[systemtest]

A good start would be to allow everyone living in the city to vote. I don't care about politics, zoning or planning if I am not allowed to vote or participate. There isn't anything I can do, so why bother putting effort into it?

[dymk]

Did you not register to vote or something?

[systemtest]

I've lived in various European cities where I was not able to vote for various reasons. Such as living hotel long-term, living in a holiday home, being semi-homeless, sub-letting, crashing on someones couch. Seasonal workers, migrant workers or people with unstable employment are typically in this situation.

No, I was not able to vote.

[trinix912]

What do you think makes someone who’s pretty much just passing by entitled to push their opinions on the locals who’ve lived there their entire lives? Especially when that person likely won’t suffer the longterm consequences of it

[systemtest]

Not talking about passing by, talking about people living there for years.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

What would you propose as a way to differentiate the two?

[systemtest]

Make it so people who live there can vote

[jandrese]

I get the sentiment about "why would I let people who aren't going to stay long term decide how the city is run?" but in the end it creates a city that is indifferent or even hostile to people in that situation. It ends up disenfranchising a population that will always be there, even if the people who make up that population is constantly changing.

[systemtest]

Thank you. I know people who have lived in Amsterdam for over five years but can't vote for local politics because of their legal status or because they are illegally subletting due to the shitty housing market in The Netherlands.

Don't complain about people not being engaged with local politics if you don't allow them to vote.

[trinix912]

The ones who will “always be there” can get their papers for permanent residence done and vote. If they don’t want to (or can’t since they don’t have the legal grounds to even stay there for longer), then they shouldn’t have a say on decisions that can permanently change things about the place.

[jandrese]

There will always be the population of people who will be in short term housing or similar situations, but due to their circumstances the individual people will come and go. 5 years from now the makeup of the itinerant population may be almost entirely different, but the people in that population are in the same circumstances, especially if they don't have any political representation.

Who is going to speak for the people who aren't allowed to vote?

[trinix912]

In my country, citizens without a permanent address (which is very few people, those who have no place of theirs mostly register at someone elses for easier administration) can still sign up and vote, so that leaves us with just the people who don’t have the permits to even stay here permanently.

I’m also not expecting to fly to country X, book an airbnb for 6 months or get a summer job, and then just somehow be entitled to vote there.

[systemtest]

That is only possible with stable and legal housing. Not everyone is privileged to be in that situation, especially not with the housing market in many countries.

With your thinking you are creating a class of subhumans where you enjoy the benefits of their labour but you are not allowing them to vote. Like African Americans in the US not that long ago.

[pessimizer]

No, it's actually nothing like us. It's also annoying and insulting that we have to be the symbol for every victim of anything.

Black Americans are not nomads. We're forced out by them.

[whynotminot]

I don’t want someone drifting through town in the local motel to be able to meaningfully vote to change the city I am rooted in.

[triceratops]

Why would someone actually "drifting through" even bother voting? The odd weirdo might but that's not going to tip any elections.

Even most long term residents legally entitled to vote don't make the effort.

[whynotminot]

I don’t know man but I also know that loopholes get exploited. I think local voting should be for actual locals.

To your point that so few people actually vote, it doesn’t take much to sway a local election.

[systemtest]

These people are locals. They are living there for years sometimes decades

[systemtest]

A billionaire buying up housing can do a lot more damage than a persons drifting through town

[systemtest]

I'm talking about people who live in the city for years.

[moi2388]

Then find a legal place to stay and register and you can vote.

[systemtest]

A yes, why didn't I think of that! Let me just completely ignore the broken housing market, the 15+ year waiting list for social housing and scrape together... lets checks... €400k for a small appartement with a 45 minute commute to work.

Do you have any clue how privileged you sound here? This is peak "have you tried not being poor" attitude.

[KptMarchewa]

Ok. That's by design.

[systemtest]

It's by design that only people with stable housing can vote? I bet you loved pre-1965 America.

[ecshafer]

Actually yes, that is by design. There is a reason the US had property ownership as a requirement to vote in the constitution. Whether removing that requirement was correct or not is up for debate. But there is a distinction in a democracy between an active citizen and a passive citizen. An active citizen is someone that has skin in the game and is a willing participant in the process. A passive citizen is someone that does not engage in the process, or does not actively have skin in the game. The thought espoused in the enlightenment was that someone with property would be tied to the location long term and would therefore have interest in the long term success of that town/state/nation. Someone who is only in a town for a year doesn't meaningfully have stakes in the town. They don't really care if the schools aren't funded well enough, or if the roads don't have long term maintenance budget, they are only going to care about immediate needs. Someone with a house, that has children or grand children, they are going to not only care about now but 30 years from now as well.

[lern_too_spel]

It was because they thought that landowners would direct the votes of the people who lived on that land. The same reason was given for not allowing women to vote. https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645

This comes directly from a historical British restriction on voting rights that in turn is an artifact of feudalism. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_1s3....

Ancient democracies, including those of Greek city states like Athens, restricted voting to landowners because prior to the invention of the printing press, only aristocrats could understand the issues being voted on.

[vel0city]

Everyone affected by the laws passed have "skin in the game".

Someone renting an apartment and working a job in a community definitely has skin in the game in regards to local tax rates, building regulations, public amenities, etc.

[f30e3dfed1c9]

"the US had property ownership as a requirement to vote in the constitution. Whether removing that requirement was correct or not is up for debate."

Not serious debate.

[pessimizer]

Whatever idea you have about how black Americans live is bizarre. And despite being ignorant of us, you attempt to silence discussions by acting like you are us.

[zdragnar]

Yes, voting requires some form of residency. That's a pretty basic tenant of any stable representative government.

Anything less becomes extremely easy to game.

[systemtest]

There people have residency, they just don't live in a stable form of housing that allows them to register as living in the city. But some of them have lived in the city for years.

[moi2388]

No, but it should be.

I saw your other comment with regards to the Netherlands. If that’s where you’re located, you only need to have a stable location once. Then you can register. Another person can’t unregister you from there, so you can vote even if you then move to a hotel.

Only question remains is how you want to deal with mail, but there are workarounds for that.

[systemtest]

In The Netherlands it is illegal to be register at an address you don't live at.

[KellyCriterion]

...and sorry: Thats absolutely OK. I do not want strangers stopping by for 3 - 4 years to be able to influence the politics of my country? Thats totaly understandable?

I would never to ask to vote at a remote place where I do not live permanently, yet where I even not a citizen?

[epistasis]

Somebody who spends 3-4 years in a place has an immense interest in how it's governed. Their view is 100% as valid as yours, and they should have equal voice, if we are going to judge people based on how long they live somewhere.

I live in a college town. Why shouldn't student voices be represented, when they are a huge chunk of our community?

Maybe I'm too US focused, and have been accused of that a lot recently, but your views are fundamentally at odds with basic democracy as I see it as a US citizen.

[mjr00]

There's a massive difference between "will be in a place for 3-4 years maximum, then leaving" vs "has been in a place for 3-4 years but is planning on staying permanently." In the former case their interests are going to be short-term and might not align with long-term residences. Per your example, university students would vote against allocating funds toward schools or playgrounds, because they know they're not going to be raising a family there. Or more globally, you have the population of "digital nomads" who are working in Vietnam/Thailand for a few years before they come back to the US.

It's pretty debatable if these temporary residents should have the same voting rights as permanent residents, since their interests are going to be at odds with long-term residents. I would not be happy if schools got defunded because university students who are only going to be there for a few years wanted to lower alcohol taxes.

Permanent residency/citizenship being a prerequisite for voting is used as a (very imperfect) screening for this.

[epistasis]

A city isn't just for the long-term residents. It must serve short term residents too. Those interests must be represented.

In the US, people get to vote where they live. We used to require silly things like owning land or being male or being white, but that was a really bad idea.

It is not debatable at all if short term residents should had the same voting rights as long term residents. It is very settled constitutional law in the US, and a completely radical idea to suggest changing a principle that has been fundamental for the period of time when the US has been a strong country.

> Per your example, university students would vote against allocating funds toward schools or playgrounds, because they know they're not going to be raising a family there

I think you have very bad intuitions here. In my college town, long term residents get upset that college students vote in favor of school funding, because the long term residents have kids that have already graduated and they don't want to pay for it anymore.

Shorter term residents have significant disadvantages in local politics, as local politics is largely a function of long term relationships and getting the word out on obscure elections where there's almost zero coverage of candidates, and for positions where few know what they do. Depriving short term residents of even using a vote is a huge perversion to the idea of democracy in the US.

[KellyCriterion]

Because people do not vote "for local interests" but for "the interests they are carrying with them according to their believes", which are usually not on par with the interestes of the long-term-resident local community.

[epistasis]

So what? Why does that matter on being able to vote? Shouldn't people bring their values to voting, isn't that the entire point?

Should we deny long term residents the right to vote becuase they aren't voting in the interests of short term residents? I don't understand the principle here, unless you think that short term residents are not residents, or full people, or something.

[systemtest]

That is OK but OP should not be complaining about people not being engaged with local politics if you are excluding a large part of the people living in the city from voting.

[leoedin]

Are a large part of the people living in a city the kind of semi-transitory-but-also-there-for-years people you describe?

I'd wager that's a small proportion of almost every city. Most cities will have tourists who are visiting for a few days or weeks, and long term residents who have a permanent address there. The percentage of people living full time in hotels or airbnbs must be tiny. Perhaps in high cost of living cities there's more "hidden homeless" living on couches, but even then it's not going to be "a large part" of a city.

[systemtest]

I don't have sources but for cities like Amsterdam I wouldn't be surprised if 5% of the population isn't registered with the municipality for various reasons. But have been living there for years. Plenty of people I know would sublet empty rooms of their social housing apartment, which is highly illegal but for some people the only way to find a place to stay. But you obviously can't register because then the person subletting would be kicked out.

[milkytron]

Among those that are registered to vote locally, most don't. Regardless of whether or not people should or shouldn't be able to vote, many of those currently with the ability to do not.

[triceratops]

> I do not want strangers stopping by for 3 - 4 years to be able to influence the politics of my country?

City, not country.

[KellyCriterion]

good catch

[mattkrause]

What's the minimum residency you'd accept, because 3-4 years seems quite long to me.

[KellyCriterion]

Gettig citizenownership and giving away your former passport.

[KellyCriterion]

nice to see how the voting for this comment fluctuaded massivly during the last hours:

for some reason, people on HN have a specific opinion when it comes to politics and voting and what are acceptable implementations ;-)

[Spooky23]

There’s a lot you can do. Voting is the entry stake. You can make a big impact with a very low level of political engagement.

Allowing popular referendum for everything just invites a particular and usually really dumb level of politics. You can influence a board’s decision and get some or all of what you want.

IMO one of the biggest problems with society is that you have this view that politics is this idea that it’s some sort of magical thing that is done to you. I can get my city councilman on the phone easily. Probably would get a meeting with my state senator in a few days if need be. Just show up and work with people.

[petcat]

> allow everyone living in the city to vote

Who is "everyone" in this case?

[systemtest]

People who live in the city for the majority of their time. They should be able to vote. Regardless of their housing situation. In basically all of Europe, voting for local elections is tied to having stable housing.

[ishouldstayaway]

I don't disagree with you per se, but how would that work in practice? How could you actually tell someone lives there if they don't have an address to back up that claim?

[systemtest]

By allowing them to register as citizens of that city

[ishouldstayaway]

This just pushes the problem back a step, and both has and produces all the same problems as the issue it purports to solve.

[gedy]

My guess is non-citizens or 'undocumented immigrants'.

[systemtest]

Those as well. But even citizens and immigrants with paperwork can often not vote for local elections if they do not have stable housing.

[trinix912]

Yes, because they don’t legally permanently live in that place. Sorry not sorry. Why do you think anyone can just sign up for some local elections and vote for a town they’re not even legally permanently situated in??

[systemtest]

Then change the fucking system so that people who have been living in a city for years can legally do so. Or kick them out. But don't have this vague system of sub-humans that are not allowed to influence their surroundings by voting.

[freedomben]

I'm not saying GP was implying this, but my read of their comment is that it would be a bad thing for everyone to start to voting. If a person doesn't know what they're voting for, they're not more likely to make good decisions. They're just more likely to cancel out the vote of someone who did educate themselves.