7 ms·

It's by design that only people with stable housing can vote? I bet you loved pre-1965 America.

zdragnar 8mo ago
Yes, voting requires some form of residency. That's a pretty basic tenant of any stable representative government. Anything less becomes extremely easy to game.
- systemtest 8mo ago
  There people have residency, they just don't live in a stable form of housing that allows them to register as living in the city. But some of them have lived in the city for years.
moi2388 8mo ago
No, but it should be. I saw your other comment with regards to the Netherlands. If that’s where you’re located, you only need to have a stable location once. Then you can register. Another person can’t unregister you from there, so you can vote even if you then move to a hotel. Only question remains is how you want to deal with mail, but there are workarounds for that.
- systemtest 8mo ago
  In The Netherlands it is illegal to be register at an address you don't live at.
  - moi2388 8mo ago
    Not true. Only when you move to a new municipality, or are out of the country for more than 8 months. Max fine is 325€. You can also go to city hall and give a temporary address. Sounds like you just don’t know Dutch law and options at all tbh.
    - systemtest 8mo ago
      > You can also go to city hall and give a temporary address. You can not. That is not how it works. Sounds like you just don’t know Dutch law and options at all tbh.
      - moi2388 8mo ago
        Yes you can. Briefadres. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gemeenten/vraag-en-antwoord/kan-ik-een-briefadres-krijgen-als-ik-geen-vast-woonadres-heb https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gemeenten/vraag-en-...
        systemtest 8mo ago
        In Amsterdam that is only for the homeless. The people living on the streets. Sounds like you just don’t know Dutch law and options at all tbh.
        moi2388 8mo ago
        Nope. Since 2022 municipalities are required by law to issue it
ecshafer 8mo ago
Actually yes, that is by design. There is a reason the US had property ownership as a requirement to vote in the constitution. Whether removing that requirement was correct or not is up for debate. But there is a distinction in a democracy between an active citizen and a passive citizen. An active citizen is someone that has skin in the game and is a willing participant in the process. A passive citizen is someone that does not engage in the process, or does not actively have skin in the game. The thought espoused in the enlightenment was that someone with property would be tied to the location long term and would therefore have interest in the long term success of that town/state/nation. Someone who is only in a town for a year doesn't meaningfully have stakes in the town. They don't really care if the schools aren't funded well enough, or if the roads don't have long term maintenance budget, they are only going to care about immediate needs. Someone with a house, that has children or grand children, they are going to not only care about now but 30 years from now as well.
- f30e3dfed1c9 8mo ago
  "the US had property ownership as a requirement to vote in the constitution. Whether removing that requirement was correct or not is up for debate." Not serious debate.
- lern_too_spel 8mo ago
  It was because they thought that landowners would direct the votes of the people who lived on that land. The same reason was given for not allowing women to vote. https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 This comes directly from a historical British restriction on voting rights that in turn is an artifact of feudalism. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_1s3.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_1s3.... Ancient democracies, including those of Greek city states like Athens, restricted voting to landowners because prior to the invention of the printing press, only aristocrats could understand the issues being voted on.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 8mo ago
    Yeah I know. My point is that in the US, in 2026, whether voting should be restricted to property owners is not "up for debate," except maybe among a certain set of cranks.
pessimizer 8mo ago
Whatever idea you have about how black Americans live is bizarre. And despite being ignorant of us, you attempt to silence discussions by acting like you are us.
- lern_too_spel 8mo ago
  [flagged]

Yes, voting requires some form of residency. That's a pretty basic tenant of any stable representative government. Anything less becomes extremely easy to game.

systemtest 8mo ago
There people have residency, they just don't live in a stable form of housing that allows them to register as living in the city. But some of them have lived in the city for years.

moi2388 8mo ago

No, but it should be. I saw your other comment with regards to the Netherlands. If that’s where you’re located, you only need to have a stable location once. Then you can register. Another person can’t unregister you from there, so you can vote even if you then move to a hotel. Only question remains is how you want to deal with mail, but there are workarounds for that.

systemtest 8mo ago
In The Netherlands it is illegal to be register at an address you don't live at.
- moi2388 8mo ago
  Not true. Only when you move to a new municipality, or are out of the country for more than 8 months. Max fine is 325€. You can also go to city hall and give a temporary address. Sounds like you just don’t know Dutch law and options at all tbh.
  - systemtest 8mo ago
    > You can also go to city hall and give a temporary address. You can not. That is not how it works. Sounds like you just don’t know Dutch law and options at all tbh.
    - moi2388 8mo ago
      Yes you can. Briefadres. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gemeenten/vraag-en-antwoord/kan-ik-een-briefadres-krijgen-als-ik-geen-vast-woonadres-heb https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gemeenten/vraag-en-...
      - systemtest 8mo ago
        In Amsterdam that is only for the homeless. The people living on the streets. Sounds like you just don’t know Dutch law and options at all tbh.
        moi2388 8mo ago
        Nope. Since 2022 municipalities are required by law to issue it

ecshafer 8mo ago

Actually yes, that is by design. There is a reason the US had property ownership as a requirement to vote in the constitution. Whether removing that requirement was correct or not is up for debate. But there is a distinction in a democracy between an active citizen and a passive citizen. An active citizen is someone that has skin in the game and is a willing participant in the process. A passive citizen is someone that does not engage in the process, or does not actively have skin in the game. The thought espoused in the enlightenment was that someone with property would be tied to the location long term and would therefore have interest in the long term success of that town/state/nation. Someone who is only in a town for a year doesn't meaningfully have stakes in the town. They don't really care if the schools aren't funded well enough, or if the roads don't have long term maintenance budget, they are only going to care about immediate needs. Someone with a house, that has children or grand children, they are going to not only care about now but 30 years from now as well.

f30e3dfed1c9 8mo ago
"the US had property ownership as a requirement to vote in the constitution. Whether removing that requirement was correct or not is up for debate." Not serious debate.
lern_too_spel 8mo ago
It was because they thought that landowners would direct the votes of the people who lived on that land. The same reason was given for not allowing women to vote. https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 https://shec.ashp.cuny.edu/items/show/1645 This comes directly from a historical British restriction on voting rights that in turn is an artifact of feudalism. https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_1s3.html https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_1s3.... Ancient democracies, including those of Greek city states like Athens, restricted voting to landowners because prior to the invention of the printing press, only aristocrats could understand the issues being voted on.
- f30e3dfed1c9 8mo ago
  Yeah I know. My point is that in the US, in 2026, whether voting should be restricted to property owners is not "up for debate," except maybe among a certain set of cranks.

pessimizer 8mo ago

Whatever idea you have about how black Americans live is bizarre. And despite being ignorant of us, you attempt to silence discussions by acting like you are us.

lern_too_spel 8mo ago
[flagged]