election tomorrow

[cos]

Tomorrow, Tuesday May 15th, is the general election for the open seat on the Somerville Board of Aldermen. The two top candidates from last month's primary, Marty Martinez and Jack Connolly will be on the ballot.

Polls are open 7am - 8pm, and you can find your polling place at WhereDoIVoteMA.com. All Somerville voters can vote in this election (election info from the city).

Many people who voted in the primary will forget to vote again tomorrow, so both candidates need some new voters as well as many of their supporters from April as they can get. If you're supporting Jack, this is your chance to make a comeback; if you're supporting Marty, don't assume he'll win. Vote!

Comments

[cos]

I honestly don't know France well enough to answer that question. I would have no particular expectation.

If I were an American student living in Massachusetts 8-9 months a year and spending the remaining 3-4 months partly "back home" in, say, California, and partly elsewhere, I'd certainly expect to be able to vote in Massachusetts and in the municipal elections for the town my school residence were in.

However, this is a marginally-related tangent. We're not talking about expectations: Somerville's immigrants don't expect that they can vote, but that doesn't change my opinion that it would be better for Somerville if they could.

Nor are we talking about part-time residents: Somerville has a lot of noncitizen immigrants who live in Somerville full time and have been for years. Somerville also has a lot of students who are away for months each year, who are eligible to vote in Somerville.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

I didn't ask about students, part-time residents, or people from California. US citizens can already vote, so there's no need for debate there.

My question, reframes, is how long would you need to live in a foreign country before you think you should be able to vote in their city elections?

"Somerville has a lot of noncitizen immigrants who live in Somerville full time and have been for years."

So you're advocating that only immigrants seeking permanent residence should be allowed to vote?

[cos]

My answer is that that's not what this is about. In other words, my answer to your question was "mu". We already allow people who move here to vote in municipal elections right away (subject to the 20 or 30 day registration deadline), even if they come from very far away. What we're talking about is the distinction between citizens (allowed to vote) and noncitizens (not allowed to vote) - without any regard to how long they've been here or where they moved from. You could be an American citizen because you were born to a soldier in Germany, grow up in Germany, move here at age 40, and vote the following month. You could have grown up in Somerville from age 2 months, be a noncitizen when you turn 18, and not be allowed to vote. This isn't about length of residence. If you want limitations by length of residence, advocate for those. We don't have them.

I have no problem with anyone who actually lives in a city voting in its elections, even if they just got there recently. So I would oppose voting restrictions based on length of residence. However, that's a completely different matter, and I don't appreciate your trying to change the subject without acknowledging that you're changing the subject. You seem to be trying to imply that citizens are obviously from here, noncitizens are obviously not from here, and this is a good reason for noncitizens not to be allowed to vote. Not only is that not true (some noncitizens are more "from here" than some citizens), but it also completely ignores what I said, which is that it would be better for Somerville if noncitizens were allowed to vote, not that they have an expectation of voting or a right to vote.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

If you want limitations by length of residence, advocate for those.

Actually, from your post I thought you were advocating that. You keep talking about how long people live here.

You seem to be trying to imply that citizens are obviously from here, noncitizens are obviously not from here, and this is a good reason for noncitizens not to be allowed to vote. Not only is that not true (some noncitizens are more "from here" than some citizens), but it also completely ignores what I said, which is that it would be better for Somerville if noncitizens were allowed to vote, not that they have an expectation of voting or a right to vote.

Right now we've got a simple rule: you have to be a citizen to vote. What rule are you going to replace it with? Do you want a system where someone can come in, show an address, get registered, and vote the same day? You're down on length of residency requirements, so what's your alternative? Relying on the essential good nature of man?

If residency is good enough to vote, then what about local business people? If someone owns a business in Davis Square, but they live in Medford, should they be able to vote in local elections? If someone has had a business in Davis for 20 years, he'd likely to know far more about local politics than most of the people who're voting. So if residency is all that matters, why not him? Aren't his views just as valid as a non-citizen who's living here?

[turil.livejournal.com]

I would say that anyone who has an honest interest in Somerville should be able to vote on at least some Somerville issues. If you live here, do business here, have to travel through here, or even live a few streets away, you definitely have a good reason to care about what happens here.

I think the main thing that people are afraid of is that whole "us vs. them" thing. And I think the way to get around that is to create a more collaborative government that aims for the best solution to problems, rather than a less effective solution that benefits only the majority or even a minority.

[heliograph.livejournal.com]

So would you limit who could vote at all? Or anyone who cared enough to vote in local elections would be all the qualification you needed?