4 ms·

...and sorry: Thats absolutely OK. I do not want strangers stopping by for 3 - 4 years to be able to influence the politics of my country? Thats totaly understa

...and sorry: Thats absolutely OK. I do not want strangers stopping by for 3 - 4 years to be able to influence the politics of my country? Thats totaly understandable? I would never to ask to vote at a remote place where I do not live permanently, yet where I even not a citizen?

mattkrause 9mo ago
What's the minimum residency you'd accept, because 3-4 years seems quite long to me.
- KellyCriterion 9mo ago
  Gettig citizenownership and giving away your former passport.
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
systemtest 9mo ago
That is OK but OP should not be complaining about people not being engaged with local politics if you are excluding a large part of the people living in the city from voting.
- leoedin 9mo ago
  Are a large part of the people living in a city the kind of semi-transitory-but-also-there-for-years people you describe? I'd wager that's a small proportion of almost every city. Most cities will have tourists who are visiting for a few days or weeks, and long term residents who have a permanent address there. The percentage of people living full time in hotels or airbnbs must be tiny. Perhaps in high cost of living cities there's more "hidden homeless" living on couches, but even then it's not going to be "a large part" of a city.
  - systemtest 9mo ago
    I don't have sources but for cities like Amsterdam I wouldn't be surprised if 5% of the population isn't registered with the municipality for various reasons. But have been living there for years. Plenty of people I know would sublet empty rooms of their social housing apartment, which is highly illegal but for some people the only way to find a place to stay. But you obviously can't register because then the person subletting would be kicked out.
- milkytron 9mo ago
  Among those that are registered to vote locally, most don't. Regardless of whether or not people should or shouldn't be able to vote, many of those currently with the ability to do not.
triceratops 9mo ago
> I do not want strangers stopping by for 3 - 4 years to be able to influence the politics of my country? City, not country.
- KellyCriterion 9mo ago
  good catch
epistasis 9mo ago
Somebody who spends 3-4 years in a place has an immense interest in how it's governed. Their view is 100% as valid as yours, and they should have equal voice, if we are going to judge people based on how long they live somewhere. I live in a college town. Why shouldn't student voices be represented, when they are a huge chunk of our community? Maybe I'm too US focused, and have been accused of that a lot recently, but your views are fundamentally at odds with basic democracy as I see it as a US citizen.
- KellyCriterion 9mo ago
  Because people do not vote "for local interests" but for "the interests they are carrying with them according to their believes", which are usually not on par with the interestes of the long-term-resident local community.
  - epistasis 9mo ago
    So what? Why does that matter on being able to vote? Shouldn't people bring their values to voting, isn't that the entire point? Should we deny long term residents the right to vote becuase they aren't voting in the interests of short term residents? I don't understand the principle here, unless you think that short term residents are not residents, or full people, or something.
- mjr00 9mo ago
  There's a massive difference between "will be in a place for 3-4 years maximum, then leaving" vs "has been in a place for 3-4 years but is planning on staying permanently." In the former case their interests are going to be short-term and might not align with long-term residences. Per your example, university students would vote against allocating funds toward schools or playgrounds, because they know they're not going to be raising a family there. Or more globally, you have the population of "digital nomads" who are working in Vietnam/Thailand for a few years before they come back to the US. It's pretty debatable if these temporary residents should have the same voting rights as permanent residents, since their interests are going to be at odds with long-term residents. I would not be happy if schools got defunded because university students who are only going to be there for a few years wanted to lower alcohol taxes. Permanent residency/citizenship being a prerequisite for voting is used as a (very imperfect) screening for this.
KellyCriterion 9mo ago
nice to see how the voting for this comment fluctuaded massivly during the last hours: for some reason, people on HN have a specific opinion when it comes to politics and voting and what are acceptable implementations ;-)

mattkrause 9mo ago

What's the minimum residency you'd accept, because 3-4 years seems quite long to me.

KellyCriterion 9mo ago
Gettig citizenownership and giving away your former passport.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

systemtest 9mo ago

That is OK but OP should not be complaining about people not being engaged with local politics if you are excluding a large part of the people living in the city from voting.

leoedin 9mo ago
Are a large part of the people living in a city the kind of semi-transitory-but-also-there-for-years people you describe? I'd wager that's a small proportion of almost every city. Most cities will have tourists who are visiting for a few days or weeks, and long term residents who have a permanent address there. The percentage of people living full time in hotels or airbnbs must be tiny. Perhaps in high cost of living cities there's more "hidden homeless" living on couches, but even then it's not going to be "a large part" of a city.
- systemtest 9mo ago
  I don't have sources but for cities like Amsterdam I wouldn't be surprised if 5% of the population isn't registered with the municipality for various reasons. But have been living there for years. Plenty of people I know would sublet empty rooms of their social housing apartment, which is highly illegal but for some people the only way to find a place to stay. But you obviously can't register because then the person subletting would be kicked out.
milkytron 9mo ago
Among those that are registered to vote locally, most don't. Regardless of whether or not people should or shouldn't be able to vote, many of those currently with the ability to do not.

triceratops 9mo ago

> I do not want strangers stopping by for 3 - 4 years to be able to influence the politics of my country? City, not country.

KellyCriterion 9mo ago
good catch

epistasis 9mo ago

Somebody who spends 3-4 years in a place has an immense interest in how it's governed. Their view is 100% as valid as yours, and they should have equal voice, if we are going to judge people based on how long they live somewhere. I live in a college town. Why shouldn't student voices be represented, when they are a huge chunk of our community? Maybe I'm too US focused, and have been accused of that a lot recently, but your views are fundamentally at odds with basic democracy as I see it as a US citizen.

KellyCriterion 9mo ago
Because people do not vote "for local interests" but for "the interests they are carrying with them according to their believes", which are usually not on par with the interestes of the long-term-resident local community.
- epistasis 9mo ago
  So what? Why does that matter on being able to vote? Shouldn't people bring their values to voting, isn't that the entire point? Should we deny long term residents the right to vote becuase they aren't voting in the interests of short term residents? I don't understand the principle here, unless you think that short term residents are not residents, or full people, or something.
mjr00 9mo ago
There's a massive difference between "will be in a place for 3-4 years maximum, then leaving" vs "has been in a place for 3-4 years but is planning on staying permanently." In the former case their interests are going to be short-term and might not align with long-term residences. Per your example, university students would vote against allocating funds toward schools or playgrounds, because they know they're not going to be raising a family there. Or more globally, you have the population of "digital nomads" who are working in Vietnam/Thailand for a few years before they come back to the US. It's pretty debatable if these temporary residents should have the same voting rights as permanent residents, since their interests are going to be at odds with long-term residents. I would not be happy if schools got defunded because university students who are only going to be there for a few years wanted to lower alcohol taxes. Permanent residency/citizenship being a prerequisite for voting is used as a (very imperfect) screening for this.

KellyCriterion 9mo ago

nice to see how the voting for this comment fluctuaded massivly during the last hours: for some reason, people on HN have a specific opinion when it comes to politics and voting and what are acceptable implementations ;-)