hckrnws

I don't understand the argument the author makes. The author admits missing deadlines to vote in the general elections at home. The author admits missing deadlines to register for EU elections due to a recent move.

I am an EU citizen, living in another EU country. I managed to vote in the most recent general elections at home. When it comes to the EU elections, I even have a choice: I could vote for MEPs in my country of residence or in my country of citizenship. If voting in my new country was really important to me, I could naturalize and vote in a general elections in my new country.

A requirement to be registered at a new place of residence isn't that unusual. When one moves to another state within the United States, one has to register to vote in that state. Many states require that you live in the state a certain period of time before being able to register to vote, so if you move a week before the election, you are out of luck in your new state. You could be better off voting by an absentee ballot in your old state before you move.

EU citizens generally can vote in municipal elections where they live. Cities and towns also provide services that are supported by tax payers.

As an European citizen, living in UK, I can vote for my borough leadership, along with general elections in my original country and European elections for my original country representatives.

The UK local elections I had to register for, I think I got a letter asking if I want to vote and had to fill in a form and every so often I need to go online and tell them nothing changed in my circumstances.

To vote for my original country, things were a bit tricky when I moved over, mostly because they were not prepared to accommodate that many people in diaspora wanting to vote (check the Romanian Elections in diaspora 2014 and 2015). Since then, we have 3 days to vote in person and we can also register to vote by mail.

/Edit: I can also vote for the mayor of London. Since I live in London.

I’m an Irish citizen who lives in the UK. I’m entitled to vote for the upper house in Ireland (Seanad) and in both Uk and Scottish general elections due to our “special arrangement”. I have no plans to apply for citizenship, nor to leave the UK.

Honestly, it’s an incredibly privileged thing to be able to do and I think of it every time I vote. I am an ardent supporter of free movement of people. I genuinely think that voting in GEs should be restricted to citizens of the country (and that my exemption is unfair). Without that distinction, what is the difference between a long term resident and a citizen? Why would you ever go through it. The _citizens_ should vote for what country they want, and the residents (me) should decide do we still want to be a part of that world.

The UK is quite liberal with who can vote in general elections allowing both Commonwealth as well as Irish citizens living in the UK). I don't think there's any harm to it and it seems unavoidable given our history. It would certainly be untenable to disallow those who do not identify as British living in Northern Ireland from voting in UK general elections.

It’s certainly an interesting quirk - it’s also not just everyone who is a commonwealth citizen, it’s everyone who is a commonwealth citizen who has a legal right to be in the UK, which is… not everyone.

The UKs history is murky and I think that the rules reflect that. I don’t think a rug pull is a good idea for existing people. Despite what I said above, having that right removed from me would feel like a huge blow, as it would be a marks change on how the relationship between Ireland and the UK is.

> Without that distinction, what is the difference between a long term resident and a citizen?

You fall into an edge case. Irish citizens have special status in the UK as a result of the countries' shared history. In this particular case the biggest difference is that you can't get a UK passport as an Irish citizen.

I’m acutely aware I’m an edge case - I hoped I made it clear above that I am cognisant of it and that I think of it every time I exercise that privilege

> in this particular case the biggest difference is that you can’t get a UK passport as an Irish citizen.

Sure, but I’ve also been here long enough to naturalise - it’s a decision for me, not something I need to do anything more to be eligible for.

Why citizens and not permanent residents?

For the same reason that married couples enjoy privileges that dating couples do not. The long term commitment and investment in a partner indicate and confer interest in long term stability and development.

So a permanent resident who has lived in a country, for say, 10 years? You don't think they're committed at that point and should have a right to vote on the society they are contributing to?

Is there any country in Europe where you can't naturalize after 10 years? Maybe some micro state?

My point is, if you're not willing to go through the naturalisation process when you're eligible, what's the problem?

To throw it back at you- should a couple who have been together for 10 years be afforded the same rights as a married couple?

> you don’t think they’re committed at that point and should have a right to vote in the society they are contributing to

Honestly - no, I don’t. I think that voting in a GE is a huge privilege, and it should require an explicit declaration and an acceptance from the country they are part of.

I think you should look into common-law marriage. At least in Canada, living together for 2 years, means you are much closer to being married than not.

It's even applicable for taxes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

Yes, you're not married. But you're not single either.

The article you are linking to specifically says that Canada doesn't have common law marriage only that “informal cohabitation relationships are recognised for certain purposes in Canada, creating legal rights and obligations”

I can vote in local elections, eg for people that spend my council tax.

Then apply for citizenship, take language and, usually, constitution exam and get the citizenship.

If somebody doesn’t care enough to prove they know the basics of the language and legal system in the country… Maybe they shouldn’t have voting privilege either?

Are there no differences in obligations between the two (e.g., draft)?

It’s going to wildly depend on the countries, but between the UK and Ireland, no.

You do have to swear allegiance to the monarchy in the UK, which some people may feel more or less positively about.

As far as I know lots of EU countries don't allow double citizenship. This implies that, even when having the prerequisites, acquiring the new citizenship for the sake of voting also mean losing the old citizenship altogether. At least for me this is too much to ask. I am happy with my life in my new country of residence, but I am still very connected to my heritage.

On the other hand I would be quite happy to give up my _voting rights_ in the original country in exchange for local ones. I do understand that allowing double voting would give mobile citizens an excessive amount of weight, but letting each individual choose would seems quite reasonable to me.

And in any case, might the EU live long and prosper.

It depends on a country, if dual citizenship is allowed. Sometimes, it even depends on what the original citizenship is. Germany and France, for example, allow dual citizenship, meaning naturalization doesn't mean a loss of another citizenship.

Sorry, but this is horse droppings, there seem to be 9 countries doing this.

https://bestcitizens.com/2024/11/08/list-of-eu-countries-pro...

It's also going down as EU would prefer very easy transfers but single citizenship country.

Note that they can vote in local election (municipal and regional) and for the EU parliament, the article does mention this, but it is a bit hidden.

I think that Brexit illustrates exactly why you need to be a citizen for elections of that type. It seems unfair to let the large number of other European living in the UK have influence on whether or not the UK was to stay, as they are still guests. Same for government election, you are a valued and wanted guest, but you are still a guest.

The complaint, to me, has some value, because the EU countries are making it fairly hard to chance citizenship. On the one hand, they are also completely free to move, if they don't want to pay taxes to a government they can't vote for, on the other, ensuring that these people has the option to say: I'm planning on staying for a very long time, I provide value, I want to be able to vote, should be a priority.

> I think that Brexit illustrates exactly why you need to be a citizen for elections of that type

I'm a UK citizen who was denied the right to vote in the Brexit election. I normally choose not to vote in any UK elections, because I haven't lived there for 36 years and have no intention to return. However, Brexit was a different kettle of fish entirely, and Cameron promised that the "gone for 15 years, no vote" rule would be repealed before the vote. It was not, and tens of millions of UK expatriates were denied the right to vote on their ability to live in the EU.

Absolutely disgraceful.

In Spain, EU citizens cannot vote in regional elections. They may only vote in municipal elections and in elections to the EU parliament.

there should be a uniform system, something like that if you have lived in one country and have paid taxes there (fiscal residency) for more than X years you should be able to vote local elections.

A EU citizen living in the UK for long enough, and with a plan to stay, should have a say on the decisions of that country.

Yes, there is citizenship, but rules are all different and are made every more complicated as we speak (I like in Sweden, where the case is clear).

we are guests but when we donate blood they strangely don't offer to send the blood to our origin coutry? when we pay taxes they strangely don't offer to let us off? so are we just guests or are we part of the nation too?

It's a challenge for sure. The problem is that some EU countries aren't that big, and moving the government in one direction or another is entirely possible if you can just move a small amount of people to that country, which they are free to do. E.g. moving 50.000 Hungarians to a Nordic or Baltic country can change governments.

If we assume the best, there should not be a problem in letting people vote for the government in the country their reside, if we assume the worst, it's a massive problem.

you will be shocked to discover that no one is an island but ok you send 50 000 Hungarians north, they live through the 9 months winters, i guess they find a job, learn the language, marry the people and then what's the plan? for them to suddenly make hungarian the official language? let me guess you've never left Nebrahoma? this is laughable

Plenty of US citizens are in a similar situation: namely those who are in territories that are not US States, like Puerto Rico. Some US nationals are not even US citizens: those from American Samoa carry US passports but are not considered citizens.

Citizens of Washington, DC are in the same boat. They can vote for president, but have no representation in congress.

To nitpick: they have a representative, but she's not allowed to vote.

To double nitpick: She's a delegate, not a representative. There are also non-voting members from Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Not just them, but undocumented immigrants here pay close to $100 billion a year in taxes.

Immigrants as a broader category here in the US make up around 20% of our total tax revenue.

And also, people like blog author - foreigners with work visa. There are plenty of those, they pay taxes and they dont vote.

Correction though, she's not a foreigner with a work visa, but an EU citizen living in another EU country.

She is still a foreigner. Just because it is relatively seamless to work in another country, it doesn't mean you are a citizen.

If you're not a citizen, you can't vote for the national government. The solution: become a citizen. If you've lived somewhere long enough to lose track of your home country (legally at least), getting citizenship shouldn't be all that hard.

The voting pass handed to the author to vote on someone else's behalf clearly states the requirements. A Dutch passport, ID, or driver's license is required. Polling booths are run by volunteers and they have hard enough of a time already checking the validity of Dutch ID, adding 27 other forms of ID will only make it easier to bypass the electoral protections we have.

Schengen, the EU, and the EEA may have made working abroad exceptionally easy, but working abroad you're still a guest in another country. If you've lived somewhere long enough to forget to vote in your home country, maybe it's time to reevaluate what your home country really is.

> Polling booths are run by volunteers and they have hard enough of a time already checking the validity of Dutch ID, adding 27 other forms of ID will only make it easier to bypass the electoral protections we have.

Not sure about this one. For municipal elections in the Netherlands, you need to live in a particular municipal to vote. That means: even non-eu expats are eligible. I have had colleagues with UK, US and Turkish passports that voted (or could have voted) in Amsterdam for local representatives.

They can definitely vote in most local Dutch elections, though that ability differs per EU member state. As long as you have a valid registration with the municipality, you're eligible.

The example given wasn't about casting their own vote, though, but voting for someone else by proxy (volmacht). For that, you need to take someone else's voting pass, a copy of their ID (may be expired up to a certain amount of years), and a form of your own, valid, Dutch identification.

That last part is where it went wrong: they didn't have valid Dutch ID so the vote by proxy was rejected.

but rules for citizenship are all different and are being made harder and harder because, well, that's what sells today. Also some countries (cough, Germany, cough) have incredibly stupid rules where you have to give up your own citizenship in order to get a new one.

I think it's perfectly normal to expect someone to give up their old citizenship when becoming citizen in a different country. When you become a citizen, that country is responsible for getting you out of international conflicts and arranging passports (which are essentially documents that say "you should let this person in because of the good relationship our two governments have"), and in turn you're expected to turn up for the draft and decide in national policy.

There are certainly countries where gaining citizenship is a challenge, but the Dutch terms for EU migrants the minimum requirements ("speaking the language somewhat fluently, having lived there legally for five years, filling out paperwork") aren't that difficult. Getting through the process takes effort, for sure, but it's not the challenge most people in the world will face (the "living in the country legally for five years" part, mostly; without student visas or special deals between your old government and the Dutch government, you're not likely to get a work visa as any random person on earth).

Germany has allowed dual citizenship since June 2024.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_nationality_law#Reform_...

Puerto Rico pays taxes to the U.S. government, yet its residents cannot vote in federal elections. Additionally, the Jones Act increases costs even more than on the mainland.

That's not entirely true. Yes, Puerto Ricans do pay some federal taxes (tariffs, FICA, gift and estate taxes) but do not pay federal income tax unless they have income from sources outside Puerto Rico.

Anyway many Puerto Ricans probably wish they were subject to federal income tax:

  As the cutoff point for income taxation in Puerto Rico is lower
  than that imposed by the U.S. IRS code and because the per-
  capita income in Puerto Rico is much lower than the average per-
  capita income of the US states, more Puerto Rico residents pay
  income taxes to the local taxation authority than if the IRS
  code were applied to the island.

Maybe they just need some tea and throw a party, if you know what I mean

Let's call it the San Juan Tea Party, lol

Okay?

He says nothing about the language barrier that migrants face in the EU.

He went to The Netherlands where it's extremely easy for migrants to integrate: Not only is English widely spoken, but Dutch is also one of the easiest languages to read if you know English and/or German.

So it's unsurprising that he felt he understood enough of politics that he wanted to vote there.

You may have mobility but you are not a citizen of the host country, so therefore you should not have the right to dictate their laws. You are a welcome guest until you actually become a citizen (through whatever process they define).

How this is not obvious common sense surprises me. Otherwise significant portions of the population of any EU country could get jobs in another one and then start influencing its politics just because they "pay tax". Essentially colonising the country.

Europeans are increasingly associating with Europe over an individual country. US citizens have been doing this for a long time. They are citizens of the US before the state they reside in.

Where is this data from?

EUROSTAT. They are running regular surveys. From when they stated to today, the affiliation with Europe went up. Some somewhat recent data is here: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/2971

Given the dramatic amount of in EU migration that is not too surprising.

This data seems to suggest something completely different than that people are associating as citizens of EU instead of citizens of their respective countries.

93% of respondents are correct in that you become an EU citizen automatically by living in an EU country, and 87% "feel" that they're EU citizens.

I am not saying that European citizens are saying they are saying they are European over their nationality, but that the trend towards a European identity is going up over time.

The article is about EU. We had a few revolutions over here, but that wasn't one of them.

Exactly. The article conflates free movement of people with federalism.

For Austria and Spain this would mean 10 years (at least) of not being able to vote and THEN renouncing your birth citizenship. Not sure this is a very pragmatic solution, unless the goal is to keep immigrants from voting.

The goal is to have a country not just a piece of land.

I kinda agree, we should allow people to vote in a country they live in and contribute to. There should be a reasonably difficult process where you show you have strong ties and commitment to the country and you get the voting rights. You should only have one at a time. We could call it a citizenship or something.

Jokes aside, I don't understand what they are asking for. "Allowing people to vote where they live would be a good start." After how long? Should I be able to vote in a foreign county if I move and work there for a month?

If anything, complain about specific citizenship process if it's unreasonable, but you have to respect that it's role of the citizens to define what are the rules.

Same in the US you know. Uncle Sam is very happy to take my tax money, but doesn't take my vote.

> If Europe is to withstand rising populism and Euroscepticism, we must strengthen its democratic foundations. Allowing people to vote where they live would be a good start.

I like the gist of it but not sure how one would follow from the other. Populist tendencies can also manifest through voting preferences, can't they? Brexit happened via a voting preference. Just because mobile EU citizens vote, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll vote for who the author expect they'll vote for. So they are mostly orthogonal concerns in a way.

One of the best arguments against immigration is that, if you allow people to move to your country, even as non-citizen guest workers, they will eventually demand political rights in your country using their physical presence in a democracy as a moral justification. In other words, the only way to keep foreigners from influencing the laws and norms you live under is to physically bar them from your polity entirely.

That's only a good argument if you think they're bound to be a detriment in those "demands", or that basic dignity is too much to ask for hard labor in return for crap wages and no job security.

Putting that aside even if you do accept the premise that people working and living in your country are a risk rather than an opportunity, it's a poor argument in favor of something that's necessitated by demographic change in the West (and places like Japan).

>One of the best arguments against immigration is that, if you allow people to move to your country, even as non-citizen guest workers, they will eventually demand political rights in your country using their physical presence in a democracy as a moral justification

That could just as easily be an argument against democracy. The Gulf monarchies have large numbers of non-citizen guest workers, in the case of the UAE over 80% of the population, but they don't have any of the problems western countries have with migrants, because migrants have no political power and aren't eligible for welfare.

Yes, it is an argument against democracy. Or, more radically, an argument against the entire system of Westphalian states that control swaths of territory on the Earth's surface and that human beings are legal citizens of, as the way that human political organization is done.

> The Gulf monarchies have large numbers of non-citizen guest workers, in the case of the UAE over 80% of the population, but they don't have any of the problems western countries have with migrants, because migrants have no political power and aren't eligible for welfare.

Sometimes pro-immigration economic liberals cite the Gulf experience with immigrants as an argument for why western democracies should have open borders or at least much more liberalized immigration policy. The pro-open-borders libertarian economist Bryan Caplan has made this specific argument for instance. Setting aside the fact that these countries are not democracies even for their own citizens, if 80% of the human beings physically resident within your borders are non-citizen guest workers, I would be worried about the possibility of formally-illegal violent uprising.

These (and not just limited to elections here now) are exactly the same issues that come up when non-EU migrants want to do stuff in EU. And the argument the OP makes has always been my argument. Fine, you hate migrants, good for you. But what about other Europeans who are getting the short stick with your national rules? No one has a good answer for this.

FWIW: I am a non-EU migrant.

Could the host nation then draft EU immigrants in return for voting rights, for example?

Yes. Thats the decision that we need. Right? Do we want to actually make this pseudo political union into a proper political union? Because it is seeming more and more than instead what we will get is break up of the union.

At least we now know who is responsible for Fico constantly winning, dammit!

I am tiny bit angry reading this. Does the author believe he can just come into my country and by the mere fact of breathing has a right to vote in my countries election? This is madness if you aren't a citizen you don't get to vote..

as a young european, how often were we told about the four crossborder freedoms granted by the EU: people, goods, services and money

it turns out, the ones who acted upon that are getting punished

I don't know if paying taxes is a good prerequisite for voting. People travel and pay taxes to a lot of governments along the way. People from out of country may own vacation houses somewhere which represent a lot of property taxes, but are only there a few months out of the year. Should they get a vote? Probably not.

That said, there absolutely should be reasonable processes to allow you to vote in the country you live in. "Obtaining citizenship" sounds reasonable, but of course, not every country has reasonable way to obtain citizenship. The EU voting procedure sounds really onerous.

Then again, the author can vote where he does not pay taxes - his country of origin. He can also ask for dutch citizenship

Despite being more accessible to EU migrants, there is more to gaining Dutch citizenship than just "asking". One needs to live in the Netherlands for five years (with limits on i.e. long holidays) to qualify and even then it takes months just to take the tests necessary, provided they can speak the language at all, which isn't a given in certain expat circles. Plus, they'd need to give up on their birth nationality.

It's not an impossible challenge to overcome and compared to what 99% of the world's population needs to go through for the same privilege it's a piece of cake for the author to get done, but it's not just a matter of paperwork.

Inability to meaningfully vote against the government is even more common.

This is a person who can vote in Slovakian elections, and through those elections vote for their EU representatives, but is too lazy to.

You may have missed this, because it is buried under a ton of verbiage that makes this tiny number of nonvoters like a social problem. So when this person says:

> [D]espite strong attachment to the European Union, mobile Europeans are less likely to participate in European elections [...] because each member state has different procedures, deadlines, and often inadequate public information.

They are obscuring the fact that the only rules that they need to know are Slovakian rules, and that they don't bother.

> I also repeatedly missed the deadlines to apply for postal votes in Slovakia.

Ideal person not to be voting. Really thinks that wealthy Slovaks living in the Netherlands have something important to say about Brexit (populism bad!), and that people who are too lazy to vote in European elections can lecture anyone else about the utility of the EU. Such a coddled class.

Yeah always a victim. When you can't vote because you forget the deadline… you won't be able to vote anywhere.

This really resonates with me. I have lived in Finland for 16 years and struggled with work-life balance whilst trying to learn one of the most difficult languages in the world. Unless you pass the language exam you can't apply for citizenship - no matter how long you've been here for.

And yet, the right-wing-ish coalition government is making hostile anti-immigration policies and increasing citizenship requirements - which I can't vote against.

This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47007145 - someone who doesn't speak the language of a country immigrates there, and then demands political rights grounded in "how long you've been here for", specifically in order to oppose attempts to limit immigration.

> trying to learn one of the most difficult languages in the world.

There's no real principled, objective way to rank languages by how difficult they are to learn, except in terms of similarity to languages the learner already knows. Finnish isn't any more difficult than English in an objective sense, you just learned one as a small child from your native community rather than as an adult foreigner.

I only wish other countries would implement the same policies. It seems wrong to me that someone should be able to influence the politics of a country they can't speak the language of.

Why shouldn't knowing a national language be a requirement for naturalization? After all, politics is generally conducted in (a) national language(s).

The requirement to getting a Finnish citizenship is knowing an official language, and one of them is Swedish. As far as I know, it's not one of the most difficult languages in the world.

85% of Americans pay taxes to a federal government that they cannot vote for.

My vote is totally irrelevant. I've moved 3 states in my life. Never once has it mattered because of how we vote. My state will be blue. My congressional district will be blue. I might as well do nothing.

Thankfully I'm a dual citizen with Canada so my vote has mattered there at least part of the time.

So this isn't anything special.

I'd say the EU is in a far more democratic spot by this metric than the US.

Your statement doesn't make sense to me, perhaps you could clarify it? Did you mean that 85% of the population didn't vote for the current leader of the executive branch? If so then perhaps "that 85% [...] did not vote for" might be more appropriate. Or were your referring to the electoral college used to elect the POTUS?

For the first, 100% of citizens cannot vote for the federal government representatives (children, most felons, etc do not have the franchise), and about 1/2 of citizens who are eligible to vote do not. The vast majority of adult citizens can vote.

For the electoral college, that only applies to the POTUS. I agree that the electoral college is deeply flawed. But both senators and congressmen are elected directly. They are the ones who make the laws. The executive branch just enforces and executes those laws. The responsibility for the many vague laws that hand over power to the executive is on congress.

IMO, to say "85% of Americans pay taxes to a federal government that they cannot vote for" is misleading at best.

It's not misleading. I have no idea why people are voting this down. It's just a simple fact.

We have 3 parts of the federal government we can vote for: executive, senate, and house. Yet, the vast majority of people reading this have never cast a vote that mattered in any of those. I certainly have not.

Most states are not competitive when it comes to electoral votes. It doesn't matter if 100% of MA or CA comes out. Whoever is blue-colored will win those EVs. Beyond that, any other vote is worthless and won't change the outcome.

Most states are not competitive when it comes to the senate. Who wins in most races is predetermined by their color affiliation.

Most house races are the same. Many house races don't even have any meaningful opposition because everyone knows who will win.

It's even worse at the local level. Depending on the type of position 60-90% of races are uncontested.

Of course people don't turn out. For 85+% of people it doesn't matter.

> about 1/2 of citizens who are eligible to vote do not

I'm part that majority. No matter how many of me show up even if it was an unlimited number of people, there is literally nothing my vote can do to change the outcome. So yeah. Why waste the time pretending we're in a democracy?

We're in a rule by a tiny minority.

Are you going to let them vote or let them not pay taxes? I know which I'd rather.