It’s an interesting idea, to be sure, but it seems inconsistent with having a minimum age for elections. It’s already a bit odd to say that your opinion counts when you’re 18 but not when you’re 17 and 364 days, but that’s the nature of any arbitrary cutoff, and laws can’t get around having some of those. But it seems downright bizarre to say that your opinion goes from counting not at all to counting the maximum possible amount in that one day.
I’d say the more bizarre thing is investing the most political power in those who are generally the least interested and informed. It’s like the Trump White House, but on a nationwide scale.
And who think they are invincible. YOLO.
Nah. There is a certain set of persons who see any and every right wing opinion as racist. That narrow view is simply not supported by all the facts. For example, there is a theme,often repeated on the SDMB, that all Tea Party claims are nothing more than racist opposition to Obama. That claim is easily destroyed by pointing out that the Tea Party movement has its origins in opposition to HW Bush’s economic activities,before Obama was even a candidate. Clearly, there was a lot of racism in the Tea Party, but declaring that racism is the primary (much less sole) motivation is contradicted by facts–as is a claim racism is the sole or primary motivation for limiting voting to citizens when (as noted in the Wikipedia article) laws demanding such a criterion extend well into the past, even in states where immigration by non-whites was not an issue at the time.
The easy answer is no, because they should be deported long before they get a chance to vote.
The problem is the cookie-cutter approach to voter eligibility. We saw this after the 26th Amendment and states simply couldn’t handle the logistics to keep their state election requirement of 21 years of age while permitting 18 year-olds to vote in Federal elections. If we could somehow figure out how to do it then here are some changes I would make.
Property owners vote on measures that affect property tax, not renters.
Citizens and legal residents vote in local up to state elections but keep US citizenship** to vote on Federal matters*
Proportional representation as an option for a state in the House of Representatives
All citizens and legal residents vote for the school board. I would allow illegal immigrants to vote as well if the Guv’ment had a way for a child brought up in the US to gain citizenship or legal status through the schools like maybe if a child graduates high school, performs public service as a teen, etc they can stay here legally.
- This restriction may be predicated on having a path to citizenship/legal residence that makes sense. Somewhere between build a MAGA wall so no Browns (Hispanic or Muslim, they’re all the same color) get in and let anyone who wants to come in, open borders, won’t someone think of the children?
** Must have to prove legal citizenship. Before you go all “Voter ID is Evil” on me, remember I’m one of the few on this board saying the counties need to go above and beyond to ensure every US citizen / legal resident has ID and proof of legal status.
Is that saying EVERY right wing American (including those on this board) is racist?
Are you distinguishing between legal voters of ethnic heritage and those in the country illegally and those in the country legally but are not US citizens? Because many on the right-wing do make those distinctions.
How hard could it be? The voter rolls have a notation as to which election you’re allowed to vote in. We know this can be done because in many states you have to be a registered party member to vote in a primary.
So you go into the polling place and give your name (and show an ID if that’s required). They look you up (by address here, but that may vary). They say, I see Mr. X you’re eligible to vote in the Federal and State but not local election because you’ve only lived at this address for 3 weeks. Here are your two ballots.
Or here are your blue and green cards. Please hand the blue card to the person at the Federal machines and the green one to the person at the State machines.
Wouldn’t there be extra taxpayer expense to maintain and staff two sets of machines?
What, you want election integrity for free?
I live in Aus. Aus allows people who are not citizens of Australia to vote in American Presidential Elections!
Not only that, the companies I own shares in, and the Auto Insurance Club I am a member of both allow non-citizens to vote in their board elections!
And the state government school I send my child in allows non-citizens to vote for the school council (if they have kids in the school), and the local council I pay property rates to even allows companies to vote (if they pay rates).
I think that “allows non-citizens to vote” automatically sounds bad, but is such a broad brush as to be a ridiculous.
If they’re American citizens who happen to be in Australia during an American election and they vote by mail… am I missing something?
In any case, I’m glad to see the concept isn’t as panic-inducing as I think the OP expected it to be.
In actuality, it’s renters that pay the property tax, not owners. The tax is just one of the landlord’s cost of business which he passes on to the tenants. The landlord is just a middleman for the property tax, he initially pays it and gets reimbursed for it from tenants over the course of the year.
In 1971 very hard since each person would need a separate ballot printed up without the use of computers. In 2018 with computers & electronic voting machines it should be easy.
He only gets one vote. Why should his tax dollars be used to help everyone else vote?
.
Precisely.
Sounds like a poll one would see on breitbarf or fox… easy to get their viewers excited.
Because we should all want a healthy democracy.
In the UK, renters usually pay the local council tax (which is effectively the property tax and is linked to property value) directly. I paid all sorts of tax for years before I gained the right to vote.
I don’t have a problem with legal non-citizens voting. As long as they actually live here and are affected by policies, it seems they should have some say. Being a (legal) immigrant should not mean disenfranchisement.
Pretty much all of the problems I’d be worried about from having immigrants vote would be based on them not being vetted. You know, like some Russians coming over to hijack our elections or something. So I cannot see any problems with legal immigrants voting. (Granted, I think the vast majority of those who became illegal immigrants should have been able to become legal immigrants. But I’m dealing with the way things are now, not the way I want them to be.)
I’m also not saying there can’t be any restrictions. I just am not comfortable with any class of people not being able to vote. Immigrants live in the same communities and have the same needs as others. If they can’t vote, then there’s no mechanism for them to fight back having everything dumped on them. It’s why women and black people fought for enfranchisement.