A personal proposition to extend US democracy and improve civics

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps because you are the one who is supporting this idea by the very fact that you posted the OP and seem to be arguing it is a good idea. Who are they going to argue with? The article's author? She isn't here. You are.

The normal procedure is to address the comments that are posted in the linked piece/article.

[Sparko]

The normal procedure is to address the comments that are posted in the linked piece/article.

They have done so. Then you reply to that, and they reply to your comments and viola! they are arguing with... you!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

They have done so. Then you reply to that, and they reply to your comments and viola! they are arguing with... you!

Actually I do not recall anyone quoting from the article. However, you are free to show me I am mistaken.

[Cow Poke]

Actually I do not recall anyone quoting from the article. However, you are free to show me I am mistaken.

I did. A couple times, at least.

[Cow Poke]

Several individuals have responded to this thread as if I am the one who wrote the op-ed piece.

Perhaps you're realizing what a bad idea it was to post it? Trying to distance yourself from it?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps you're realizing what a bad idea it was to post it? Trying to distance yourself from it?

It was posted purely for interest. I do consider Ms Abrahamian made some valid points. However, whether the USA would or could consider extending the franchise for national voting to settled non citizens is obviously a very contentious issue for some.

[Cow Poke]

It was posted purely for interest. I do consider Ms Abrahamian made some valid points. However, whether the USA would or could consider extending the franchise for national voting to settled non citizens is obviously a very contentious issue for some.

The idea stinks out loud.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The idea stinks out loud.

In your opinion.

[Gondwanaland]

In your opinion.

Nah, it objectively stinks.

[rogue06]

Well at least that is a rational reply that resists vituperation and personal abuse, for which I thank you.

I take your points but the argument is being presented that for people spending several years in a country for their work there may be a desire to retain citizenship from their country origin, so that on completion of their contract they may return home.

However, Ms Abrahamian holds that it is not unreasonable to permit non citizens who are present within the USA for some considerable period of time and contributing to the economy in various ways, to have some say in the running of the country.

I agree it would be quite unique were the USA to adopt such a policy as most countries do not permit non citizens to vote in national elections. However, she postulates that it might help revitalise US politics, improve civics, and send a message to the rest of the world for adopting a more encompassing democratic process.

People living in the U.S. who are not citizens also benefit from the same sort of goods and services that taxpayers do with few exceptions.

And while people from other countries here in the U.S. legally are typically honest and productive, those who sneak into the country illegally don't have such a good track record.

[rogue06]

Is this really that hard for you to figure out?

If a locality is stupid enough to allow non-citizens to vote, why should the rest of us have to be impacted by that?

That's one of the great things that's nice about allowing local jurisdictions experiment. You get to see what works and what doesn't.

For example, you get to see leftwing policies suck the very lifeblood out of once thriving cities after decades of Democrat control.

[Terraceth]

Ms. Abrahamian asks why those who live in the USA, albeit not citizens, but hold work permits or green card,; pay their taxes, and contribute as law-abiding members of US society should not have a say in electing the officials who represent them along with US citizens.

She has lived and worked in New York since 2004 but has never had an opportunity to vote,

If she has lived and worked in New York since 2004 then (I believe) she would fulfill all the requirements for applying for citizenship. After becoming a citizen, someone gains the right to vote. Problem solved!

[Cow Poke]

In your opinion.

Does that give you some kind of buzz? OF COURSE it's my opinion.

It is also my opinion that you're a knowed-up ditz who has been educated FAR beyond her intelligence. While that's my opinion, I think there's grounds for it all over this board.

In my opinion.

[Cow Poke]

That's one of the great things that's nice about allowing local jurisdictions experiment. You get to see what works and what doesn't.

For example, you get to see leftwing policies suck the very lifeblood out of once thriving cities after decades of Democrat control.

Yup, and their local experimentionalisticalism shouldn't be thrust above their own jurisdiction. Let them live under their own little governments.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

People living in the U.S. who are not citizens also benefit from the same sort of goods and services that taxpayers do with few exceptions.

And while people from other countries here in the U.S. legally are typically honest and productive, those who sneak into the country illegally don't have such a good track record.

People who live and work legally in the US are also taxpayers, aren't they?

The article was not discussing those who arrive in the country illegally. Therefore your observations pertaining to that are entirely irrelevant.