4 ms·

Here's a twisted thought... There are many things in election systems I don't really understand. One such example is being able to vote while not living in yo

Here's a twisted thought... There are many things in election systems I don't really understand. One such example is being able to vote while not living in your country of citizenship for a very long time. NOTE: I am only using the US here as an example. The issue is likely present in many other nations. I have a friend who moved his entire family to Australia twenty-five years ago. They have no intention to return to the US. They can, however, vote one every election. Of course, the reason is that they are US citizens and they our laws grant them this right. And yet, I think it would be just to consider that this should not be allowed. Why? If you have relocated to another nation and become a citizen of that nation, your vote is forcing a choice on those living where you used to while you do not have to live with your decisions. Say you vote for a tax increase. Everyone pays. You don't. Say you vote for a serious change to laws pertaining to education. Everyone has to live with your decision, you don't. You vote for a lunatic for president, governor, minister, whatever. No consequence to you. Not the same for those still living there. Perhaps the requirement should be that the person has to have lived in-country for a minimum of five contiguous years prior to casting a vote. That means you have been a part of the affected population recently enough and long enough to have "skin in the game". There is another side to this idea which takes a very different path: Voting as a weapon. Imagine a scenario where a nation with billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation. In the US that would be about two years. After that, they are forced to repatriate (perhaps there's an implied threat to their family, which ensures repatriation). Once back, these millions of people can be ordered to legally vote as citizens of the other nation. They would vote as directed by the adversarial government. This government could use remote voting as an economic tool and, in many ways, a weapon of war. What happens if this adversarial government systematically plans and executes such a strategy over decades. At some point they could have control over tens of millions of votes in other nations through their planted naturalized citizens. They could, quite literally, sink entire economies into chaos. Impossible? Well, the laws, as far as I know, would not prevent such a scenario. Either way, I sometimes feel that those who chose to leave a country behind and emigrate to other lands should not have to right to vote and influence life in the country they left. EDIT: Wow. Really? Why are people arguing about US-specifics that are utterly irrelevant rather than discussing the concept of the potential nefarious use of "remote voting" in any nation? Didn't read my note at the very top? Geez.

Buttons840 3y ago
> Say you vote for a tax increase. Everyone pays. You don't. US citizens who live outside the US and earn money outside the US still pay US taxes. Also, people don't become US citizens by staying here a certain amount of time.
- robomartin 3y ago
  Same thing I said to the other guy: Irrelevant. Also, not absolutely true. My post isn't about the US. I said this much in my note at the very top. Don't divert the conversation towards irrelevant US-specific details. Where your statement isn't true is in that there are myriad taxes and other proposals and laws people vote for that only affect someone locally. For example, the dopes in our area voted to tax ever square foot of property that blocks rain from making contact with raw dirt. Someone in Australia could vote for that measure. It would not affect them one bit. There's so much that never even touches income taxes, which is what would affect people living abroad. And, in reality, there are foreign income tax credits and other rules that change the tax equation for anyone living outside of the US. And then there's the political/ideological allegiance element I mentioned. A citizen from country A emigrates to country B and retains voting rights in country A. Knowing they are not coming back and wanting to benefit their new country, B, they vote for measures and politicians in country A that would benefit country B. How is that a good idea? Again, get away from US-centric thinking here. This is about the general idea of the relationship between countries A and B, when a citizen who can vote in A's elections permanently relocates to country B.
lovecg 3y ago
> Imagine a scenario where a nation with billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation. In the US that would be about two years. Not how the US immigration works. For certain specific countries 2 years is a complete fantasy (perhaps for reasons you describe, no idea though). I know people who lived here for over ten years waiting for a green card. These are people who went to school here, started families, have a steady job paying a ton in taxes, and yet are still nowhere close to being a citizen. Imagine having no real connection to any other country and still getting anxious every time you cross the border.

Buttons840 3y ago

> Say you vote for a tax increase. Everyone pays. You don't. US citizens who live outside the US and earn money outside the US still pay US taxes. Also, people don't become US citizens by staying here a certain amount of time.

robomartin 3y ago
Same thing I said to the other guy: Irrelevant. Also, not absolutely true. My post isn't about the US. I said this much in my note at the very top. Don't divert the conversation towards irrelevant US-specific details. Where your statement isn't true is in that there are myriad taxes and other proposals and laws people vote for that only affect someone locally. For example, the dopes in our area voted to tax ever square foot of property that blocks rain from making contact with raw dirt. Someone in Australia could vote for that measure. It would not affect them one bit. There's so much that never even touches income taxes, which is what would affect people living abroad. And, in reality, there are foreign income tax credits and other rules that change the tax equation for anyone living outside of the US. And then there's the political/ideological allegiance element I mentioned. A citizen from country A emigrates to country B and retains voting rights in country A. Knowing they are not coming back and wanting to benefit their new country, B, they vote for measures and politicians in country A that would benefit country B. How is that a good idea? Again, get away from US-centric thinking here. This is about the general idea of the relationship between countries A and B, when a citizen who can vote in A's elections permanently relocates to country B.

lovecg 3y ago

> Imagine a scenario where a nation with billions of people under totalitarian regime sends millions of people to another nation. They instruct them to stay there long enough to become citizens of that nation. In the US that would be about two years. Not how the US immigration works. For certain specific countries 2 years is a complete fantasy (perhaps for reasons you describe, no idea though). I know people who lived here for over ten years waiting for a green card. These are people who went to school here, started families, have a steady job paying a ton in taxes, and yet are still nowhere close to being a citizen. Imagine having no real connection to any other country and still getting anxious every time you cross the border.