I’m an American Living Abroad Permanently. Should I Vote in U.S. Elections?

I’m a dual Swedish and American citizen and have lived in Sweden for the past five years, with no plans on moving back to the United States. I have a Swedish husband, pay Swedish taxes and vote in Swedish elections.

I still maintain my American citizenship and file taxes in the United States every year. But I’ve made a choice not to vote in U.S. elections. Because I no longer live (or plan to live) in the States, I don’t think I should have a say in selecting its government.

I have expat friends who strongly disagree. They all vote and think that I should. What’s your take? — Kim

From the Ethicist:

Here’s the big picture. People have all sorts of intuitions about what gives us the moral right to vote. Some people think that the slogan “no taxation without representation” somehow implies “no representation without taxation” (and, given the tax treaty between the United States and Sweden, Americans living in Sweden often don’t owe income tax to the United States). But about 40 percent of U.S. households owed no income tax in 2022 — which didn’t mean the adults in those homes had no reason or right to vote. If, as many people believe, residency is the key factor, how long should you be a resident? Is it fair to disenfranchise people who aren’t citizens or have been convicted of a crime? What if you’ve been here for a long time but spend most of the year elsewhere? Does having made a contribution to your country over a period mean that you should be allowed to vote even after you’ve retired to another country? The moral basis for voting rights is going to depend on things that come by degrees, while the legal rules will have to be sharp.

A reasonable conclusion is that people granted the legal right to vote are morally free to exercise it — whether or not some theory of representation suggests that they should have that right. There are a great many considerations relevant to deciding who should have the right to vote and no unique way to balance them all correctly. Given that the reason you have the vote isn’t wildly unjust, I say you can go for it.

So you may vote, morally speaking. But must you? Do you have a duty to vote, as some of your fellow expatriates evidently believe? You do not. A responsibly exercised vote is, I agree, an important civic contribution in a democracy. But that doesn’t mean the United States should join those countries, including Argentina and Australia, that make voting mandatory. For one thing, people who vote should be people who care about voting, and people who have to be forced to vote probably don’t. They’re surely less likely to take the choice seriously and exercise it responsibly as a result. If we want more people to vote, we might instead make voting easier, with holidays for elections, lots of polling booths with short lines, mail-in and online voting options and other such measures. That won’t guarantee responsible voting. But then — a point Bertolt Brecht made in a memorably satirical poem — it isn’t as if we can elect another electorate.

OK, so you don’t have to vote. But would it be a good thing for us if you did? Would it do you any good? Not that I can see. Voting, so it seems to me, is an expressive act. It’s a way of committing yourself to your country. If you vote, you’re part of the winning bloc or the losing one. It’s a way of being invested in an outcome. You’re now invested, politically, in Sweden and not in the United States. Whatever your legal status, that’s a choice you’re morally free to make.

Readers Respond

Last week’s question was from a reader whose husband was experiencing cognitive decline. He wrote “I’m in my early 70s, and I’m married to a man in his 60s. My husband’s father struggled with Alzheimer’s for almost a dozen years before he died. It was incredibly hard on everyone involved. And now my husband is in the midst of his own health crisis. He has had some significant cognitive decline in the past two years, which affects his ability to function to his satisfaction. … This causes him so much shame. He says he no longer belongs in this world. His dysfunction reminds him of his father’s decline, and he doesn’t want to put himself or others through that pain. … He has started to talk about suicide and is afraid I will stop him. He has asked me to commit to letting him choose his time of death. Frankly, I respect his choice and believe he has the right to decide for himself. He has also asked for help in researching the best way to kill himself. I have considered trying to help him with that but fear that I am committing or abetting a crime. What’s the ethical thing to do?”

In his response, the Ethicist noted: “We are, I agree, entitled to decide that losing the cognitive functions necessary for a life of autonomy deprives us of the possibility of a dignified existence. And so we’re entitled, in my view, to make plans to end our lives when that happens. … I will say that, inasmuch as it isn’t morally wrong for your husband to end his own life, it isn’t wrong for you to provide the advice that he requests. But to deny that an action is wrong isn’t to say that it’s necessarily wise, or anyway, that you should hastily pursue it. Right now, your husband — distraught, suffused with shame, anguished by the prospect of sharing his father’s fate — could be prone to acting precipitously. … Advance care planning, prepared while your husband is legally competent, can give him at least some control over his medical future. In the meantime, I’d urge him to consider that his current impairment doesn’t mean his existence offers nothing of value, to him and to those who care about him.” (Reread the full question and answer here.)

⬥

I appreciated the Ethicist’s thoughtful and nuanced response to this painful situation. It is quite possible that the writer and his husband’s assessment of the situation is accurate; however because of his family history, and fear of having inherited his father’s illness, the writer’s husband may have overlooked another possible diagnosis, which is major depression.— Margaret

⬥

The man facing dementia and his husband may benefit from seeing a therapist, both separately and together. There they can explore the many feelings and issues involved to get a fuller perspective on the situation. As with anyone considering suicide, there are always more options than we realize. — Sally

⬥

One thing the Ethicist did not mention that might help this man and his husband is to seek out counseling from an end-of-life psychologist who specializes in counseling elder people facing this exact dilemma. They address these concerns in an objective manner that a spouse, relative or friend is unlikely able to provide. — Andreia

⬥

As a hospice nurse, I see this situation all too often. There are several ways to hasten the end of one’s life, albeit none without some discomfort, either physical or moral. Talk to your physician. He or she may have additional advice or resources. — Sylvia

⬥

Dementia is a very ugly disease and there are no simple answers when it comes to the question at hand. The quandary is: How does one live with oneself in the now, and how does one live with oneself in the after? — Edward

If you are having thoughts of suicide, call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or go to SpeakingOfSuicide.com/resources for a list of additional resources. Go here for resources outside the United States.