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.
