The absentee ballot is made for this situation. It is essentially the same geographically-displaced situation as active duty military are in.

We end up shrugging at the inevitable question of how informed a voter the student is on any but a national election. It comes with the territory.

They should be treated like we in the military were. You only vote where you are an official resident.

So because someone has moved into an area, specifically to better themselves, they aren't allowed to influence local politics?
Why is going to college any different than moving to the area to work? Most college students aren't getting a free, parent-funded ride. They take out loans, while working side jobs for living money. The money that they give to local colleges and universities provide jobs and tax income for those same communities.
Tell me again in what way they aren't productive members of society?

Dude. They're college students. They aren't productive anything of anything.

MD: Is it a productive cough?

Dr Katz, Professional Therapist: I don't know. I'm not using it for anything.

For DC residents, it may be your only chance to vote for a member of Congress.

I'm seeing one hell of a lot of ignorance here, and I don't get why it's present.

You want to vote locally, you damned well register to vote locally, giving your local address. You eventually go away, you register again, somewhere else.

At college age, this doesn't come up a frightful lot, as the 18-23 year olds aren't thrilled with doing wide-world politics, finding it tedious or variously discomforting. Generally, it takes ten years more or even longer to take an interest.

The problem being, UG, that some folks don't want the college students to be able to register locally. Hence, the flyer from the Iowa Republicans and our discussion. I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of 18-23 y.o.'s, just noting that there are people that don't want them to exercise their franchise locally.

GD right.

In that case, headsplice, the locals-only manger dogs should not be allowed to have their way about it. Instead, they should recruit likeminded people, on the campus, into their faction. Natural competition, just like The Dartmouth v. the The_Dartmouth_Review.

I vote in the town that I go to school; it was a vague semi-hawkish decision that I don't really know how to rationalize anymore; something about being more interested in voting in '06 in NY than in OR.

But, as a question in the abstract: Change of residency seems almost to be on hiatus when in school; NY flatly states that, for the purposes of gaining residency (i.e. in-state tuition rates), for at least one year your primary reason for living in NY has to be something other than higher education. This makes me think that I can retain my OR residency, insofar as the DMV, my heart, etc, are concerned (never fully changed to NY residency), while voting and paying taxes (working only NY jobs, to avoid part-time-resident tax forms) in NY...

Which really comes to the crux of the issue. Whether or not college students work, providing direct income tax for the town/etc, they're consumers on a vast scale, providing semi-direct income. It seems only reasonable to permit some political input, however flaccid.

Poor college students are a souce of some income at a local level. But rich tourists contribute hugely to a local economy. Tourists are not allowed to vote.

Shouldn't the term "if any" be inserted after "tourists?"

I don't think so. Tourist areas are like areas that have college students. Some have them, some do not. The US has become a hot tourist destination as the dollar declines in value.

It seems to me that this argument is denied when talking about migrant workers - their contribution via consumption is dismissed as negligible as they send their wages home. Just a thought.