[charlescooper]

I think it makes sense that people who don’t live within a community should not be permitted to vote in that community’s elections.

Consider the question for states or countries. Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections? Or Canadian residents to vote in the US’s elections?

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Ask it differently. Ask it about time.

"Does it make sense that the people voting today can decide to stop other people from voting here in the future?"

That's what zoning, housing policy and other local government decisions are capable of doing.

[zdragnar]

I don't want people living in San Francisco voting on my small Midwestern town's policies or elections just because they might hypothetically choose to live here one day.

Likewise, I don't want non-Americans living in Europe or elsewhere voting in state or federal elections because they might someday choose to become American citizens.

In both cases, those people might vote then end up never following through on their half of the commitment.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

You're missing the point. It's not about whether people who do not live in X should be able to vote in X. I think most people would agree that they definitely should not.

It's about whether the people currently living in X should be able to arrange things so that certain other groups of people will be impeded from living in X in the future.

There's clearly room for some debate there: most people would agree that nations can set their own standards for immigration and that these may exclude large classes of people.

However, if a town explicitly said "we do not want anyone who earns less than 400% of median household income to move here", I think that most people would find that at least a little troubling.

There really are not any mechanisms that would allow a US municipality to say that explicitly. However, things like zoning laws can be used to go fairly far in this direction in a more implicit way.

I think that's wrong.

[teakettle42]

Of course it makes sense. They’re the people who have the biggest stake in the place that they live, and in the community that they built.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

Very few communities are populated today by the people who built them.

[Manuel_D]

I don't think anyone argues against the idea that people should belong to the community in which they're voting. But the question is, how fine or coarse grained of a "community" should be in charge of land use. For instance, someone who stays unemployed in a poor region passing up jobs in Seattle or San Francisco because of housing shortages is arguably just as affected as home owners that have to deal with greater density. But only the latter gets to decide local zoning laws.

[slavik81]

You can do the same thing right down to neighbourhoods. Why should zoning be done at the municipal level?

If I live in Ward 10 of the city, why should the people of Ward 11 have any say in the by-laws for a neighbourhood that they don't live in? I'd argue because cohesive planning across neighbourhood boundaries is necessary for a healthy city.

The difference between your position and that of the grandparent is not one of fundamental principle. You're just at different places on a continuous scale.

[adastra22]

What about someone working in Mountain View and contributing to the Mountain View economy, but living in Morgan Hill because that’s all they can afford?

[barry-cotter]

> Would it make sense for Massachusetts residents to vote in Connecticut‘s elections?

They do. Residents of Massachusetts, Connecticut and other states all vote for President, Congressfolk and Senators.

[gameman144]

I think the question is more oriented around voting for the representation allotted to other states, rather than voting for candidates that will serve at the same level.

For instance, Presidents, Senators, and Representatives are all Federal positions. The states (or for President, the state's electors) get to pick their own representatives, though, and it would be odd for one state to elect another state's representatives to Federal office (e.g. a Massachusetts vote being counted in the Connecticut US Senate election.)

Likewise, all counties in a state vote in State elections, but don't vote in each others' county elections. This goes down the line to cities within counties, districts within cities, etc.

Not that I disagree with your point (it's totally valid to point out that elections from multiple areas can all serve in one body), but I think the question was more about citizens from outside a region voting for policies/representatives within that region.

[zdragnar]

President is a federal election, run by the individual states. Congressional members are likewise state run elections, but only affect the members assigned by each state. It's a nonsensical comparison.

[closeparen]

I think people who don’t live in a parcel shouldn’t get to vote on that parcel’s height limit.

The municipality is a more or less arbitrary level of aggregation at which to make land use decisions.