Why You Should Never Take Kate Carraway to IKEA
Polling Booth: "Kick a Ginger" Controversy
Subway Suicide Statistics Released
The Daily Photoist: November 25, 2009
Newsstand: November 25, 2009
Every week (or so), two Torontoist staffers square off to debate an issue that's important to our city. We invite our readers to join the debate in the comments section following the post.
Last week, a panel discussion at City Hall kicked off a campaign to extend voting rights in local elections to Torontonians who are not citizens. Although Mayor David Miller supported the idea during last years municipal elections, thus far no provincial political party has announced a position. Would an extended franchise be an example of true democracy in action, or would it trivialize the meaning of citizenship? As always, Torontoist has a couple of different opinions on the subject.
|
KEN HUNT Extending the franchise to non-citizens for municipal elections makes perfect sense. After all, we are not ‘citizens’ of a city (despite the origins of that word), and it doesn’t matter whether you were born in Toronto, or whether you moved here from Mumbai, Dublin, or (God-forbid) Winnipeg: we should all be treated equally. There is no test for becoming a Torontonian. Voting in municipal elections is based on residency and land-ownership. Citizenship should have nothing to do with it. The basic argument is about fairness. No taxation without representation, and all that. From a municipal standpoint, we all participate in the city the same way and the issues the city has to deal with affect us the same way. Non-citizens pay the same rate of property taxes, and the same fare to ride the TTC. The only thing that’s different about us is the passport that we hold. In Federal elections, where we elect representatives who deal with international relations and issues where citizenship is a meaningful consideration, then it makes sense to limit the vote to citizens, but potholes don’t care what passport you hold. Mayor Miller has said that he is behind non-citizen voting in order to improve representation and diversity on Council, but at the provincial level the left has been slow to embrace this issue. I’m not sure that this is because of some adherence to philosophical notions about the meaning of citizenship; I think that they are just running the numbers in order to see how this would affect election results. While there are a lot of poor immigrants in Toronto who would suddenly be enfranchised under a plan like this, there is no assurance that those people would vote even if they could. Statistically, it’s not likely. However, there are a lot of wealthy expatriate Americans and Brits who live in the city, or who own land here, and if they had the right to cast a ballot it’s likely that they would. So, there is no guarantee that extending the franchise would be a boon to one side or the other. What is guaranteed is that the whole process would be more fair and open. There are those who want to turn this into a debate about what it means to be Canadian. This is far off-base. The right to vote in municipal elections isn’t a selling feature of Canadian citizenship and it doesn’t need to be. If the most compelling reason you can give someone for why they should become a Canadian is that they’ll finally have a say in whether or not their street gets a speed bump, then you’ve lost the idea of what it means to be a Canadian. People should get their citizenship because they believe in Canadian values. Values like inclusiveness, fairness and equality. It is those very values that point to the idea that we should all have the right to vote in the city where we live.
| PATRICK METZGER The idea of allowing non-citizens to vote in municipal elections is one that has yet to attract the support of any major political party, and if common sense prevails, it won’t do so in the future. The proposal may seem almost sensible on its face. After all, surely those who live in the city should have some say in how it’s governed, even if they’re lacking the paperwork that would make them official citizens of the country. That argument ignores the fact that the majority of eligible immigrants, and in fact of all Torontonians, don’t vote in municipal elections at all (41% of eligible voters participated in the most recent contests). Expanding the pool of civic apathy is unlikely to make any difference in the stated goal of ensuring “inclusiveness”, whatever that means. Still, there’s little doubt that the idea will appeal to some politicians, who will see the potential benefit in cultivating a group of voters predisposed to support those who secured their enfranchisement. Such is the nature of democracy, and appealing to ethnic, religious and other groups in the hopes that they will vote as a bloc has been standard operating procedure for years. This simple-minded viewpoint misses the larger question that must ultimately impact the country as a whole. What does it mean, after all, to be a Canadian? The meaning of citizenship has already been diminished to the point that there is virtually no distinction between a resident and a citizen, apart from the right to hold a passport and to vote. New immigrants and refugees already share all the legal and civil rights of citizens, are entitled to social benefits, and indeed are the beneficiaries of many taxpayer funded training and support initiatives. Voting is one of the last areas in which participants are asked to demonstrate some commitment towards the nation in which they have chosen to live, even if that only means meeting a short residency requirement and answering a 15 minute quiz. Are we ready to discard even these minimal criteria, and accept that to be a Canadian simply means having been fortunate enough to have stepped off a plane onto the northern part of the North American landmass? In Canada, voting has always been the right of every (adult) citizen. But the concept of citizenship implies not only rights but responsibilities, and an allegiance towards certain fundamental principles of the particular nation-state of which one claims to be a member. To abandon this most basic of standards suggests that it is time to give up pretending that Canadians share any common values, and to accept the future of the nation as disparate groups of squabbling self-interested entities, each working to manipulate the system to their own ends, and succeeding according to their numbers and political influence. |
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm not a citizen, and I'd like to be able to vote in municipal elections, because right now, municipal election-wise, I simply don't live ANYWHERE:
As a Dutch citizen I'm registered to vote in Dutch elections, and I diligently do so by mail or internet every time an election comes around, but the Dutch government (and I think any other country) only lets expats vote in federal or European elections. I can't vote in provincial or municipal matters, because I don't live in a Dutch city.
If I can't vote in Dutch municipal elections because I don't live THERE anymore, I should be able to vote locally in the city I live NOW. Obviously I can't vote in federal elections, because I'm already voting in another country and I only have one passport. That's simple and fair, and I'm not complaining about that at all. But at a municipal level eligibility to vote seems to depend on "you live here" or "you don't live here", and I most certainly live HERE. Unlike federal politics, municipal decisions affect me as much as any other Torontonian, and I know enough about the local politics to make informed decisions on who to vote for.
Eva, you make some good points. Thanks for posting.
I'm wondering: would you be allowed to vote in Amsterdam (for instance) if you happened to own property there? Also, are non-Dutch citizens allowed to vote in municipal elections in The Netherlands?
Just curious.
In almost every other form of municipal participation, the relevant characteristic of a person is not citizenship, but residence (generally defined in terms of property tax payment... either directly, as a homeowner, or indirectly, through rent).
A citizenship criterion makes sense for federal voting, in that decisions made on Parliament Hill affect all Canadians. This is true to a similar, but lesser, extent with Queen's Park. But the City of Toronto's jurisdiction is sufficiently limited in scope that, in my view, the democratic value of every member of a political community being able to influence the laws to which they are subject should win out over populist fear of the unknown. Laws made in Toronto affect only Toronto, and all Torontonians should be able to elect the representatives who draft, pass, and administer those laws.
Most people I've discussed this with fall back on the selfish (but factual) complaint that an expanded franchise will dilute the power of their own vote. That's true, but the same thing happens any time a citizen moves to Toronto.
Why should a just-landed internal migrant from Newfoundland -- or wherever else in Canada -- have full civic participation rights, while non-citizens who may have lived here for years have none? Perhaps a proposal for allowing non-Citizen residents of Toronto with 5 years or more of tenure might allay some people's concerns.
I'm not sure how low voter turnout is relevant reason to oppose an expanded franchise. If anything, it's an argument for giving non-citizens the vote, because non-voting (but eligible) non-citizens are not a threat to those who fear the results of some hegemonic non-Canadian voting bloc.
Err, or something. Sorry for the ramble.
Against: "In Canada, voting has always been the right of every (adult) citizen."
Unfortunately, this is false. See Elections Canada:
Well, you got me there Greg, but you can attribute it to an error of language, or possibly of logical thought, rather than an actual belief that universal suffrage has been a constant throughout Canadian history. What I should have said was that that's how it's supposed to work now.
The lower voter turnout argument against extending the franchise is that it wouldn't achieve its intended goal regardless, because new immigrants typically don't vote for reasons that have little to do with eligibility.
I just became a citizen about three years ago, but for many years prior to that I always received voter registration cards and could have voted with just a drivers license as id. It seems entirely possible to me that interested non-citizens are voting anyway.
I am totally pro-non citizen voting. For all the reasons listed above, but also because while the test of citizenship is not onerous, it does cost money. My partner, and his parents are all landed and have been here for over 30 years. His parents are retired and can't afford the test, so to get all of them citizenship is a bit of a hardship. In fact, it is only in the past 5 years that the citizenship test would have been affordable. Canada offers some good dreams and they live a very adequate life, are not on social assistance (until now - they get CPP), but it certainly hasn't been lucrative. But they should get a say in pothole repair, TTC and services. If you've lived here over 5 years, why not?
Ken, re: no taxation without representation. Well, it is possible that a person could pay tax in all sorts of jurisdictions based on purchasing goods or services, income earned there etc. If I get a dividend from a Japanese company, I may have to pay tax in Japan. If I buy dinner in Detroit, I may pay Michigan sales tax. But it would be ridiculous to suggest that I should then get to vote there.
Eva, if the laws in the Netherlands changed to allow you to vote municipally, should the law here revoke your right to vote here? Not sure this argument is all that logical.
Greg, re: Laws made in Toronto affect only Toronto, and all Torontonians should be able to elect the representatives who draft, pass, and administer those laws. Well, that would apply to Canada and Ontario in the same way, so your distinction as regards Toronto cannot be supported by this argument.
My vote is Against.
As a 'non citizen' I would love to have a say in the running of the city I spend most of my time in. Whether I 'deserve' to or not I feel is for the citizens to say.
I can't say that I feel the same about national elections, I don't feel connected to Canada in the same way I do to Toronto.
Personally I would like to be able to vote; I think I am more educated than the average Torontonian about local matters. The fact that I was born in the US doesn't change the fact that I live here year-round, pay taxes and am directly influenced by what happens at City Hall.
Then again, I doubt I would be enfranchised by this anyway; I only have a temporary visa.
Ken, I looked it up, and in Holland you're only allowed to vote in the province or municipality in which you actually physically live. So even if you have property in five cities, you only live in one of them, and that's the one you can vote in. You have to register at city hall if you move to a new town, and I remember people having to vote in (and for) their old town if they moved close to the election date.
GH, that answers your question too: there IS no municipality for which I COULD vote in Holland, because they only ever let you vote in the city where you are registered as actually living, and that can be only one. (Or none, in my case. I had to register as expat.) I don't see how the law could be changed to make me allowed to vote there. What city would I vote for? All the ones I ever lived?
GH: There is a distinction between Toronto, Ontario, and Canada, but I did not make it clearly.
My point was that non-citizens voting in Toronto would be able to have a say in the laws that affect their immediate community and only that community, not affecting the imposition of laws on residents (citizen or non-citizen) in places with which they have limited or no experience. Municipal issues are by definition local, and on such issues non-citizens could be judged competent to make rational choices by virtue of some period of experience as a resident of that relatively small area, rather than on the basis of having been screened, tested, evaluated, and accepted as a permanent citizen with all that entails.
As voters making decisions about local issues, it is not necessary that they be formally admitted to the national political community... that kind of 'test' of familiarity with nation-wide culture and institutions might be necessary when weighing broad issues of national or constitutional significance.
Interestingly, no one has addressed the issue of born-here citizens being given the vote without any test of competence other than having lived enough to hit the age of majority. Is a citizenship test for voting just a matter of an exclusive club wanting to pick-and-choose its members, or are we basing exclusion on some assumption of incompetence, ignorance, or other deficit in reasoning inherent in non-citizens? Or is it just 'they haven't earned the right yet'?
Patrick: I would argue that the goal of non-citizen voting isn't to ensure that non-citizens do vote, but to see to it that they may vote. Is the present franchise a failure because not all eligible voters do so? I would argue that the goal of elections isn't to get maximum turnout, but to provide maximum opportunity to turn out.
The right to vote, like other rights, should not be withheld from a group because they might not always avail themselves of it. The right to freedom of movement, for example, isn't in the constitution to achieve the goal of everyone leaving.
It's simply daft to argue that one's place of birth should exclude her from voting in a self-proclaimed democracy.
Don't I pay the same taxes, ride the same GO train, get just as apalled at MPP's generous 25% self pay raise and paltry 3% min wage raise, or watch the same Howie Mandel repackage the greed and curves show from a star and tripe variety into a maple syrupy and loonies flavour?
Just because I first entered this country through a customs checkpoint and not through a maternity ward, does not make me less of a human being in any respect, least of all, having an equal say in how my life should be governed.
My meta-vote is for non-citizen municipal voting rights. I can't really add to the arguments already given; it just makes sense that someone contributing to the local economy (sales taxes, income taxes, whathaveyou), a resident, someone who will will be effected by city-level policies no matter their citizenship, should be able to have a say.
My take is similar to that of GH; surely non-citizens are just as affected by decisions on education, healthcare, and criminal law that are made at other levels of government as they are by municipal matters. Recall the old saying - all politics are local. In that case, surely everyone in the country should have the right to vote in all elections.
I get the sense from some of the comments that there is support for that position. You've already read my take on that, so I won't expand further. If you don't agree with it, it's not the kind of thing I can drag out statistics to prove one way or the other.
As to the notion that it's somehow unfair that someone born here automatically has the franchise, I'm not sure I get that. An immigrant only has to live here for three years - or more accurately, have an address here for three years - to acquire citizenship, while someone born here typically lives in the country for 18 years before voting(although I acknowledge that someone could move away as a child, return as an adult and still vote. The system has flaws).
GH: Taxation without representation. Obviously there are many times and many ways that we would pay a tax without getting a say in how that money is ultimately spent. If I pick up a coffee at the Cleveland airport, I don't need a say in where the 12 cents in tax goes.
However, when someone pays thousands of dollars in taxes every year to one government or another, there has to be a very good reason to exclude them from a say in how that money is spent. That compelling reason just doesn't exist at the local level. There are no barriers to understanding the issues and there are no conflicts of interest. So why exclude, except out of some notion that citizenship should trump common sense.
Patrick - I think your point about Federal and Provincial policy affecting non-citizens living in Toronto misses the mark by this reason: policy made and implemented at that level affects a broad range of Canadians and Ontarians across large geographic areas, citizens who have in common rights and responsibilities agreed to in the Charter, Constitution and whatnot. However, we are neighbours and citizens in abstract - while I pay PST along with my brothers and sisters in Kenora, they are really far away. The non-citizen who's been here for a couple of years who lives and works in Scarborough is within walking distance. We breathe the same air, drink the same water, travel the same transit system, drive on the same roads, eat at the same restaurants [well, maybe...], go to concerts together, drop kids off at community centres, work in the same office tower, etc. We avail ourselves of the same services here in the City.
Provinces are part of the nation-state that is Canada. There is a substantive difference between being a citizen of a nation-state and a citizen of a city. But then this entire debate reveals many of the flaws and assumptions about our 'democracy' and our common ability to affect politics on both Provincial and Federal levels.
In Ireland, non-citizens can vote AND stand for office in municipal elections. European Union citizens can vote in national elections and European Parliament Elections I think. Only Constitutional Referendums and the Presidential Elections are solely reserved to citizens of Ireland.
@Patrick M - in reality if an immigrant takes vacations or other absences it takes maybe 3.5-4 years to reach *1095 days in Canada* per the CIC formula. I know this because I hit that threshold 16 days ago.
On top of that citizenship processing is currently running at 12-15 months according to CIC. Therefore a new citizen may not get to vote for up to nine years after immigrating if they become citizens just after the election of fixed 4-year term governments.
There are all kinds of variations on the theme, and the jury is still out on what might work best. How about this, in Belgium:
"Under the new rules non-European Union foreigners living in Belgium will be eligible to vote in the country’s municipal elections.
However, certain conditions are attached to the new voting rights.
Non-EU foreigners must have been living in Belgium for at least five years before becoming entitled to vote.
Any foreigner who wants to take advantage of the new legislation must also sign an oath of allegiance to the Belgian constitution, formally agree to respect the country’s laws and sign the European Convention on Human rights.
Also, non-EU foreigners will not be able to stand as candidates in local elections."
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=4889
The Belgian arrangement sounds reasonable to me, Patrick. Basically a semi-citizenship ritual, in the sense of swearing allegiance to be basic tenets of the state's legal/political structures without being subjected to a fee or a test (beyond a period of residence).
I recall from a class on electoral behavior that folks from all over the Commonwealth can vote in UK elections if they appear in person (no mailin' it in).
I can´t really add that much to the arguments in pro of non-citizen voting in municipal elections. I entirely agree that it´s only fair. I´ve become a Canadian citizen 2 years ago and would have liked to have been able to have a say in the running of the city where I live. When I came to Canada I ceased to be able to vote at the municipal and provincial level in Brazil since those are based strickly on residency rather than property.
I like the Irish example. It shows inclusiveness and gives all residents of a city a say.
This is outrageous! Under NO circumstances should non-citizens be able to vote in ANY election. Voting is right given only to those who have attained citizenship by either birth or naturalization. Even though I have lived in Canada since I was a year old I had to become a Canadian in order to vote. This is a bad idea that cheapens citizenship. Miller is a desperate vote-whore who will probably lose the next election. Our citizenship laws are so lax anyone can become a citizen after only 3 years. If you want the privilege of voting make that important step of taking out citizenship. If not either shut up or go back where you came from!