This feels like a very disingenuous way of participating in a democracy, and sounds like the kind of strategy that people would be up in arms over if MAGA voters were doing this.
Sure, I guess that's fine if you're okay with playing dirty because the other side did.
Personally that feels like a great way to make sure we ruin things, rather than just arguing that those GOP members helping gerrymander might ruin things.
US citizens are required to pay taxes on global income, regardless of where they live. The US is unique in this regard. Why would US citizens not continue to have the right to vote while out of country? Certainly, if they renounce their US citizenship (and hence, the ability to be taxed as a non citizen non resident), they lose their right to vote.
So you're in favor of exempting minors from federal taxation?
After all, their income is basically a rounding error economically and most don't make enough to pay net federal taxes so it might even be a net loss. There's no real reason to tax them unless it's some perverse Cartmanic exercise in making them accustomed to it.
How is it more disingenuous than any other way of participating, I wonder?
What difference does it make where you vote when you're an expat? You're still taxed and represented.
It would be a different matter if taxes were not involved, at least in my humble opinion. Other countries have revoked voting writes when you're no longer a tax paying citizen.
Well for one thing, the aim is for those leaving the country to change their last registered residence to an area where their vote may have more impact. They never lived there and have no ties to that jurisdiction. You don't see anything wrong with voters that have nothing to do with your area casting votes there on everything from federal elections to local elections and ballot measures?
To me this feels like the kind of strategy that leads to us removing voting rights for expats. If the rule is meant to allow expats to still participating in voting in their hometown, and people abuse that to impact elections they have no real business voting in, eventually that right will just be removed.
> If the rule is meant to allow expats to still participating in voting in their hometown
Is the rule meant to do that? I don't perceive that to be the case. What even is a hometown? What if someone doesn't have a hometown? What if you leave and never plan to return?
Decidedly expats do have real business in voting in elections otherwise this rule would have been removed. But it would be unconstitutional to tax citizens abroad upon depriving them the right to representation so this seems. Given there seems to be no appetite to disowning American expats this all seems moot.
I'm not aware of any other country with this sort of policy. It certainly seems to me that you get precisely what you ask for here, and there is no possiblity of abuse.
