Silly Ideas: Allowing Foreigners to Vote in the U.S Election

[Ifreann]

Besides the impact being small, it is only because Iran chooses to be involved in the global economy with the US.

You choose that, you get the benefits and the price.

I don't see anything about choice in my quote.

[Novus America]

If people should only have say when it affects their lives it should not apply to matters that do not, right?

And what objective measures do you have of who is affected by what and how much?

I don't.

If the Irish had a majority in Parliament British rule would not have been so bad for the Irish, though probably much worse for the English...

You have the wildest ideas about history.

But obviously that did not happen.

At least you admit your system is impossible to realistically implement though.

Difficult, maybe. Not impossible.

And yes I do have to pay for might right to vote. Not a direct monetary payment pers se, but I am subject to US laws and taxes as a result of being a citizen.

As you would be even if you were not allowed to vote. So you aren't paying for your vote with that.

Maybe voting is a bad example. What do you have to pay to enjoy freedom of religion?

If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?

And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.

That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.

Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.

Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.

I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.

To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.

[Luziyca]

As a foreigner, on one hand, it'd be nice to be able to change American politics without being an American citizen. On the other, voting really should be reserved for citizens only.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

And voting requires citizenship.

It doesn't. As an Irish citizen I would be allowed to vote in British elections if I lived there, and doing so would not make me a British citizen.

Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.

Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.

[Ifreann]

I don't.


You have the wildest ideas about history.


Difficult, maybe. Not impossible.


As you would be even if you were not allowed to vote. So you aren't paying for your vote with that.

Maybe voting is a bad example. What do you have to pay to enjoy freedom of religion?

If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?

And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.

I guess someone else will have to figure that out.

That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.

Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.

I don't want to take power by disenfranchising people. I don't want to take power at all. I want people to have power over their own lives.

Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.

I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.

To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.

You'd be subject to those laws and pay those taxes even if the law said that you must be a Christian.

---

It doesn't. As an Irish citizen I would be allowed to vote in British elections if I lived there, and doing so would not make me a British citizen.

Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.

Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.

You're saying that the whole population of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland are actually British citizens? Sounds rather farcical.

[Telconi]

All laws are backed by violence, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Yeah, when the government paves a road or builds a hospital or cleans the drinking water, that's backed by violence.

Governments should generally not inflict violence upon those outside its jurisdiction. You’re using one wrong to justify another.

Are there no people within the US who are not US citizens? Are they immune from the law?

Children should be allowed to vote now? Hot take.

If you aren’t governed by a country’s laws, you should have zero say in how those laws are made.

And if the effects of a law stopped politely at the border that would be fine. But they don't. Isn't Trump getting mad at three Mexican countries for not building their own walls to stop migration across their borders to the US? Or how about Iran. Surely you can't think that decisions made in the US and Europe make no difference to the lives of Iranians.

So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...

[Novus America]

If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?

And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.

I guess someone else will have to figure that out.

That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.

Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.

I don't want to take power by disenfranchising people. I don't want to take power at all. I want people to have power over their own lives.

Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.

I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.

To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.

You'd be subject to those laws and pay those taxes even if the law said that you must be a Christian.

---

Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.

Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.

You're saying that the whole population of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland are actually British citizens? Sounds rather farcical.

No one we will figure it out because it will never happen.

And I do not want to franchise all people in the world to vote in US elections.
Absolutely not. That would be horrible as many would vote to take my rights away.
They can vote in their own (if they had them) but I do not want Saudi Arabia making laws for me.
Again it turns out very badly when a hostile population can vote against you.
Even for those not outright hostile people of foreign countries will have their own countries interests in mind, even where those interests are against US people’s interests.

I am more pragmatic regarding voting than you are.

And just because you pay for something does not mean you get it.
I might pay no matter where I go, but at least in the US get something for it.
I would still pay in Saudi Arabia without getting many rights for it.

[Bahktar]

No.

I like it that I can vote in my own countries' elections and that that is a privilege as a citizen of said country.

The USA is free to make it's own decisions and if it wants to elect someone that is a complete polar opposite to my views, so be it.

[The Lone Alliance]

Yeah what a stupid idea.

And isn't the Independent a Russian Oligarch funded News site?

If so no surprise they want to okay foreign influence in US elections.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, when the government paves a road or builds a hospital or cleans the drinking water, that's backed by violence.

Are there no people within the US who are not US citizens? Are they immune from the law?





And if the effects of a law stopped politely at the border that would be fine. But they don't. Isn't Trump getting mad at three Mexican countries for not building their own walls to stop migration across their borders to the US? Or how about Iran. Surely you can't think that decisions made in the US and Europe make no difference to the lives of Iranians.

So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

[Aellex]

So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

No.

[The Emerald Legion]

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.

[Bear Stearns]

So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.

[The Man Who Shot Jiminy Cricket]

If you have no measure than how do we determine who gets to vote where based solely on effects?

And a system without a method of implementation is can never happen.

I guess someone else will have to figure that out.

That was a hypothetical of course. Hypotheticals are not history.
But in that hypothetical it would be much better.
Obviously British rule was tyrannical, but it was at least by the 1800s tyranny by a majority.

Which is why you should want to limit your electorate to at least those who broadly have the same interest in doing what is best for your country and not want foreign, often hostile countries voting in your elections.

I don't want to take power by disenfranchising people. I don't want to take power at all. I want people to have power over their own lives.

Which is a major reason why the Irish wanted independence. To be free from The British Parliament and its laws. So mostly Irish would vote on Irish issues.

I am subject taxes and US laws, otherwise I would not have any protection for my freedom of religion from the US government.
You only enjoy rights if the government protects them.
Rights are not just there. Unless they are enforced they are meaningless.

To enjoy my right to religious freedom I must be subject to the taxes and laws of some country that respects that right.

You'd be subject to those laws and pay those taxes even if the law said that you must be a Christian.

---

Which would make you a de facto citizen. Just like if you were allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads without supervision, yet did not have a license, you would have a de facto license.

Arguing for automatoc citzenship for all residents as well as foreigners overshore would be nore logical.

You're saying that the whole population of the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland are actually British citizens? Sounds rather farcical.

It is functionally true if they can choose the British government.

[United States of Natan]

This is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. For starters, why isn't the author advocating for allowing Americans to vote in foreign countries' elections?

As for the practicality, just... no. How would we decide who gets to vote? Everyone? Including our enemies? China alone has over triple the U.S. population. Russia has a third. Their interests are obviously anti-American, and the way their citizens vote would obviously be in the interests of their countries, not ours. I don't want to have a President who's fighting solely for Chinese interests, rather than mine. Yes, American policies have a strong effect on the world, but not as strong as the policies of that particular government in their particular nation, and our influence is not strong enough to warrant this. Why should people who are not governed by the U.S. be allowed to choose who leads us? That's a ridiculous idea. The U.S. only has 5% of the world's population; allowing foreign nations to have a say in who our president is means that we'll never have a President looking out for American interests ever again.

[Ors Might]

Not seeing any laws being made there..

Weirdly it still happens, though. I guess you should look.

Yes, they abide by the law by not voting in our federal elections.

And are subjected to violence by your government from time to time, despite never having voted on whether they would allow that.

Children are, in fact, people. People impacted by decisions the government makes. Why don’t you think voting should be a right?

Don't be a sillypants.

What laws are on the books specifically involvinf Iranians? You’re confusing law with foreign policy.

The Iran Sanctions Act, passed by the 104th Congress as the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act and signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996, extended several times since and renamed, obviously, most recently having been extended for 10 years in 2016.

There’s a difference between building hospitals and enacting regulations which must necessarily be backed either by force or the threat of force. A very stark and ethical difference.

Sure. But the important thing here is that they chose to come and set roots here. They understood the situation. Though they probably should be allowed to vote in more local elections.

Hey, I’m not a man of class. I see low hanging fruit, I snatch low hanging fruit like I’m Eve in the garden of Eden.

Not entirely sure if that entirely counts but point taken, I guess. Maybe the members of the Iranian government should vote until the law is repealed?? I don’t know.

[Katganistan]

No.

Not just no, but hell no.

Agreed.

[Ifreann]

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.

Nah, that sucks.

---

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.

Whatever you want to call them they're not useful.

[Telconi]

Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.

Nah, that sucks.

---

The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.

Whatever you want to call them they're not useful.

They're quite useful.

[WENDIP SHIPPER]

All laws are backed by violence, whether implicitly or explicitly.

Yeah, when the government paves a road or builds a hospital or cleans the drinking water, that's backed by violence.

All property claims are backed by violence. Technically.

[Novus America]

Seems easier to just consider everyone but your countrymen someone else's problem/valid targets for military intervention for economic gain.

Nah, that sucks.

---

The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.

Whatever you want to call them they're not useful.

They absolutely are useful even if you disagree with the use.

[Bear Stearns]

The lines being "imaginary" (I think by this you mean that they are social constructs) does not mean they are arbitrary.

Whatever you want to call them they're not useful.

Aren't you Irish?

Borders seem to be really useful there these days.

[San Lumen]

This is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard. Why not allow every country to vote in every other countries elections? Why have countries? Lets just have a world government.

[Hakons]

So, what? Everyone votes in every election held anywhere? Because I'm pretty sure literally all countries interact with other countries...

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

This is your brain on globalism. An Irishman of all people should know the significance of borders, and why they are drawn where they are.

[New haven america]

So maybe we stop organising governments this way, top-down, along imaginary lines in the ground, and re-organise them to be bottom-up, having jurisdictions along where it is actually useful to make collective decisions, with electorates to match.

This is your brain on globalism. An Irishman of all people should know the significance of borders, and why they are drawn where they are.

Yeah, when Irish borers were closed things went so gre- Oh wait...