7 ms·

By this logic, wouldn’t it be better to consider who will be investing in the community moving forward, rather than looking backward? Where someone lives is th

By this logic, wouldn’t it be better to consider who will be investing in the community moving forward, rather than looking backward? Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time. People putting money in to something is often out of self-interest. Those people already have the control afforded to them via money - an inequality that should be reduced, not exacerbated, by voting.

wutbrodo 5y ago
> Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time All of these arguments apply to citizenship too, even more strongly. I've lived the majority of a year on three different continents, but have never changed my citizenship. It's also not accurate to say that the rich are less able to take advantage of this: the fact that I was able to try these things out is precisely because I'm rich. I don't think the newcomer/old-timer distinction mentioned upthread is especially useful, for the reasons you already outlined. But formal citizenship maps almost precisely to being invested in a place: it's a commitment that you identify with this society and its future, (mostly) to the exclusion of any other society.
- edmundsauto 5y ago
  I agree, except citizenship has significant hurdles to immigrants. And lots of people take theirs for granted. People who immigrate and become citizens, yes - they are invested. I don't think people who are natural citizens are as invested (except by default). And I definitely don't think people who are non-citizens are not invested -- they aren't allowed to "invest" in the same way. For local residency, it's a little different since it's relatively easy to switch residency (at least here in the US).
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > I agree, except citizenship has significant hurdles to immigrants. Agreed, this is a significant mitigating factor, which might make the policy make sense in any given situation.
ALittleLight 5y ago
The best indicator of what a person will do is what they have done. Someone who has spent a lifetime in a place is more likely to spend the next five years there too. Someone who moved recently is likely to move away when whatever advantage drew them in draws them out. Enfranchising citizens is also a message to citizens that they should care about the long term of their country, state, or city. If the state will care about you and your posterity then you should care about it. Conversely, if the state won't especially care for you and yours then you don't need to care for the state.

wutbrodo 5y ago

> Where someone lives is the biggest investment they can make. It cannot be collected by rich people, and even poor people invest where they spend their time All of these arguments apply to citizenship too, even more strongly. I've lived the majority of a year on three different continents, but have never changed my citizenship. It's also not accurate to say that the rich are less able to take advantage of this: the fact that I was able to try these things out is precisely because I'm rich. I don't think the newcomer/old-timer distinction mentioned upthread is especially useful, for the reasons you already outlined. But formal citizenship maps almost precisely to being invested in a place: it's a commitment that you identify with this society and its future, (mostly) to the exclusion of any other society.

edmundsauto 5y ago
I agree, except citizenship has significant hurdles to immigrants. And lots of people take theirs for granted. People who immigrate and become citizens, yes - they are invested. I don't think people who are natural citizens are as invested (except by default). And I definitely don't think people who are non-citizens are not invested -- they aren't allowed to "invest" in the same way. For local residency, it's a little different since it's relatively easy to switch residency (at least here in the US).
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > I agree, except citizenship has significant hurdles to immigrants. Agreed, this is a significant mitigating factor, which might make the policy make sense in any given situation.

ALittleLight 5y ago

The best indicator of what a person will do is what they have done. Someone who has spent a lifetime in a place is more likely to spend the next five years there too. Someone who moved recently is likely to move away when whatever advantage drew them in draws them out. Enfranchising citizens is also a message to citizens that they should care about the long term of their country, state, or city. If the state will care about you and your posterity then you should care about it. Conversely, if the state won't especially care for you and yours then you don't need to care for the state.