Title : "The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires."
link : "The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires."
"The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires."
From "There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote" by Atossa Araxia Abrahamian (NYT), who favors "lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren’t citizens — people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers."
The proposition quoted in the post title is untrue, but it's a widely held belief, that it's better to have more people voting. But every person who votes offsets someone else's vote — up to the point where you have the voters who provide the margin of victory and determine the outcome. It might feel nice to see that a lot of people voted, but each person who shouldn't be voting vote — put to the side the question who "shouldn't" be voting — can be paired with someone who voted for the other candidate, and those 2, taken together, don't affect the outcome.
Then you can't say the more voters, "the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires." The sneaky thing about that phrase is "peoples'." Who are "the people"? Argue about that. I'm not engaging with that question. Go ahead and think about whether noncitizen residents with green cards or citizen nonresidents with dual citizenship should be participating in producing the outcome. All I want is recognition that it is wrong to say that the more voters, the more accurate the outcome.
Have you ever walked to the polls with somebody who you knew was going to vote for the candidate you were going to vote against? I have. And it's quite obvious, when you do that, that it makes no difference whether the 2 of you go through with the voting activity or whether you walk past the polling place and go get an ice cream cone and talk about the weather.
Have you ever declined to go for that walk to the polling place when you knew your voting companion was going to vote for the candidate that you, if you went along, could not bring yourself to vote for? I have. And maybe I could refuse to think about it — but I'm not that kind of person — but it's painfully obvious to me that by failing to cancel that my companion's vote, I left a vote for his candidate uncancelled. And what does that say about the "peoples' desires"? My nonvoting had an effect. It expressed my desire, a weaker desire than the desire of the person whose vote I did not cancel.
From "There Is No Good Reason You Should Have to Be a Citizen to Vote" by Atossa Araxia Abrahamian (NYT), who favors "lifting voting restrictions on legal residents who aren’t citizens — people with green cards, people here on work visas, and those who arrived in the country as children and are still waiting for permanent papers."
The proposition quoted in the post title is untrue, but it's a widely held belief, that it's better to have more people voting. But every person who votes offsets someone else's vote — up to the point where you have the voters who provide the margin of victory and determine the outcome. It might feel nice to see that a lot of people voted, but each person who shouldn't be voting vote — put to the side the question who "shouldn't" be voting — can be paired with someone who voted for the other candidate, and those 2, taken together, don't affect the outcome.
Then you can't say the more voters, "the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires." The sneaky thing about that phrase is "peoples'." Who are "the people"? Argue about that. I'm not engaging with that question. Go ahead and think about whether noncitizen residents with green cards or citizen nonresidents with dual citizenship should be participating in producing the outcome. All I want is recognition that it is wrong to say that the more voters, the more accurate the outcome.
Have you ever walked to the polls with somebody who you knew was going to vote for the candidate you were going to vote against? I have. And it's quite obvious, when you do that, that it makes no difference whether the 2 of you go through with the voting activity or whether you walk past the polling place and go get an ice cream cone and talk about the weather.
Have you ever declined to go for that walk to the polling place when you knew your voting companion was going to vote for the candidate that you, if you went along, could not bring yourself to vote for? I have. And maybe I could refuse to think about it — but I'm not that kind of person — but it's painfully obvious to me that by failing to cancel that my companion's vote, I left a vote for his candidate uncancelled. And what does that say about the "peoples' desires"? My nonvoting had an effect. It expressed my desire, a weaker desire than the desire of the person whose vote I did not cancel.
Thus articles "The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires."
You now read the article "The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-strongest-case-for-noncitizen.html
0 Response to ""The strongest case for noncitizen voting today is representation: The more voters show up to the polls, the more accurately elections reflect peoples’ desires.""
Post a Comment