Contributions

You have no posts

We reward new content.

START POST

Whoo Knew

No replies

Share your opinion on topics.

CONVERSATIONS

Contests

No entries

Win gift cards and more.

Your Profile

FOLLOWERS

Users

POINTS EARNED

REDEEM

Happiness Tuesdays

Politics & Governance

The Debate Around Absentee Voting

I was born in the United States. I'm an American citizen, raised in an American family, but I've lived 90% of my life in another country, leaving the states while still in my toddler years. I don't remember ever living in America, and have no plans to return.

I can vote in the 2020 U.S. Election.

While it's a fun party trick, and I don't mind getting grilled on my political views, the truth is that I really shouldn't have any say in the American government. Absentee voting is a widely debated and discussed issue, perhaps even moreso this year as concerns related to Covid-19 are brought forth.

The United States is unlike many other countries in its absentee voting policy in that no matter how long someone has lived out of country, they can continue to vote in federal elections. As someone who falls into that category, I can tell you it's ridiculous.

It's important and understandable that citizens who've temporarily left the country be involved and active in government decisions, and they certainly have a right to share their voice and opinion. But realistically, there must be a cutoff point.

It is hardly fair to expect citizens who haven't resided in their home nation in decades to keep up and have an informed opinion on local politics, particularly when it no longer affects them on a day to day basis. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, however, as a policy, it simply makes no sense to weigh these perspectives against those who must live with the consequences of whatever decision is made.

Particularly in the era of social media, there are many opportunities for individuals to share their opinions (educated or not), and we all have the right to do so. Absentee voting is more than that. It shifts a significant amount of power, creating an imbalance, to those who are affluent enough to leave.

Let's continue to be active in our communities, use our voices, but be realistic in expectations for each other and who should have a say in our future. 

Interesting Fact #1

36 states allow U.S. citizens who have never resided in their respective states to vote based on where their parent or legal guardian was last registered.

SOURCE

Interesting Fact #2

Germany allows citizens who live out of the country to vote for up to 25 years, and then they are no longer permitted to vote.

SOURCE

Interesting Fact #3

In the U.K., citizens who are no longer residents can vote for up to 15 years.

SOURCE

Quote of the day

You're not just voting for an individual, in my judgment, you're voting for an agenda. You're voting for a platform. You're voting for a political philosophy.

- Colin Powell

Article of the day - I don't live in Canada anymore. I shouldn't have the right to vote in its elections

With a week left until election day, I want to let the various contending parties know that my vote is still up for grabs. How can they win it? Easy. By promising that I will no longer be able to vote for them. In other words: Take my vote! Please!

I am an expat Canadian, and I haven't lived in my home country for well over a decade. Under the previous voting regulations, I lost my franchise after five years of living outside of the country. That changed with legislation passed under the Trudeau government, a move affirmedby the Supreme Court in a 5-2 decision.

I am the kind of voter the Supreme Court described in that decision as "non-resident citizens [who] maintain deep and abiding connections to Canada through family, online media and visits home." It was for people like me that they invalidated the premise of the previous law, which was enacted in 1993. By doing so, they enshrined as a right what the Trudeau government had allowed by law when they re-enfranchised myself and legions of other expatriate Canadians.

 

Investment in outcomes

In my view, both decisions were wrong, and anti-democratic. The notion that every citizen should have the right to vote in all circumstances is intuitively appealing. That said, true democracy depends on its participants being equally subject to its outcomes.

Citizenship requires investment. Democracy is people together deciding how they, within the boundaries a mari usque ad mare, should govern ourselves. Giving non-residents the vote is roughly akin to giving people the right to tell their former roommates how to set their thermostats. It is the difference between deciding with and deciding for.

To be clear, the few thousand expatriates who might vote in the upcoming election are unlikely to change the results in any riding. Election outcomes will not be tainted by the participation of non-residents.

What suffers is the fundamentals of the system itself. What good is a right to vote, when the vote bears no connection to the system that gives the right its meaning?

In their decision, the judges wrote a great deal about fairness and proportionality, but nothing about what the vote in Canada actually is: citizens within a specified geographic area choosing who their representative in the Canadian House of Commons will be. 

Whatever might be in voters' minds when they vote — be it for a specific party or policy —  the actual act of voting is choosing a person to represent a place in parliament. Whether that person takes his or her seat in the opposition, in the cabinet or in the backbenches does not change his or her primary appellation. 

It is not for nothing that even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is addressed in parliament as the Honorable Member for Papineau. That is the role to which he was elected: it happened to be him, but it could equally have been any one of his neighbours.

It's fundamental to the legitimacy of the Commons: every man and woman in it was chosen by and from their equals.

Many Canadians still prefer their representatives to have personal stakes in the riding they represent. Time spent living in a community is often the measure of a prospective office-holder's authenticity (one exception is party leaders in search of a safe riding in order to earn a seat in the House of Commons, as was the case with NDP leader Jagmeet Singh; voters are not immune to having their sense of importance flattered). 

It's fundamental to the legitimacy of the Commons: every man and woman in it was chosen by and from their equals, and that equality extends to the degree to which they are qualified to speak for their respective communities. It's a fraternity borne from navigating the same potholes, jostling one another on the same sidewalks, breathing in the scent from the same trees. 

Politicians who show up without paying those dues are dogged by questions about if they are really here for Canadians, as we saw with then-Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff in the 2011 campaign, and reality TV star Kevin O'Leary in the Conservative leadership campaign in 2017.

I want the best for my former riding of Dartmouth-Cole Harbour in Nova Scotia. I miss Shubie Park, Sullivan's Pond and the lovely old houses of Dartmouth's downtown. But the people that live there aren't my neighbours.

To have respect for one's fellow citizens is to refuse the exercise of unreciprocated power over them. This remains true even if that power only comes in the form of a consequence-free vote.

Once the communities are removed from the Commons, the legitimacy of parliament will drift away from the citizens, and there will be no end of party operatives willing to grasp it for themselves.

Question of the day - How long do you think someone should be allowed to vote after leaving a country?

Politics & Governance

How long do you think someone should be allowed to vote after leaving a country?