Quote:
Originally Posted by edslunch
It’s up to each country to decide, and there’s nothing wrong with Canada’s position, regardless what other countries do. Voters have a say in the future of the country and should be committed to the country long term IMO. Someone who is here temporarily voting for their immediate interests isn’t necessarily looking out for the future of the country. (Not that that doesn’t describe many Canadian voters too)
|
OK, well people very clearly believe there might be something wrong with that position, and that we should be open to discussing it.
I don’t know if you missed how this started, but this was the comment: “seriously how does a motion pass 9-6 at YYC council to explore granting voting rights in municipal elections to permanent residents who are non-citizens? Seriously how was this not laughed out let alone have the support of the mayor and 8 councillors.”
If “drawing the line at citizenship as a demonstration of commitment to the country” is a valid argument against even exploring the idea of granting voting rights in municipal elections to permanent residents who are non-residents, explain why. I’ve brought up valid counter arguments to that, including democratic countries and state that do not draw the line there (specifically for municipal elections, but also for federal elections), so you actually have to put in more effort than “there’s nothing wrong with the way we’re doing it” as opposition to considering doing it any other way.
Do you believe cities, provinces, or countries should be open to exploring the way other democracies do things as a means of improving their own, or do you actually believe that any discussion like that should be laughed out of the room because there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with the way we do things, ever?
And, if citizenship really is where we draw the line, why is it OK to restrict some citizens from voting in some elections in this country (from municipal to federal)? (or is it?)