San Francisco Appoints First Noncitizen to Serve on Elections Commission | KQED
San Francisco Appoints First Noncitizen to Serve on Elections Commission | KQED
Kelly Wong's appointment is the result of a 2020 voter-approved measure that removed the citizenship requirement to serve on San Francisco boards, commissions and advisory bodies.
She's essentially there to help with getting non-citizens to vote in local elections, which is a completely legal thing to do. None of those people are able to vote in federal elections, so it's comical seeing people absolutely freak tf out that our country is devolving into anarchy.
which is a completely legal thing to do.
Which is the entire fucking problem.
A lot of these people are legal residents, pay taxes, and are just as interested as you or I in our schools, environment, and public safety. Many of these local laws and policies affect them directly. By allowing them the ability to vote in local, non-federal elections, it gives them a voice and helps to prevent discriminatory and xenophobic policies that can directly affect these people.
It's also interesting to note that a lot of these people would love to become full citizens, but its a massive time and monetary investment that many of them can't always afford to go through. So why treat them as sub-human? Why view their ability to have a voice as being "the entire problem"? What is it do you think they are able to do that is so bad by voting in these local elections?
You do realize that its not a good thing that non-citizens vote, right?
If they pay taxes why can't they vote?
Noncitizens aren’t totally barred from voting in San Francisco. In 2016, after multiple attempts in previous years to pass a similar measure, voters approved Proposition N, which allowed San Francisco noncitizens to vote in school board elections if they had a child who went to school in the district.
What's wrong with voting in school board elections?
Why?
I think the discomfort with this situation comes from very foundational conservative thinking. It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom. Including noncitizens in voting upsets this hierarchical model, where outsiders oughtn't have any political clout at all.
But there's another element of conservative ideology that is violated by including noncitizens in the electoral process. It is zero-sum thinking that posits any gain for one group results in a loss to another. So handing out rights and and opportunities for political participation will diminish the the rights and opportunities for the rest of us.
As a leftist, I can understand this reasoning and see that it is a functional way of organizing and dealing with people and situations, as long as you are ok with the consequences of of the hierarchal model. I feel that the advantages of such an approach are far outweighed by the disadvantages. It is, at it's core, antidémocratic. I personally don't think it's worth it to accept those consequences, nor do I think zero-sum applies well to issues like rights or matters of common good.
It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid:
No, it isn't. I have never heard that from a conservative at all.
It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom.
Wtf are you talking about? Where did you hear that?
It's like you guys are unaware of the ideological assumptions that color all of your opinions. Is it shocking to hear that social conservatives believe in hierarchy? Is it surprising to be told that religious conservatives believe there is an overarching authority to which all of humanity, and all of nature is subject? Is it news to you that inequality is seen as inevitable, and this is why liberal ideas about forcing equality on everyone are seen as foolish?
Why then is there any objection to feminism? Why the opposition to DEI programs? Whats wrong with migrant refugees getting US government assistance and why did Ronald Reagan complain about "welfare queens"? What is the problem some people have with young men becoming young women? Is there not some philosophical thread that connects these things as wrong or bad or out of order? It's because they all seem to violate deeply held assumptions about social order.
If you've never heard of Edmund Burke (called by many the father of modern conservatism) you should absolutely read up on him. He definately makes a case for heirarchy. I'm sure you have heard of Jordan Peterson who tries to claim that hierarchy is part of the natural order by famously pointing to lobsters. Peterson is less of a political thinker, but an alt-right hero I suppose, who dresses up conservative christian talking points with academic sounding language.
Anyway I feel like I made my case, debate it or not I don't care. it seems super funny to me that I am called on to justify a connection between conservatism and hierarchy. It's like if I said "water is so important to fish" and immediately wintermute is like " what? I literally never heard a fish say anything about water you are making that up you got a cite forr that?"