> Similarly "purchased with cash" with your rent money.
The right being acquired by being in the locality. Homeless people can and do vote.
One can argue it is difficult to verify someone is telling the truth about residency or argue whether six months is a good choice of time period - those are valid implementation questions, but I strongly believe that in a just system, you need to be there.
Suppose a locality is bitterly divided over an issue that affects everyone, and elections centered on that topic come down to the wire. In my county, that issue is upzoning.
If you suppose that elections centered on this issue come down to the wire, it strikes me as unjust to run elections under a system where votes are up for sale, and the outcome of the election can be swung by people who have spent no time in the locality.
Votes aren't "up for sale". You can't buy a vote. You have to buy property, which there is a very limited amount of, and it isn't cheap. And you still only ever get one vote max. And any issue that's "down to the wire" might be decided by any voter. And property owners are people who are quite literally invested in the community, even more so than full-time renters.
But your original question was whether there is any compelling reason for property owners to vote, and I gave you various examples.
It's fine that you think voting should be restricted to permanent residence, but I hope you can see that there are valid arguments on the other side as well.
> And property owners are people who are quite literally invested in the community, even more so than full-time renters.
I don't agree on this point. They are invested in a plot of land, not the people. A house that sits empty for most or all of the year has an extremely adverse opportunity cost to the community even if it generates capital gains for the owner. In fact the best deal a speculator can get is to acquire an empty plot of land and do nothing with it while the land appreciates from everyone else's efforts making the locality more valuable. Putting your life somewhere constitutes an investment in the community. The best deal a resident can get is to have a happy and prosperous life there. Hence why I don't find the reason compelling - the incentives are too misaligned.
I agree there are arguments, but I don't like them. Ultimately the way you determine constituency is going to affect what interest group blocs are represented at the ballot box. Absentee property owners can already vote in their place of permanent residency, so I don't think this deprives them in any way of democratic representation.
Nobody's talking about speculators. And owners aren't usually invested in merely a plot of land, they're invested in a home. That they may live in part of the year and rent out part of the year, quite often. That's being involved with the community.
> Absentee property owners can already vote in their place of permanent residency, so I don't think this deprives them in any way of democratic representation.
It's not about one's fundamental democratic rights, it's about having a say in the issues that directly affect your second home. Things like trash pickup, utilities, and so forth, related to that second home. Not being able to vote does absolutely deprive them of a voice in that.
The right being acquired by being in the locality. Homeless people can and do vote.
One can argue it is difficult to verify someone is telling the truth about residency or argue whether six months is a good choice of time period - those are valid implementation questions, but I strongly believe that in a just system, you need to be there.
Suppose a locality is bitterly divided over an issue that affects everyone, and elections centered on that topic come down to the wire. In my county, that issue is upzoning.
If you suppose that elections centered on this issue come down to the wire, it strikes me as unjust to run elections under a system where votes are up for sale, and the outcome of the election can be swung by people who have spent no time in the locality.