[Constitutional Convention][7][28 Sept 2013] Voting Rights for Citizens Abroad

Brussels Sprout

I'd be in favour of giving Irish passport holders living abroad the right to vote in Irish elections with 2 conditions

1) They have to have been a resident in Ireland in the past 10 years
2) They have to go to the nearest Irish embassy or consulate to cast their vote

The first condition would be to exclude people who are too detached from the country or who possibly may never even have lived in Ireland (e.g. children of emigrants). The second condition would impose an inconvenience on voters and would therefore weed out people who may otherwise vote "just because they can" rather then because they are interested.

jank

Without question Irish nationals should have a say who the president is. It's a ceremonial position and precious tax policy cannot be dictated by him or her.

hfallada

I believe only people resident in Ireland should be allowed to vote as they are actually affected by the decision making. Irish media is far from reliable at times. Yet some one voting in a place like texas is relying on them to make a good judgement.

There is too many Irish abroad to make it work. Dont forget that my grandchildren can be Irish citizens even if they were raised in Canada, by their Canadian born parents. Just because they have a Irish grandparent. There are so many Irish people abroad that it can't work

Feathers

hfallada wrote: »

I believe only people resident in Ireland should be allowed to vote as they are actually affected by the decision making. Irish media is far from reliable at times. Yet some one voting in a place like texas is relying on them to make a good judgement.

There is too many Irish abroad to make it work. Dont forget that my grandchildren can be Irish citizens even if they were raised in Canada, by their Canadian born parents. Just because they have a Irish grandparent. There are so many Irish people abroad that it can't work

So do you think that citizenship itself should only be given to first generation Irish & that it should lapse after a certain amount of time away from the state?

VinLieger

Feathers wrote: »

So do you think that citizenship itself should only be given to first generation Irish & that it should lapse after a certain amount of time away from the state?

This is where we delve into the diaspora debate, why should somone 2 generations removed from the country be given citizenship and potentially a vote?

Cody Pomeray

hfallada wrote: »

There is too many Irish abroad to make it work. Dont forget that my grandchildren can be Irish citizens even if they were raised in Canada, by their Canadian born parents. Just because they have a Irish grandparent. There are so many Irish people abroad that it can't work

Yeah but that's why the example of Lithuania was given. Most European countries give the vote to their emigrants in some form. But Lithuania is similar to us in terms of population, in terms of having a huge diaspora, huge ongoing emigration, and in terms of the "Granny" rule for citizenship.

And yet only 3% of their diaspora actually vote. So it seems like it may not pose much of a problem.

VinLieger wrote: »

This is where we delve into the diaspora debate, why should somone 2 generations removed from the country be given citizenship and potentially a vote?

Given citizenship - because the country should recognize the disproportionate levels of emigration this country's people have had to endure. We should recognize that although they had to leave and gather families in foreign countries, we still recognize them as our people.

Given the vote - well look around you. Look at all the young people leaving, and where are the protests? Nowhere. People are protesting having to pay for septic tanks but not protesting about losing their children and friends to Australia and Canada. Why? Because those who go lose their voice, and this perpetuates the cycle of emigration.

Feathers

VinLieger wrote: »

This is where we delve into the diaspora debate, why should somone 2 generations removed from the country be given citizenship and potentially a vote?

I'm not arguing for it, I'm just raising it as a question — if rights and responsibilties aren't universal for citizens, what does the concept of citizenship even mean? Why not scrap citizenship past one generation & scrap dual citizenship?

Mucco

Feathers wrote: »

Mucco wrote: »

I can't see beyond the moral hazard question. Why should I get a say in the running of the country, when I do not have to live with the consequences of my vote. If someone can provide a good reasoning why this is not important, I may change my mind, so I welcome the debate.

I would say because the running of the country does have consequences for you. Not to the same extent as someone living in Ireland, agreed; but that is why it would be reasonable to get lesser representation, rather than no representation.
As a simple example, if there was a referendum in the morning for Ireland to leave the EU, you would very much have to live with the consequences.

You've raised an interesting point. A referendum on the EU is something that would affect me directly. However, on reflection, I think this is my exact point.
If the residents of Ireland feel that they are not getting value from the EU and want to leave, then they should not be prevented by the self-interest of those living abroad.

VinLieger

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Given the vote - well look around you. Look at all the young people leaving, and where are the protests? Nowhere. People are protesting having to pay for septic tanks but not protesting about losing their children and friends to Australia and Canada. Why? Because those who go lose their voice, and this perpetuates the cycle of emigration.

Their families left here are still capable of voting arent they? They are just as affected.
To me it is still not a reason to give people living abroad whether its by choice or due to economic circumstances a vote

Cody Pomeray

VinLieger wrote: »

Their families left here are still capable of voting arent they? They are just as affected.

No, i don't believe so.

They are one man 'down'.

The emigrant is 'down' all of his community and friends. His right to earn a living may have been made virtual and meaningless; his family and personal life has been gravely disrupted.

Typically, this citizen will have borne no blame for the economic catastrophe that has befallen the country.

Our old foe selective bias means that so long as every advancing, emigrating young generation remain voiceless, every subsequent young generation faces the prospect of emigration and national incompetence.

If you don't give people the right to their retribution, you deny them a fundamental democratic voice.

Feathers

Mucco wrote: »

You've raised an interesting point. A referendum on the EU is something that would affect me directly. However, on reflection, I think this is my exact point.
If the residents of Ireland feel that they are not getting value from the EU and want to leave, then they should not be prevented by the self-interest of those living abroad.

But one of the biggest rights we've gotten personally from the EU is the right to free movement within the Union. You, by exercising that right, are no less a citizen than someone remaining in Ireland & are no more inflicting your self-interest on them as they are inflicting their self-interest on you.

Feathers

VinLieger wrote: »

Their families left here are still capable of voting arent they? They are just as affected.
To me it is still not a reason to give people living abroad whether its by choice or due to economic circumstances a vote

That's the same argument that was made against women's suffrage — sure their families can vote, can't they? Why do they need their own vote.

munchkin_utd

VinLieger wrote: »

This is where we delve into the diaspora debate, why should somone 2 generations removed from the country be given citizenship and potentially a vote?

which is why many countries link it to a previous provable residence in some way shape or form.

Germany has it that you have lived in the homeland for at least 6months and you then can vote from then on. In Ireland this could be done through PPS nr or for folks before that scheme provable school attendance or the likes.

UK has it that you can remain on the voters register, which you are only on if you are a resident in the first place.

Such a condition that more or less limits it to emigrants is no threat to Irish democracy as there would not be a (potential) flood of clueless 3rd generation irish voting.

VinLieger

Feathers wrote: »

That's the same argument that was made against women's suffrage — sure their families can vote, can't they? Why do they need their own vote.

Your honestly trying to equate womens suffrage with people living abroad? Thats a straw man argument if i ever heard one

Cody Pomeray

VinLieger wrote: »

Your honestly trying to equate womens suffrage with people living abroad? Thats a straw man argument if i ever heard one

That's a deflection if ever I've seen one.

Not trying to speak for Feathers, but Feathers seems to be likening the "family will vote for them" argument to that which was said of suffragettes, and not directly comparing emigrants to suffragettes.

It's a legitimate comparison. Why? Because no right thinking citizen would accept being disenfranchised on the grounds that "ah sure, you would have voted Fine Gael like your old man anyway".

These are typically citizens who are taking responsibility for their lives, demonstrating ambition, and not content to live on welfare, and are often very well educated. The irony is that these are one of a number of categories of citizens we need the most, and we seem determined to to our best to alienate them completely. Well done again, Ireland.

VinLieger

I really dont know what your looking for cody? Ive already agreed that maybe a time limited system would work where say if they lived in the country for minimum 10 years then they can vote here for another 4-5 or something like that, but a blanket across the board vote for every person who claims citizenship even if they have never lived here and never intend to is ridiculous

RangeR

VinLieger wrote: »

I really dont know what your looking for cody? Ive already agreed that maybe a time limited system would work where say if they lived in the country for minimum 10 years then they can vote here for another 4-5 or something like that, but a blanket across the board vote for every person who claims citizenship even if they have never lived here and never intend to is ridiculous

However, the constitution, as it stands, makes no differentiation on citizens who live here and who have never lived here, and all types in between. So, it's already allowed excepting that the Government doesn't facilitate it. Or am I reading the book wrong?

Are you saying that we should restrict certain citizens types from voting?

VinLieger

RangeR wrote: »

However, the constitution, as it stands, makes no differentiation on citizens who live here and who have never lived here, and all types in between. So, it's already allowed excepting that the Government doesn't facilitate it. Or am I reading the book wrong?

Are you saying that we should restrict certain citizens types from voting?

Im saying there needs to be a line. Take the example from a few posts back with a child born in canada whos parents were both born in canada however it has 1 grandparent from ireland therefore they can claim citizenship and be allowed vote even if they have never stepped foot in the country and never intend to do so? I cant see how anyone could see that as making sense.

munchkin_utd

VinLieger wrote: »

Im saying there needs to be a line. Take the example from a few posts back with a child born in canada whos parents were both born in canada however it has 1 grandparent from ireland therefore they can claim citizenship and be allowed vote even if they have never stepped foot in the country and never intend to do so? I cant see how anyone could see that as making sense.

it doesnt make sense which is (again) why a system like in Germany or the UK where a provable previous residence within the borders of the state in some shape or form would be a prerequisite.

Handy to implement and eliminates the theoretical flood of possible voters from USA/ Canada etc (which wouldn't actually happen due to them not giving a cráp but anyhow) and also deals neatly with the northern Ireland potential voter problem.
Because as much as everyone gets in a tizzy about a million potential yanks voting who in reality wont, its really the issue of 800,000 odd nationalists living in Northern Ireland who WOULD exercise their right to vote which could distort/ influence matters greatly.

clairefontaine

munchkin_utd wrote: »

it doesnt make sense which is (again) why a system like in Germany or the UK where a provable previous residence within the borders of the state in some shape or form would be a prerequisite.

Handy to implement and eliminates the theoretical flood of possible voters from USA/ Canada etc (which wouldn't actually happen due to them not giving a cráp but anyhow) and also deals neatly with the northern Ireland potential voter problem.
Because as much as everyone gets in a tizzy about a million potential yanks voting who in reality wont, its really the issue of 800,000 odd nationalists living in Northern Ireland who WOULD exercise their right to vote which could distort/ influence matters greatly.

Oh so this nonsense law is really about not letting sin fein get too popular?

It's weird that otherness can run for president but can't vote in the election.

VinLieger

clairefontaine wrote: »

Oh so this nonsense law is really about not letting sin fein get too popular?

It's weird that otherness can run for president but can't vote in the election.

Well i would be of the opinion that he shouldnt have been allowed either and not because of his political stance but beacause A. he wasnt born in the south and B. he has never properly lived here for a prolonged length of time

clairefontaine

VinLieger wrote: »

Well i would be of the opinion that he shouldnt have been allowed either and not because of his political stance but beacause A. he wasnt born in the south and B. he has never properly lived here for a prolonged length of time

President McAleese is also from the North. So you can hold office but you can't vote?

VinLieger

clairefontaine wrote: »

President McAleese is also from the North. So you can hold office but you can't vote?

Read my post again and what ive said in other posts several times instead of accusing me of saying things i never have

Feathers

VinLieger wrote: »

Your honestly trying to equate womens suffrage with people living abroad? Thats a straw man argument if i ever heard one

Comparing rather than equating — I wouldn't have put it forward as a comparison either, except for the fact that you put forward a bit of a silly reason to deny people a vote.

VinLieger wrote: »

Im saying there needs to be a line. Take the example from a few posts back with a child born in canada whos parents were both born in canada however it has 1 grandparent from ireland therefore they can claim citizenship and be allowed vote even if they have never stepped foot in the country and never intend to do so? I cant see how anyone could see that as making sense.

I'd see this an issue more with who we give citizenship to, rather than who can vote as a citizen.

Let's say Ireland decided to bring in conscription via referendum — any citizens outside the country could still be drafted. Going by other countries with compulsory service, this doesn't normally get enforced for those overseas, but they could still be required to serve in the army if they returned(or moved) to Ireland.

The Irish government can pass laws that affect all citizens. As such, all citizens should have a vote. If we're not happy for certain categories of people having a vote (like third generation Canadians), why not remove their eligibility for citizenship?

VinLieger

Feathers wrote: »

Comparing rather than equating — I wouldn't have put it forward as a comparison either, except for the fact that you put forward a bit of a silly reason to deny people a vote.



I'd see this an issue more with who we give citizenship to, rather than who can vote as a citizen.

Let's say Ireland decided to bring in conscription via referendum — any citizens outside the country could still be drafted. Going by other countries with compulsory service, this doesn't normally get enforced for those overseas, but they could still be required to serve in the army if they returned(or moved) to Ireland.

The Irish government can pass laws that affect all citizens. As such, all citizens should have a vote. If we're not happy for certain categories of people having a vote (like third generation Canadians), why not remove their eligibility for citizenship?

How can laws the government pass affect citizens who live on the other side of the world? Honest question here

Also i agree we need to look at who we give citizenship to really feels like were giving it out as breakfast cereal pizes at this stage

clairefontaine

VinLieger wrote: »

How can laws the government pass affect citizens who live on the other side of the world? Honest question here

Also i agree we need to look at who we give citizenship to really feels like were giving it out as breakfast cereal pizes at this stage

Well not beng able to vote affects them for a start.

How about the amount of men who have had to emigrate and leave wives and children behind? It will affect their children. Lets say laws around family law for example, things like fathers permissions for things? Or legislation around education? That would certainly affect emigrants who still have children in Ireland.

Feathers

VinLieger wrote: »

How can laws the government pass affect citizens who live on the other side of the world? Honest question here

Also i agree we need to look at who we give citizenship to really feels like were giving it out as breakfast cereal pizes at this stage

With the example of conscription, I was saying if they come to Ireland in the future.

Other examples would be America's tax policy of citizens being required to send money back to the IRS & if Ireland left the EU, anyone abroad within Europe would be affected.

VinLieger

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well not beng able to vote affects them for a start.

How about the amount of men who have had to emigrate and leave wives and children behind? It will affect their children. Lets say laws around family law for example, things like fathers permissions for things? Or legislation around education? That would certainly affect emigrants who still have children in Ireland.

Thats very true, but theres so many others who wouldnt be directly affected like that. In that specific case the idea of having been resident for 10 years(or whatever) would apply

clairefontaine

Feathers wrote: »

With the example of conscription, I was saying if they come to Ireland in the future.

Other examples would be America's tax policy of citizens being required to send money back to the IRS & if Ireland left the EU, anyone abroad within Europe would be affected.

This is one reason why I can see them letting emigrants vote. But you will also see the entire diaspora renouncing their Irish citizenship.

clairefontaine

VinLieger wrote: »

Thats very true, but theres so many others who wouldnt be directly affected like that. In that specific case the idea of having been resident for 10 years(or whatever) would apply

In that case maybe its a better idea to change the criteria for citizenship. The US recently ammended its code for US citizens born abroad. Their parent must be a US citizen that can prove residency for a set time before the birth.

Also remember that Ireland does not have terra forma citizenship rights. It's OT enough to be born there, you must have a parent who is a citizen and also be a resident for a number of years.

If you attach voting rights through residency, then how do you feel about Ireland's immigrants voting, since the consequences will affect them directly?