What's new

Who should be allowed to vote?

7 Jun 2008
1,024
113
73
I'm particularly interested in hearing about requirements for voting in nations other than the US.

In the US, voting eligibility requirements are established mainly by the fifty states, and laws vary from state to state. There are certain federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in voting, that apply to all fifty states and US territories, but most requirements are set by the states.

I've often thought we should have national standards for all voting requirements and processes. So long as we don't, there's no assurance that a vote from one state is worth the same as a vote from another. A state with more lenient requirements finds itself over-represented in national elections versus a state with more stringent requirements.

An issue that comes up here periodically is whether prisoners should be allowed to vote. Prisoners forfeit some of their civil rights because of their conviction for a crime, and in my state one of the rights forfeited is the right to vote. Some states allow prisoners to vote.

Another issue is whether permanent residents who are non-citizens ("green card" holders) should be allowed to vote. In the US, they may not. I guess the argument for it is that the residents contribute taxes and work to the society, and have an interest in the politics of their place of residence. I oppose the idea myself. Non-citizens lack the natural loyalty of the native-born to their country of birth, and haven't taken the oath of loyalty to the USA required from all naturalized citizens.

Besides, adding a new class of voters would dilute the influence of my own vote. :)
 
Another issue is whether permanent residents who are non-citizens ("green card" holders) should be allowed to vote. In the US, they may not. I guess the argument for it is that the residents contribute taxes and work to the society, and have an interest in the politics of their place of residence. I oppose the idea myself. Non-citizens lack the natural loyalty of the native-born to their country of birth, and haven't taken the oath of loyalty to the USA required from all naturalized citizens.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "natural loyalty to your country of birth"? Are you proud of your country, a place determined by nothing but destiny or coincidence? I'm not a Japanese national, but I do feel loyal to the community I live in. It's my home, my place of residence and it's where I have acquired property, therefore I have every interest to make it thrive. It is the same kind of loyalty I'd feel if I still lived in where I was born.

And yes, I strongly support the notion of permanent residents having the right to vote in local elections. If we're good enough to be taxed we should be good enough to cast our vote on who's pulling the strings in our community. I do realise that this concept isn't popular in all quarters.
 
In the UK, it gets a bit complicated.

There are three types of elections:
Local UK (council election)
National UK (general election)
European (MEP election)

When I first came to the UK, as a Commonwealth citizen with legal residence (indefinite leave to remain, not sure the rules on those on shorter visas), I could vote in the first two but not in European. (I guess it's because as a Commonwealth citizen you're already a subject of Her Majesty, may she reign forever so we don't have to deal with Charles).

An EU citizen resident in the UK can vote in council elections and EU elections but not the general election.

Residents who aren't either commonwealth or EU don't get to vote in anything.

Only a UK citizen can vote in all three.

I feel like a permanent resident should get something, even if just council elections. Part of the naturalisation requirements is meant to be that you integrate into UK society, and part of that is voting for someone so that you have the right to complain about the outcome.

The "not as loyal as a real citizen" crap I barely take from my father-in-law, and he's joking. Just being born in a place doesn't automatically imbue you with patriotism, as evidenced by our rash of home-grown terrorists.

Equally, while my citizenship ceremony was a bit of fun to me, my mother-in-law says she's known grown men to cry while doing their pledge/affirmation - and other people to tear up their US passport on the spot. So much for "natural-born loyalty".
 
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "natural loyalty to your country of birth"? Are you proud of your country, a place determined by nothing but destiny or coincidence? I'm not a Japanese national, but I do feel loyal to the community I live in. It's my home, my place of residence and it's where I have acquired property, therefore I have every interest to make it thrive. It is the same kind of loyalty I'd feel if I still lived in where I was born.

And yes, I strongly support the notion of permanent residents having the right to vote in local elections. If we're good enough to be taxed we should be good enough to cast our vote on who's pulling the strings in our community. I do realise that this concept isn't popular in all quarters.

People (not all, but most) tend to feel loyalty and pride of the place and nation where they were born and raised. That's natural, for most folks; and it doesn't matter if they were born there by accident or design.

The assumption in US law is that permanent residents are likely to feel loyalty to their home country, above the US. If they are willing to swear allegiance to the US, over and above their home country, then they can become citizens--and vote. My wife went through the naturalization process a few years ago, but she had wrestled with whether to do so for decades because of the oath of citizenship. She did not want to swear loyalty to the US above Japan or see her name stricken from the koseki. Finally, she did it, and now can vote.

Voting rights aren't tied to payment of taxes in my country. Even non-taxpayer citizens are allowed to vote. Taxes go to cover public services, which non-citizens draw on just like the citizens living in the same place. So the argument that you pay taxes won't get you a vote here.

Ultimately, I can't see why the voting population of citizens would be willing to expand the voting class to include foreigners with visiting permits.
 
the reason is that if you would like people on the path to citizenship (e.g. PR, I'm not talking people on short-term or visiting visas) to integrate, part of that is involving them in the political process. There must be local elections in the US, as there are here; a good start is letting people get involved in those (council, or mayor, etc), because it does have a genuine and immediate impact on their lives, the same as it does on yours.

I would go as far as saying that we should be like Australia and voting should be compulsory. And drop the voting age to 16, like they did for the Scottish referendum. It's good for the country as a whole, even if it might mean my vote "counts less" or whatever.

I'm still a bit annoyed because you've basically accused me and many people I know, of being somehow sub-loyal to the country we have chosen, an opinion which has something of a history in the UK. (see Tebbit test). That I read some words off a card at a ceremony has nothing to do with the depth of my attachment to this stupid rainy place. Flag-waving and pledges - that's just window-dressing. Learning how to play Mornington Crescent, that's commitment.

Historically, the voting class of citizens often has not been in favour of expanding the franchise. Do you know when all men in the UK got the vote? The answer probably surprises a lot of people, because universal suffrage for men (over the age of 21) didn't arrive until 1918, the same year in which (some) women were first allowed to vote in general elections. Before that, restrictions kept 40% of men (primarily from the working class) off the electoral register. 18 year olds didn't get the vote until 1970. It's an ongoing process.
 
Honestly, I'm also thrown off by terms such as "loyalty to a nation" and "oath of allegiance" which conjure up nationalistic images that I feel are outdated in the 21st century. Anyhow, your topic were voting rights. Below I listed a few countries that actually grant non-citizens (limited) suffrage rights, so this is not just an abstract concept of academic nature:

  • Belgium: EU and non-EU citizens with 5 years of residence in municipal elections
  • Colombia: voting rights for permanent residents with at least 5 years of residence in municipal elections
  • Denmark: all foreign residents in municipal and county elections (3 years residence required for non-EU citizens)
  • Finland: all foreign residents in local elections (2 years of residence required for non-EU citizens)
  • Greece: all foreign residents in local elections
  • Iceland: all foreign residents in local elections (5 years of residence required)
  • Ireland: full voting rights for all foreign residents
  • Israel: non-citizen voting rights in local elections
  • Luxenburg: local voting were granted with no nationality restrictions
  • Netherlands: all foreign residents in local elections
  • Norway: all foreign residents in municipal and county elections
  • Slovenia: all foreigners with a permanent residence in local elections
  • Slovakia: local voting rights were granted for 3-year residents
  • South Korea: foreign nationals aged 19 years and older who have lived in South Korea for more than three years after obtaining permanent resident visas to vote in local elections
  • Sweden: all foreign residents in municipal and county elections (3 years residence required for non-EU citizens)
  • Switzerland: some cantons grant voting rights to foreign residents in cantonal or communal elections
  • Uruguay: voting rights in national elections for foreign residents of more than 15 years residency
  • Venezuela: in municipal, parish (county), and state elections for foreigners over the age of eighteen (10 years residency required)
Source

Most EU countries grant suffrage to EU members in local elections. I have read somewhere that foreign residents had voting rights in US local elections until 1922.

As for Japan:

Currently the Constitution of Japan defines voting rights as only for citizens. In 1990, some permanent residents from Korea (see "Koreans in Japan") petitioned the Supreme Court to gain voting rights. The Supreme Court declined in 1995, but it also declared that it is not prohibited to do so. In addition, one of justices expressed that the foreigners should be guaranteed the voting right at local elections (to be checked for accuracy).

During the 2009 legislative elections campaign, it appeared that the New Komeito Party, the Japanese Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were clearly in favor of extending local voting rights to foreign residents, while the Liberal Democratic Party was totally opposed to it and the Democratic Party of Japan was divided on this matter, but rather in favour of the extension of voting rights, so gaining the support of the Korean Residents Union in Japan (Mindan) for many of its candidates. As of 2010, The Democratic Party was considering making a draft law to permit this.
Source

Japan weighs up whether to give foreign residents the vote ‹ Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion

Thanks to the Tokyo Olympics the debate seems to make headlines once again:

Debate on foreigner voting rights reignites ahead of 2020 Olympics

In the latest controversial move, Abe's Cabinet discouraged local governments from passing an ordinance that would give non-Japanese residents a right to vote in municipal referendums.

The ruling Liberal Democratic Party had previously distributed a brochure in 2011 urging its local chapters not to pass such an ordinance, after party members became alarmed at the increasing number of municipalities across the country that had introduced — on a permanent basis — non-Japanese-inclusive polling systems as a means of reflecting the public will.

The LDP said it had advised its prefectural chapters in June once again to abide by that earlier recommendation. The ruling party says that more inclusive local-level voting rights give non-Japanese citizens an unduly generous say in the nation's politics, and point out that this may violate the Constitution by undermining the principle of sovereignty of the Japanese people.

"(This may be happening) at local levels, but there is a financial burden shouldered by the central government, and we have to consider the interest of Japanese taxpayers across the country," said LDP Secretary-General Shigeru Ishiba last month. "I do not think local municipalities can do whatever they want."


Same old, same old.
 
Here we don't distinguish between local (state and municipal) and federal elections, though sometimes elections only involve local issues. In November 2016, when we pick our next president, there will also be state and municipal candidates and issues on the ballot. So it wouldn't be feasible to allow non-citizens to vote on one but not the other.

As for the oath of allegiance, we're pretty big on that stuff here in the US. It's not meaningless, as my wife's example illustrates. Voters should have primary loyalty to their home country. But I'll concede that the US is a pretty nationalistic country.

It's not that hard to become a citizen after living here a while, if you want to vote, serve on juries, etc. You pass a test in English proficiency, undergo a background investigation, pass a test in US history and civics, and pay a $600 fee. I almost asked about jury service, then remembered Japan doesn't have such a system.
 
I think semi-permanent residents of the country they live in should be allowed to vote. However, I feel that people who've been sentenced to extended periods of time in jail should not be allowed to vote until their time is up. People who have life sentences have clearly vacated their responsibilities as a human being and deserve no rights to vote. But again, I think drug crime is particularly overzealous, so there are exceptions to this opinion of mine.
 
Nuala. Isn't that an Irish name? Beautiful name.

I don't think Americans will ever allow non-citizens to vote. Let them pay their taxes for the privilege of living here, the prevailing thinking goes. If they want to vote, let them take the oath of loyalty to the US and become citizens.
 
My feeling is that once foreigner's meet the residency requirements that are required for everyone else that they should at least be able to vote in local elections (in the US).
 
Back
Top Bottom