Essentially, EU citizens register to vote for local elections just like everybody else (by filling in the annual electoral register form).
However, because the electoral services department is obliged to inform the authorities in the country of origin that the EU vote is being exercised in the UK, would-be registrants need to fill in an additional form EC6 in order to take part in the European elections.
Encouragingly, I was told, the department had sent out "a fair few" forms EC6 and received most of them back.
This inspires me to think that:
It is this that European legislation forbids for the EP elections. Thus countries must obtain a declaration from the EU resident citizen that s/he will not be voting in the home country. This is what founds the entire separate treatment of registration for the two elections.
If it is a function of registration, and say you have two residences in which mayoral elections come one year apart, then I could imagine someone re-registering between each local election, and voting in both places. This would be possible both within a country and between EU countries -- and would be entirely legal. Which kind of takes away the point of barring voting in both places. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On an even broader note, I don't just want a common EU-wide registration (or, rather, automatic maintenance of lists...), but EU-wide party lists to vote on... *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Local elections are usually all held at the same time - in France, certainly, and it seems to me elsewhere. But between two countries, your scenario is possible. If we want to imagine people motivated to go to all that trouble just to vote in local elections.
By the way, there is voting on two national elections, too. Something entirely legal. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
two national elections, too. Something entirely legal.
?
In Germany, to vote in regional elections, all it takes is usually having German citizenship and having your (main) domicile (resulting in automatic registration) or residence there for the prior three months. This allows even voting in two elections at the same time (if your main domicile is in one and you live in another).
In Austria, both local and regional voting right is bound to residence, thus multiple voting is possible even within a state and at the same time (in local elections if you have multiple residences in the same state). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
You're in favour of this as a model of European citizens' viting rights in which elections, which context? If in one type of election, why not another (or all)?
In my view, an election is an exercise in which individuals connect into a collective democratic body by renewing a collective institution with power over them. Be it locals electing a major, residents of a county electing a county council, residents of a state electing a regional parliament, citizens of a country electing a national parliament, or EU citizens electing an EU parliament.
Thus, I say, there should be one voter one vote in a single election -- but a local election in the same country, not to mention local elections in multiple countries, is not one election but several parallel ones. Parallel not in the sense of voting for your local representative, but in the sense that the democratic bodies are different, as defined by the different, what's more disjunct collective institutions (councils/mayors/whatever with power over separate cities/villages).
Hence, I san't see the equality you see between voting twice in two countriesd in the same EU election, and voting in local elections in multiple places.
What I sought to bring up then was examples of parallel votes at other levels than local elections: votes in two national elections (notjust) within the EU, votes in two regional elections within the same federal country.
Further, I sought to counter your insistence on ensuring that one can vote in one local election only with two types of examples/arguments: practical problems with implementing it, and opposite practice in places other than (apparently) France.
The practical was that when parallel elections are held at different times (like local elections in different countries or within a federal country, regional elections within a federal country, or national elections within the EU), you can't exclude people who moved in the time in-between -- even if, in theory, they are moving back and forth with a frequency allowing them to vote in every election at both places. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
My principle is that is someone can be expected to be affected by the decisions of a territory-based elected institution, then s/he should be part of the democratic body. To express that in a simpler way: voting rights based on residence over some period of time.
It follows from that that I am little troubled by people with multiple residences voting in multiple local elections: they are affected by all (and in all likelihood, are also paying taxes to all).
However, I am sorry something else also follows which some of the expats on ET won't like: I am troubled by expat voting from abroad. I don't think it's right to grant someone the right to influence the government of an area based on a sentimental attachment when they won't suffer the results, while an immigrant living there for years (and paying taxes) has to be just a sitting duck. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Then again, how many EU countries are we speaking of? Two or three? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
They had little choice: or else, they would have to synchronise the local elections electoral calendar across Europe, and force countries/states already allowing votes in multiple local elections nationally/regionally to remove that right.
Meanwhile, the French system is still not clear to me: how exactly does it prevent registration for multiple local elections? Is there a field on the registration form where you have to declare that you won't vote elsewhere (similar to those discussed for EP elections)? And/or is there communication between local election authorities? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
In 1998 they had introduced automatic update of voter lists with the military census (obligatory for all 17 yo in France), which I did in a town, yet also renewed my ID in my parents town and wound up in two voter lists ; by the next year one of the two municipalities had wrote me off their list. Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères
European Parliament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Under the Rome Treaties, the Parliament should have become elected. However the Council was required to agree a uniform voting system before hand, which it failed to do. The Parliament threatened to take the Council to the European Court of Justice leading to a compromise whereby the Council would agree to elections, but the issue of voting systems would be put off till a later date.[15]
That is, already the requirements of the Treaty of Rome were not met, or met late and under duress - never mind what seems to be a similar problem with Maastricht.
HOW THE EUROPEAN UNION WORKS
2. Vote of non-resident nationals in the countries of originIn the United Kingdom the right to vote of citizens resident abroad is confined to civil servants, members of the armed forces and citizens who left the country less than five years before, provided they submit a declaration to the appropriate authorities. Austria, Denmark, Portugal and the Netherlands only grant the right to vote to their nationals living in an EU Member State. Sweden, Belgium, France, Spain, Greece and Italy grant their nationals the right to vote whatever their country of residence. Germany grants this right to citizens who have lived in another country for less than ten years. In Ireland and Hungary the right to vote is confined to EU citizens domiciled on the national territory.
2. Vote of non-resident nationals in the countries of origin
In the United Kingdom the right to vote of citizens resident abroad is confined to civil servants, members of the armed forces and citizens who left the country less than five years before, provided they submit a declaration to the appropriate authorities. Austria, Denmark, Portugal and the Netherlands only grant the right to vote to their nationals living in an EU Member State. Sweden, Belgium, France, Spain, Greece and Italy grant their nationals the right to vote whatever their country of residence. Germany grants this right to citizens who have lived in another country for less than ten years. In Ireland and Hungary the right to vote is confined to EU citizens domiciled on the national territory.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Each state in the US controls its voting, even in national elections, and determines its own rules concerning absentee, or early voting.
There are deadlines for making these arrangements, and for the acceptance of the ballots for counting purposes, usually requiring that any mailed in ballots received are postmarked by a certain date.
I seem to recall that in 2000(?), this led to a problem when some ballots coming from the military were not postmarked, which raised a question about whether or not they should be legitimately counted.
I realize that you are talking about people who are resident in "foreign" EU countries, but I wonder if such a system would be feasible, especially if foreign residents intended to vote in their local "home" elections. I feel uncomfortable intruding in this discussion, as an outsider, but this thread just made me think of the absentee ballot, and early voting systems that states have put into place. Obviously the US has other problems with our election system.
When you register to vote, you are asked to state that you are a US citizen and indicate if you are currently registered to vote in another town/city. If you are registered elsewhere, the new town then notifies the old town that you are now registered in the new town and should be removed from the voting roll of the old town. (This system seems quite archaic, but that's what it is)
But there are always questions about our voting system here which is why some people think we should have some kind of voter identification system--as it is right now, when I go to vote in any election, I walk into the voting place and talk to the election ladies who sit behind a table checking off peoples' names as they come in to vote. They ask me first my address: street and number. Then they ask me my name. I answer them verbally; no papers or identification card is shown. They hand me a ballot, which I fill out at a little desk. When I am done, I take it to another group of election ladies at the back of the room and again tell them my address, then name, which they too check off. I then insert my ballot into the counting machine under the watchful eye of the police officer. There is another cop somewhere around the front door too. And that is it. And, by the way, neither the election ladies, nor the police officers know me.
One problem that has come up locally is that a couple of well known public figures participated in and voted in their "hometown" local elections, yet they allegedly lived in another city. In one case, the individual owned an apartment in the town where he voted, but apparently had not lived there for years. But, presumably, in those cases, the individuals only voted as a "resident" in one hometown, not two. This doesn't really matter in national or even state elections, but it could matter in a local election.
One safeguard is the fact that registration and voting is a public act, so a person's voting record is accessible and can be questioned. (Your actual choice is not known, but your party affiliation, if any, and the fact that you voted is known.)
In at least some cities, there is another safeguard which is the local census which is sent out once a year, which you are supposed to sign as head of household to account for all the family members, and any dogs, living under your roof, under threat of removal from the voting rolls.
The system is far from perfect, and there have certainly been accusations over the years of various kinds of cheating, dead people voting, etc.
Again, the system here is crazy. Every state has different voter registration requirements and processes (though there are some Constitutionally mandated guarantees--states can no longer prohibit women from voting for example). One lesson of Bush vs. Gore in 2000 was that the Supreme Court said the states are in charge of the voting results in their own state, and if the State of Florida says Bush won the state of Florida, Bush won there, period. Whether or not election officials can be certain that none of the Florida voters voted in other states ultimately doesn't matter.
The first part enables the British electoral authorities to send feedback to the "home country" that the citizen has opted to vote in the UK for EP elections until further notice (second part).
