A voice isn't corruption is it? If I talk to my uncle in NH about this bill am I subverting democracy or engaging in it?

If you're just discussing it with him, that's fine. If he specifically asks for your opinion, you're fine to give it to him.

But under no circumstances should you try to unilaterally influence or coerce him in some way. That's overstepping the line.

That would be true regardless of residency. A NH resident doesn't gain the right to harass NH residents into voting a certain way.

What line?

> But under no circumstances should you try to unilaterally influence Why do you believe that to be true? I'm asking as an outside observer, I don't live in the US so I have no real interest in all this.

But, since things are interconnected, and a state isn't just some lonely abstract entity, isn't in your interest to try push for things that are good overall?

Why shouldn't I try to convince people that a certain change is a good thing, even if that change doesn't influence me directly?

>But, since things are interconnected, and a state isn't just some lonely abstract entity, isn't in your interest to try push for things that are good overall?

States are separate for a reason, the people of each state want to do things their own way. For the things we can all agree nationally there is the federal government, but for everything else it's separated at the state level so we step on as few toes as possible.

Spamming a New Hampshire state representative when you aren't in New Hampshire, let alone not in the US, subverts democracy by violating state and possibly country lines.

Again, I personally couldn’t care less about the US politics and I certainly won’t bother spamming your politicians.

Still, to push your reasoning, what if I’m not in NH but I plan to move there in the near future from a neighboring state?

What if I’m planning to move there from another country?

What if the move is not certain but I’m just considering the possibility?

Also, what if I simply think something is a good thing and I want to help promote it?

Are you aware of how common this type of behavior is? Where are you purposing to draw the line? Should we not even discuss local and state elections on the internet to prevent outside voices from swaying the views of voters? Should we not report on these elections?

A free and fair election is about ensuring that eligible voters are informed, that they have access to the ballot box, and that those ballots are accurately counted.

It's fine to discuss others' affairs, but actually going as far as to contact state representatives (read: spam them) when you aren't their constituent over stuff like this is a subversion of democracy.

You may or may not like what's going on in New Hampshire, but if you aren't a New Hampshire resident with voting rights you don't get to have any say in their affairs.

I'd support that principle if outside corporations like Microsoft and Adobe weren't allowed to lobby either.

"Speech is corruption" is a bad take.

I remember my mother telling me a story of how she was dragged for interrogation after undercover cops overheard her and her friend talking about political situation in communist Poland.

It's a dangerous territory you're trying to propose.

This feels more like an identity-politics-adjacent opinion. I don't think it's as unarguable as you're acting like to say that such a thing is corrupt. It's at worst an open question.

Do New Hampshire residents read HN?

Maybe, maybe not. Wouldn't surprise me if there are at least a few.

What OP and the article are asking is for someone in, say, Belgium or Canada or Texas to go and contact a New Hampshire state representative about a strictly New Hampshire state affair. Talk about making unnecessary and inappropriate noise for New Hampshire's democracy.

Democracy by obscurity, a new concept.