removing a basic protection like citizenship to vote just feels ripe for exploitation. We are a little insulated in America, and I think this is what gives rise to such outlandish ideas. Imagine if a country like Spain, or Germany, did not have a citizenship requirement. A bad actor like Russia could literally flood German states and municipalities st election time, and vote for the Kremlin.

9 points by edward 5y ago

Goes back to Rome, one had to become a citizen to vote. Join the military and get mustered out as a citizen with farmland. Would not fly today.

retrac 5y ago

> send a powerful message of inclusion to the rest of the world This only works if you are at least fairly sympathetic to either the (rather similar on this one) liberal or woke framing and values on this issue. For someone in a democracy in some part of the world that is aggressively hostile to immigration for example, it's probable they see this as something like America doubling down on one of its most misguided policies, a Democratic immigrant-favoured majority enfranchising even more immigrants to make it permanent. Maybe it's time for their country to consider repealing the right for even naturalized foreigners to vote. For someone in a more solidly liberal progressive background, it seems perplexing. Obviously you need to naturalize these people, the numerically largest and most vulnerable group that supports the moral backbone of the argument. Surely most if not nearly all of the long-term who haven't been violent criminals must become US citizens as soon as feasible. Once that is done, establish a more comprehensive asylum and refugee program and grant asylum or deport as appropriate. Everyone in the country legally as a long term resident, should have a path to citizenship. Now you have almost no residents without status, no associated human rights abuse because of it, you can be a shining beacon of liberty for the world's huddled masses, and you get to maintain self-definition of the political body. And autocratic societies will simply applaud politely or jeer, depending on whether the universal franchise is something they for PR reasons officially subscribe to. If anything. In the background, they will be insinuating it's just to pacify the American people even more. Their votes never really mattered, and neither will those of the newly enfranchised.

eesmith 5y ago
I was curious about places which allow non-citizen voting. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-019-00687-8 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-019-00687-8 says: > at least forty-five countries presently allow noncitizen residents to vote in their local, regional, or even national elections. It's behind a paywall, but from the references it seems it's possible for non-citizens in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium to vote. (One of the citations is "Local voting rights for non-nationals: experience in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium".)
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Within the EU, EEA citizens (that includes Norway) have the right to vote in local and European elections in the country they live in.
- retrac 5y ago
  If you have non-citizen long-term residents, perhaps many, it seems a concern if they are disenfranchised politically or civically. Zainichi. Literally "in Japan". Those who were born in Japan. Today mostly children (but increasingly grandchildren) of those who came as workers in the 80s. But some go back as far as the early 20th century. In some cases they only speak Japanese, went to Japanese schools, as did their Zainichi parents and they are partially assimilated in some communities. They marry with ethnic Japanese more as the world in general slowly sheds superstitions. But they are Korean citizens and have no rights as citizens in Japan. They and their children have been granted indefinite residency, access to social welfare and a few other things. The right to vote comes up often as a subject of debate. Japan does naturalize people who are fluent and culturally assimilated and considered promising citizens, though not a great number. Zainichi are many of those. But neither country allows dual citizenship so the other must be revoked. One must choose, as far as the historical laws and attitudes of both countries were concerned. The warming of Japan - Korea exchange (shipping if perhaps not affection) has made life easier since the countries are just... closer. Reforms in recent years to allow easier naturalization or dual residency. But it isn't fundamentally resolved. It affects Korea too in ways: should the Zainichi have the right to vote in Korean elections? Now this is perhaps a policy that can sustain if such a population isn't already resident. Otherwise you get a disenfranchised population. Usually a rather small minority, at least at first. I know to some degree it is my cultural bias and blinders but this doesn't seem like a great social dynamic to have emerge.

LatteLazy 5y ago

Careful. When you actually get into it logically who can and can't vote makes zero sense at all. Kids should all get a vote for a start.

diegoperini 5y ago

In Turkey, we tested this idea by accident. Refugees were given temporary citizenship, then allowed for the real one after a while. Turns out they stay loyal to the government who allow them to stay in the country. I totally feel for them to secure their stay but it gives the ruling party a huge advantage on the elections. Total number of former and current refugees exceed 4 million which is 2 percent of the total population. It is large enough to change election results. This stuff is messy, both sides have legit arguments.

diegoperini 5y ago
Correction: 5 percent, not 2.

anm89 5y ago

There is no good reason the NYT should exist any more. They are the stuffed husk of the serious journalistic entity they were at one point.

cowvin 5y ago
You mean because they publish opinion pieces written by random people?
- anm89 5y ago
  One of many poor editorial choices they seem to be making recently.

LatteLazy 5y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20210729065341/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/28/opinion/noncitizen-voting-us-elections.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210729065341/https://www.nytim...

pydry 5y ago

While I might well agree it rubs me up the wrong way when the DNC announces a talking point like this and the New York Times instinctively cheerleads. It's also, frankly, quite boring when media outlets exhibit such consistent partisanship. If a media outlet functions as a vehicle for party propaganda why bother reading? Why not go straight to the source?

meepmorp 5y ago
> While I might well agree it rubs me up the wrong way when the DNC announces a talking point The DNC has nothing to do with this. > like this and the New York Times instinctively cheerleads. It's an editorial, is clearly marked as such at the top, and the writer does not work for the Times. I don't really understand your comment, except that you've seemingly taken the article as an excuse to complain about how you see the NYT.

afpx 5y ago

I don't know. I'd be pretty upset if I spent many years in a place, learned the language and culture, and indoctrinated myself in the rules and beliefs all to get outvoted (and potentially cast out) by people who did none of those things. It would leave me pretty jaded with representative democracy.

underseacables 5y ago

When I think about how much money billionaires are spending to influence elections, I think the last thing we need is less restrictions on voting. The system is much too influenced by money in power as it is, removing a basic protection like citizenship to vote just feels ripe for exploitation. We are a little insulated in America, and I think this is what gives rise to such outlandish ideas. Imagine if a country like Spain, or Germany, did not have a citizenship requirement. A bad actor like Russia could literally flood German states and municipalities st election time, and vote for the Kremlin.