| Submit your comments on this article |
| Europe |
| Voting restrictions urged |
| 2007-07-12 |
| Norway's most conservative party thinks it's too easy to acquire voting rights in Norway, and wants tougher eligibiity requirements. Only Norwegian citizens are eligible to vote in national elections, but anyone legally residing in the country for three years can vote in local elections. The Progress Party, also known for its restrictive immigration policies, wants to usher in citizenship requirements for local elections as well, reports Norwegian Broadcasting (NRK). With local elections looming in September, the Progress Party also wants to restrict voting rights to those who can pass written exams in the Norwegian language and general knowledge of the country. Per Willy Amundsen, the party's spokesman on immigration issues, said that proposed exams are meant to make sure that non-Norwegian voters really understand the issues at stake. The Socialist Left Party (SV) dismissed the Progress Party's proposal as "discriminatory." A party spokesman told NRK that voters not familiar with Norwegian should rather be given extra information on the issues Ballots in Norway are printed only in Norwegian, but SV has prepared election campaign material in eight different languages in advance of the September elections. SV also offers both English and Spanish versions of its web site. Curiously, the Progress Party also offers foreign-language versions of its web sitein English, German and French, while several of its rivals don't. The Labour and Liberal parties offer an English web site, but neither the Center Party, the Christian Democrats nor the Conservatives offer information in any foreign language. The Center Party, best known for championing support to Norway's farmers and outlying districts at the expense of its cities, offers a "Sami" link, but it, too, is in Norwegian. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #4 i think D, since the time between when she self-confessed to the resitrar and the voting privelige was pulled was quite lengthy and the dog was in fact registered over a period of 3 elections. one was sent back voided by her and included a paw print to show a 'signature.' |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-07-12 18:04 |
| #3 So, was he registered as a Democrat or a Republican? If the article doesn't mention it, I would guess Democrat. |
| Posted by: Rambler 2007-07-12 17:22 |
| #2 Related story: out here on the left coast a woman got her dog registered to vote by simply putting her utility bill in his name. after the bills started coming in, she took the bill to the King County (Seattle) clerk's office and got Fido on the voter rolls. never exercised it, but wanted to prove a point. now the law is looking to charge her and give her some time in the slammer. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2007-07-12 15:17 |
| #1 Democracy without voting restrictions is self-destructive. In the US I believe voter registration should require passing a basic citizenship test. In writing. In English. I would also like to see a requirement that voters not be on significant public assistance either, but that's got too many administrative and moral problems to be practical. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2007-07-12 07:49 |