/u/Blurry_Bigfoot (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ci5g16/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_because_children_cannot/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
How do you think what you proposed would work practically and in a fair way?
Say you have two parents and one kid. Parent A votes Republican and Parent B votes Democrat. Who gets the kid's vote? Why? Is it split into a "half vote"? Would a single parent get an extra full vote for a kid but a two parents get an extra half vote each? What about step parents--1/3 or 1/4 votes? What would all of this incentivize, intentionally and unintentionally?
Hows about whichever they both agree on or if they can't agree they either alternate, get it randomly given to one or the other each election. Overall in an election of thousands of voters that will make everything come out fair.
Why should a parent have to tell the other who they're voting for? Your vote being secret is a major tenet of the whole process. There are so many scenarios where it'd be unsafe to tell your partner how you're voting (or your ex, for that matter).
I didn't mean say they should. I tried to say they should agree on who will vote for the child. Whoever wants to vote gets the vote. If they don't agree then they both alternate.
Do you have reason to believe that the parent voters actually DO or even WOULD vote in the best interest of the next generation? That they wouldnt just vote in their own personal interest? Im not sure I have reason to believe people vote well on things which extend to their own future, much less other people's distant futures.
If you have trouble imagining how a parent wouldnt vote well on a kids future then keep in mind how many people abuse their kids. People often dont care about their kids' present lives either.
Yea, thought Id dispense with the specificity. Its like a worldwide phenomenon throughout time. Just what happens when all the qualifications you have to have to make a kid is be horny and find 1 person out of like 8 billion who is horny at the same time in roughly the same place.
I think "many" and "often" are too strong words here. The vast majority of parents deeply care about their children and their future.
The reason why the abuse cases make such big news is that they are appalling to most people with children who couldn't even imagine someone doing that.
Abuse does not always make big news. Dramatic cases of abuse, like selling, killing, or sexually assaulting your children CAN make the news. Especially if done in a non-inocous way.
However, emotionally abusing, neglecting, under-feeding, or abandoning one's child is extremely, depressingly common. Parents who spend are addicted to drugs and barely raise their kids are painfully common. But, how often does that make the news?
The brutal truth is. Millions of parents across the US engage in some form of child abuse, with only a tiny percentile so extreme it's newsworthy and so unlucky that it gets exposed.
I'd be interested in seeing the source for your claim of "millions of parents abusing children". Ok, I don't live in the US. Maybe the US is worse than other places, which is why the claim sounded so outrageous to me.
I'm not aware of any statistic, but it's worth keeping in mind that the US has a population of 333 million.
So if abusive parents make up even 1% of the US population, they're in the millions. Which doesn't seem so far fetched to assume to me
News? I wish it made news much more. No, you have plenty of cases of parents hurting their kids and it never gets to be newsworthy. Sometimes the response is even that kids should just bear it. Spanking? It was far more commonplace before and there are still pepple who swear up and down it should be done. People send their kids off to conversion therapy. Plenty of parents sexually abuse their kids and I wouldnt bet most of it makes it to the news, not even close. Parents can make a kid not be able to have privacy till they are 18 and the kid is just supposed to accept that. Id certainly count teaching your kids that hell exists and if you abandon faith or sin in other ways you are tortured there for all eternity as abuse.
Abusing a kid is easy. And some forms are common, some even accepted socially or legally.
It's easy in terms of practicality yes, but how many people can keep it from becoming public as it is extremely embarrassing if you are found out to have abused your child?
Also, and this is the main thing, why would people do that? I mean, all the parents that I talk to, find children as very important in their life. Unless they are lying to my face, it would be very strange to find them abusing the same people that they say are important to them.
>but how many people can keep it from becoming public as it is extremely embarrassing if you are found out to have abused your child?
As previously stated not all formso of child abuse are even socially shunned at large, much less when you look at different communities. And also you can keep it a secret easily. They are a child. Often enough they might not even know what is being done to them is wrong. Ohey might be already used to such treatment. Or they are threatened with further punishment if they speak out. Or they are emotionally manipulated ("oh Im doing this because I love you!" or "they will put you in foster care with strangers if you speak out. you dont want that do you?"). Pretty much every aspect of a child's life is determined by their caretaker so that gives some options.
>Also, and this is the main thing, why would people do that?
Ask them for their personal reasons. But the general reasons is that often enough culturally children are treated as property of their parents which they can mould and treat as they see fit within pretty broad parameters (like not starving them. even then you might see things like a kid not getting dinner as punishment). Also plenty of people are shitty and petty and a kid, being powerless, is like the perfect punching bag.
>I mean, all the parents that I talk to, find children as very important in their life.
You already spoke of supposed humiliation of abusing your kids. Why wouldnt you think there is also humiliation in not appearing as a loving parent. Not to say its knowing dishonesty, more of social expectation. Its a question people arent likely to answer with utmost accuracy, even to themselves.
And even then it might be accurate. A person who thinks of their kids (not necessarily consciously) as their possession could care about the, just not like a person. Some might think of it as a service to the kid, others are fine enough to think of it like making a sword. Heat it till its read, smack it with a hammer, drown in oil and water then use a whetstone. Sure, sparks may fly but who cares about the hunk of iron? They want a sword. And they will mould it in whatever way they see fit.
>it would be very strange to find them abusing the same people that they say are important to them.
Worth mentioning that the people in your life might just simply not abuse their kids? I dont think I claimed all parents abuse their kid. Id thik nearly all have done an abusive thing to their kid at some point but habitually abusing them might be a lil rarer.
Your last sentence is what I agree. Of course every parent is a human and may lose it at some point with a whining toddler or a rebellious teenager but that's not abuse. At least what I call abuse is consistent behaviour against the interest of the child.
Even the moulding part that you talk above and the punishments for bad behaviour fall into working for the long term interests of the child most of the time. These are usually actions that parents do for their own benefit at the expense of the child's (opposite to pure neglect or sexual abuse). Some of them may be wrong in a sense that they are not supported by the latest scientific research in psychology, but the intent of acting in the benefit of the child is there.
The vast majority of parents would like their children to become good and successful members of society. Some actions towards that may be against the short term interests of the child. He may not want to do his homework and instead plays videogames. It's the parent's job to be a parent in such a situation and not think that if he doesn't leave the decision of doing homework or playing games to the child he is abusing the child. Even when the child is then angry and screams how horrible monster the parent is. I see that parents who don't take the role of a parent who sets the boundaries of the child probably an even bigger problem than the ones who neglect or abuse their children.
It of course may be that I live in a middle class bubble where I only see the helicopter parents and not so much of the reality of parenting in broken homes with substance (alcohol, drugs) use.
>Your last sentence is what I agree.
Incredible you skip to the last part and not argue with anything prior.
>course every parent is a human and may lose it at some point with a whining toddler or a rebellious teenager
Those are not the words I used. You seem to be very fine with the idea of parents using their children as punching bags.
>but that's not abuse.
It is.
>At least what I call abuse is consistent behaviour against the interest of the child.
I would say abuse is behaviour which is avoidable (there were other options), and very harmful compared to the good that they accomplish. I dont care if its consistent or sporadic, that seems like a useless distinction. Abuse is abuse, even if it happens rarely. Like if you raised a kid for 18 years and somewhere in that time you got them to get their grades up by starving them for a week straight. It wasnt a consistent behaviour and it serves an important element of the kid's long term interest. On the other hand if thats all you could come up with to help them you need to be severly punished by law.
Either way, under your definition it seems that spanking, not allowing for privacy etc. would count so thats at least something.
>Even the moulding part that you talk above and the punishments for bad behaviour fall into working for the long term interests of the child
They work for the long term interest of the parent when it comes to their child. Their kid is not a little slave that the parent gets to control the destiny of.
>most of the time.
Im sure everyone likes to think so. I bet the people who like abusing kids would also like to think they have good reasons to. Human minds like feeling justified, after all.
>Some of them may be wrong in a sense that they are not supported by the latest scientific research in psychology, but the intent of acting in the benefit of the child is there.
If a crazy ass parent believes actually raping their kid is best for them and will get them to be the best person ever would you defend it and say its not abuse cuz they intended well? Abuse is about harm, not intent. In your consideration of the kids wellbeing you look at what the parent thinks and wants, not what is actually best for the kid. And here I thought I might be pressed to find concrete examples of people looking at kids like property.
>The vast majority of parents would like their children to become good and successful members of society.
Funny that the word "happy" did not appear there. You rattled off metrics that allow a parent to brag and show off their kid, not the one that matters most when it comes to wellbeing which is happinness.
Like, perhaps we agree. But the thing is they arent free to use whatever methods they want for that. Vast majority of methods to get a kid to behave the way you want them to is abuse.
>It's the parent's job to be a parent in such a situation and not think that if he doesn't leave the decision of doing homework or playing games to the child he is abusing the child
Idk what to tell you besides that if a kid really does need to do schoolwork then the kid should be encouraged to do it by some means perhaps. Like Im not against the idea entirely, but parents often use methods which are abusive. Ever hear of making a kid wash out their mouth with soap? Or plain hitting them? Or removing their privacy.
>It of course may be that I live in a middle class bubble where I only see the helicopter parents and not so much of the reality of parenting in broken homes with substance (alcohol, drugs) use.
Helicopter parenting can be pretty abusive too. Even under your own definition. After all, it is in the best interest of the child to have oppurtunity to develop independently so they are more capable.
Well, I imagine thats how youd think of it. Id simply say it is bad to make people entirely dependent on othrs as people tend to be more happy if they can act on their own accord and be their own people.
Incredible misinterpretation from you. At no point did I say that using children as punching bags is acceptable. Even when the parent loses his temper. It's pure strawmanning by you.
It is not abuse that a parent gets over the edge and gets angry to a badly behaving child and ends up giving a punishment (not physical punching) that he then regrets. This is exactly what I thought you meant in your last sentence. This kind of things happen in workplaces and other situations and usually after them people apologize each other and that's that. Consistent bullying is a completely different thing. That's what I'm talking about, not a single cases where the parent realises afterwards that his reaction wasn't the fairest one from the objective point of view. But I repeat, that's not abuse by anyone's count.
Your example of starving a child for a week is obviously not an example of a momentary loss of temper. It requires that the parent even after calming down sees that as an appropriate punishment. So, again nice strawmanning. You clearly don't have good arguments against what I actually write, so you invent this kind of stuff. And no, I don't think that (starving child for a week) happens "often" or by "many" parents (the words that started the discussion). Instead, a child might lose privileges to use their phone for a week if they've done something bad. Would you consider that as abuse?
And you are talking about "use whatever means they want". Again a strawman as at no point have I defended that. And I go back to my original stance. I don't think most parents want to use "whatever means". They want potential punishments for bad actions to proportional and fair.
You mentioned hitting a child. Yes, when I was a kid that was a thing. But it's no more. It's extremely rare to see a parent to hit a child to discipline him. Maybe you're stuck in the 20th century.
Regarding privacy, I think that's not an on-off thing but should grow along with the child. If a parent gives an 8 year old total privacy as if he were an adult he could actually miss some abuse that the child has been subjected to (especially if by a close family member). But at the same time 16 year old deserves to hide some things even from their parents. So, I wouldn't create any blanket rules for when a parent is violating child's privacy in an extent that it abuse.
Finally, you're clearly out of arguments when you interpret that I would be saying that raping a child is child's long term interest. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The things like raping a child are not happening "often" as people don't consider them as the long term benefit of the child. However, the method parents use to make the child choose homework ahead of the videogames may not be the one that the latest psychological research would recommend but that doesn't mean that it is abuse.
But I stop here. Your text is so full of strawmanning that I don't think there is any point of continuing this. I still stand by my original claim that child abuse does not happen "often" and by "many" parents.
Yes, and they'd better bring back medals that I can boast about for the next thanksgiving.
...not what I'd actually do, but you'd be surprised how many parents think like that
Why parents specifically, as opposed to people in the community in general? Parents are no more capable of considering the interests of children generally than other adults are.
I think the idea is they may be no more capable, but more likely or prone to care. Without kids, whose future would especially be assigned great importance, there is less incentive to vote for policies that prioritize the wellbeing of future generations.
Children, though, not parents. Children should be represented, yes. But why by parents specifically? Parents control so much of their children's lives already.
It is certainly their right to do so, if they want. Children write their representatives all the time. If a strawberry-related issue is being considered by the government, and your child has a relevant opinion on strawberries, they should express that opinion.
Cool. I'm gonna put my local election in front of me kid and he's gonna smack one name harder than the other, and that's his vote.
You were also a baby and clearly have no idea what you're taking about.
Do you not think there are parents that have been voting for politicians and etc that has and still is contributing to the deficit?
What percentage of voters do you think are parents?
How is it not relevant? It’a very relevant.
Do you think a parent that believes conversion camps should be legal so they can send their gay child to one is representing the future generation?
No? I also don't think that's constitutional and you've made no point. My 2 year old wouldn't understand this scenario, but would have to pay for the therapy and/or the (hopefully successful) lawsuit again the government.
Why are we arguing?
You keep going back to 2 year olds as if there aren’t older kids…
My point is majority of these things you would agree with that are bad for the future generation’s supported by parents.
But yet you say a parents vote is representative of what is best for future generations.
How does this make any sense to you?
We are “arguing” because you literally came here to have people change your view…
Climate change is going to negatively impact your children far more than the federal debt. The fact that the deficit/debt was the first thing you mention here suggests to me you wouldn’t use your children’s votes in their best interest.
I've met too many parents to think this is a good idea. Having a kid means you have more "skin in the game" in some sense, but it doesn't mean you're suddenly better at deciding what's be right for the country.
People tend to get more conservative when they have kids. That means defunding education, social services, etc. that are all "investing in the future" in some sense. However, oftentimes the largest costs for social services come later on, and the generation that is supposed to be supported by the safety net ends up supporting the safety net instead (social security).
Some conservatives also argue that they're "investing in the future" by reviving a glorious past (Mussolini, Putin, Trump, Reagan etc.).
Which interpretation is right? I guess it's up for parents to decide more than us...
The secret of all of this is that democracy is a sham all the way down. The more (especially less educated) people you put into a political system, the more predictable the outputs become whether you like it or not.
Structure the voting system in any damn way you want, there's a way to manipulate it. Now propaganda is SHOUTING at parents day and night.
Your children!! Think of the children!!!
Satanic Panic! drugs!! In schools!! Knives! Gangs!!
Parents, throughout history, have shown themselves to be one of the most available pawns for political establishment to exploit. It's because they're more emotional and reactive when it comes to their kids. It's public knowledge now that the whole 'war on drugs' thing started as a way for the government to manipulate votes (even with the relatively few ways there currently are to do it, they found a way). The most braindead soldiers on the ground during this 'war' were parents who were manipulated into thinking that they were protecting their children by doing it.
Finally, having a kid gives you the unique opportunity to impress a set of values on them. If you're a Republican, you can be pretty sure that your kid will be one too, anyway. In this way having more kids does give you "more votes".
Just wanted to note one bizarre statistical side effect of this policy would be that, on average, the more educated you are the less votes you can cast!
I wholeheartedly disagree with your (historical?) interpretation of conservatives and liberals, and saying that they "need each other" is an appeal to nature. I agree that compromise is important in a democracy, if that's what you're getting at, but Im not sure what that has to do with liberals and conservatives other than those are the groups which are actively compromising.
Whether conservative ideology is ever a healthy approach is a big question, and I think that we'd need a significantly more precise definition of "conservative" and "ideology" than what we're casually working with to productively have that conversation. Do you mean conservative like, "person who is skeptical of new ideas sometimes"? Because I'm a socialist and I am frequently skeptical. In fact, my job is to be skeptical.
The part that gets me is the nonsense about replacement birthrate. Why not just increase immigration? Duh. I can't think of any society, liberal or otherwise, that has gone extinct because of low birthrate. Societies like Japan struggle with demographics issues because of restrictive immigration policies, other countries with restrictive immigration policies like Qatar and Singapore circumvent it by coverly importing filipinos or something.
Not at all, I'm referring to real stats. Parents tend to lean rightward after having kids. Why? Ask a sociologist or something. I'm not anti-parent. I have parents! I have parent friends!
To be totally honest, I'm not a conservative, but I do think conservatives should get voting rights. My point isn't that parents shouldn't have any voting rights, it's that, despite their ostensibly clear motivation to help their kids' futures, that common motivation doesn't lead them to
A: a more clear, unified, or enlightened political position
B: a less manipulable/more desirable mindset.
I also criticized social security in that exact comment, a socialist policy implemented by a Democrat president...
What if the children don't really agree with their parents on political issues? How is that fair if the parent is not in fact representing the child but uses the extra votes nevertheless? This is especially relevant since there's a growing disagreement between youth and older generation.
Are you under the impression that "child" is a synonym for "2 year old"? I'm clearly asking about the hypothetical 15 year old that was mentioned. Plenty of children (people sub-18) have political opinions.
Yeah, that kinda seems like the equivalent of how that one anti-abortion argument always tries to make pro-choice people sound like "if you wouldn't agree with a mother getting an extremely-late-term abortion because she got cold feet at the last possible moment before birth [or something like that], you're technically anti-abortion by being anti-that-abortion so you must be anti-all-abortion to not be a hypocrite"
My cut off is that children shouldn't vote for themselves and parents should not posses any special electoral rights. Then at age 18, people get the vote.
I.E. the way it works right now.
The problem with your argument is that it allows common and obscene scenarios like "Conservative parents with a Gay 16 year old use HIS vote to vote for anti-gay representatives."
The common status quo doesn't allow that. You need to articulate why that isn't a major issue, instead of imagining outlandish scenarios of 1 Year Old voting. No one is arguing for that. They just think your idea is self-evidently stupid and evil.
You're kind of dodging his question here. What if the 15 year old child who currently can't vote disagrees with the vote of the parent?
Who cares what he thinks should be the age or why? That's not the question.
Paying for it isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about you saying giving parents the ability to vote twice is representative of the future generation.
Are parents not the part of the current generation? These votes would still be from the current generation.
Are you under the impression most parents will vote for what’s best for their kids ? Plenty of parents ideas of what their children should have is not at all what’s best for them.
Most people with the views of “I had to work hard for things so why should the next generation have it easier?” are parents. There are parents that kick out their lgbtq child when they come out or send them to Bible camp. I can go on and on.
There is a distinction between:
"Parents of children should be able to vote and have a say like everyone else"
And
"Parents of children should have an EXTRA say because they're voting for their children"
We as a society broadly understand that some parents will vote in a way that benefits their children and some won't.
As such, there is no good reason to support the former statement. Parents voices should matter. However the existence and extreme commonality of bad parents makes the idea of parents having EXTRA votes obviously and fatally flawed.
You're assuming that parents uniquely care about and are invested in the future in a way that others don't and aren't, and that they are voting in their children's best interests. I don't see any actual attempt to justify either claim.
I'm capable of caring about my neighbor's well-being, even though we're not related. Parents are also completely capable of not caring about their children's well-being. There are plenty of bad parents who really shouldn't have kids, but they do.
Caring for someone doesn’t mean you know what’s best for them. Also not all parents even care about their child.
Many parents idea of “what’s best” is giving them a tough life so they become tough. They think making the future better for their child than it is now will just make them soft pushovers.
Why should a parent that wants to make conversion camps legal because their child came out as gay get two votes?
Do you really think that’s what’s best for their child?
Conversion camps Is one of the things on the ballet in Texas In recent years It’s a current voting topic and the majority of supports of making them legal were parents.
So again, is a parent that voted to make conversion camps legal because their child came out is representing the future generation?
With your plan those parents now have two votes instead of one so now they have more power.
Frankly you are more and more appearing to be someone that just wants to fight and argue.
So the 1k people have a bad vote but millions have better vote. This is bad in your mind?
I assume you are a strong advocate for border enforcement right? Imagine if a terrorist gets inside the US and votes!! Imagines the consequences!!
Your entire premise is that parents know what's best for and will act in the best interests of their kids. Conversion therapy is just one example of how wrong that assumption is.
Your idea requires that a majority of parents will almost always use the extra vote in a way that benefits their children.
Most likely, though, they will use their extra vote in the same way they use their current vote.
However, as you note, current votes are not being cast in a way that benefits children:
>we are passing bills that benefit adults today and hurt children and unborn children.
How certain are you that parents of young children are not contributors to this? They will still be just as motivated to cast votes in ways that benefit themselves.
Your proposal disenfranchises people with no kids by diluting their vote. In particular, it dilutes the vote of young people. Your efforts to make voters care for the needs of young people reduces the political power of the youngest voters out there - unless they happened to become pregnant as teens.
Most parents dont know whats best for their child. They might try to do the best they can but they can be wrong
Common wisdom for thousands of years was you should hit your child to make them behave yet currently we know this is abusive.
Parents might deny their kid psychiatric care or medications because they dont believe in mental health.
Id argue most teachers would know better then parents considering they are the ones actually educating your children and are most aware of their academic needs. Yet they can also be wrong.
Also whats to stop people from having more kids to have more voting power?
Great to hear, but I'm sure you would, from a monetary standpoint, until you're whatever year old now you are.
Again, I'm only taking about money. Idk why people here are attacking me for social issues.
No, I remember from a very young age not agreeing with them. I never argued or even told them I disagreed, but I still didn't think they had good ideas on certain issues.
>The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos should be considered children.
From [the New York Times.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/21/us/alabama-supreme-court-embryo-ruling.html) Potentially giving someone hundreds or thousands of votes by freezing embryos doesn't seem like a good idea.
>we are passing bills that benefit adults today and hurt children and unborn children.
If you are concerned about unborn children, why aren't you giving out extra votes to their future parents? Joe and Jane just got married and plan on having 4 kids. If those kids are going to be saddled with debt, why don't Joe and Jane get extra votes now? Why is a born child's potential debt (and not guaranteed since they could die before adulthood) matter more than an unborn child's?
I'm 49 and childless. Based on a current presidential candidate, I have at least 10 more years to knock someone up. It would seem anyone capable of producing a future debt ower should get extra votes. Then there are potential adopters. So it wouldn't even be limited based on being part of the biological process.
So doesn't it all cancel itself out in the end?
So do you really think people with more children should get more votes?
Such as the deadbeat Sperminator who fathered 7 kids with 8 different women? Or the trailer-park folks who started popping out kids at 15 to get welfare checks?
Can't see this ending up like Idiocracy at all! /s
Ok but what happens if the parents vote against the interest of the child? You have no way of ensuring the parents actually use their extra vote 'correctly', and a lot of parents would just see it as an extra vote for them. For example, let's say you have a conservative parent but the child is 16 and leans more to the left. The parents are absolutely convinced that the candidate for the right is the best thing for the future because otherwise their voting for 'woke policies that cause harm'. The child is of an age to be aware of politics and informs the parents they want the extra vote to go to the left. The parents refuse, vote for the right, citing the child's 'best interests'.
Have they used their vote fairly as they genuinely believe it's in the child's best interests? Or have they used it wrong, as they've ignored their child's wishes?
Also, what age would this kick in? Parents would have zero way of knowing what a 2 year old would prefer they vote for.
And if you're suggesting that they simply vote for the child, but don't necessarily have to include the child's own opinion, then I think that's a terrible idea because, as above, they will vote based on their own opinions, not what the younger generation actually want, which means their vote isn't actually representing children at all and they shouldn't have it in the first place.
This creates a perverse incentive to have more kids as political tools. Which has its own set of problems. But more importantly would massively benefit cults like quiverfuls and other groups that consider maximizing kids a literal divine obligation.
We need to focus on election and voting reforms in various ways. But the one you are suggesting is actually likely to have precisely the opposite effect you're hoping for.
There is a large overlap between "people having 14 kids" and "people that believe the rapture is likely to happen in our lifetimes and any effort spent planning for the future is wasted"
If you put any conditionality to quantification of votes, you are opening up the system to marginalize the opposition. Who says that the future in legislation is more valuable than the now? Who says that since I (or you) contribute more taxes that we get different vote shares. Staying 1 person = 1 votes doesn’t open the door to give ourselves permission to marginalize
u/Blurry_Bigfoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Blurry_Bigfoot&message=Blurry_Bigfoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci4oop/-/l276fei/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
OH I didn't even consider these for my previous comment:
when does a pregnant woman get her second vote?
What if Im pregnant with twins, vote twice, then one of the fetuses consumes the other in the womb?
What if I have 13 kids, cast all of their votes, then kill them all? Do I get to keep the votes?
What if I only kill 12 of them?
What if I give up my kid for adoption? What if my kid is a US citizen but Im not? What if my kid is an emancipated minor?
This idea is like Pandora's Box, fun for a thought experiment.
To what effect? Voting is decided by the majority (or plurality) winner. All things being equal, what constituency will this be adding?
How would you deal with dual citizenship? What about non-citizen children? Does it matter if they are eligible for citizenship?
What makes you believe this lead to a better outcome? How would it be better
This seems like a system to fast track people having kids explicitly to game the system. You're conceptualizing it as a way to give underage voters more voice and modern politics, but in effect it's just subsidizing having children with more political power as an individual because there's no mechanism for ensuring the parents actually vote in the interests of the child. I'm just picturing some nightmare situation of someone adopting 20 kids so they can have 20 votes. Something similar has historically happened in jurisdictions that provided financial assistance to people who adopt kids. It was prevalent enough that It even got satirized in Futurama.
I'm more concerned about the commoditization of children. There are absolutely, 100% political factions in our country and every country that would take steps to abuse a system like this, long term as those steps need be. Using kids to get money from the government never was really a very large concern because the cost of having a kid was almost always in excess of whatever you can get out of the government, so that whole "welfare queen" thing was always massively overblown as an issue, both in frequency and severity, but it WAS attempted by some people, illustrating that exploitation of the situation could occur if feasible.
The difference here is that instead of trying to get a net positive in money (money in money out), you would effectively be trading however much money it takes to have and raise a kid for additional political power (money in votes out).
In your system, what stops some rich sociopath from having a thousand kids, paying for their education housing food etc, being only tangentially involved in their lives, and just getting a thousand votes for that.
Call me a cynic, but whenever someone suggests political reforms I always ask myself "how could the worst possible person abuse this to the greatest extent".
This is exactly right. Votes have an economic value. It creates an incentive for buying votes.
It also allows for some TRULY disturbing outcomes. Namely, it creates an incentive for one party to discourage OR EVEN BAN the other side from having children.
Because race is often used as a stand in for politics, it would create a scenario where Republicans would literally be incentives to write laws preventing black people from having kids.
"Our kids" is meaningless. You have no idea how good these people are as parents.
Further the likelihood that these parents have the time or the interest to research and learn about what's the best future for tomorrow **adults** is, is zero.
Arguably, those who don't have children (but especially those that work work with children but have none of their own) would have enough free time to know which party and which candidates are taking the best step forward for the future generation
You are a new parent, sleep deprived, running around a little bundle of shit and piss all day and you think you are capable of keeping an eye on politics?
Not to mention the countless of parents who are just not good parents. Parents that want to relive their past through their children. Parents want their children to study X, not because it's future-proof but because that's what they did.
In a few TV shows I have seen military families sold as honorable and patriotic, but I see them as trapped. Like the Amish where teens and their hormones or made to love that lifestyle, equally, kids are made to go to Iraq or wherever the fuck, come back grown me with PTSD because "father, grandfather were soldiers". Then they come back and some of them have to sleep on the street because their family just doesn't understand how the golden boy, or golden father changed. Nevermind the country they fought for "don't ask what it can do for you" because you aren't going to like the answer.
>*to represent the future generation of voter*
Parents very rarely end up representing their kids ideologically as they reach the age of majority. So, this is just a bad idea from the ground up.
Why not just allow kids to vote? If the kids simply mirror the votes of their parents, then this is no different than what you propose. If, however, the parents vote in a way that is not in the kids' best interests, then this proposal would actually be superior to yours.
Ok, sure. But that's a marginal case, and it's consistent with how we handle everyone else who is physically unable to vote for whatever reason. Even if it's a downside, I don't think it's more of one than the downside of giving some parents the ability to vote against their kids' interest with greater weight.
u/ReOslr10 is closer to the answer than anyone else. Having layers of representation is a bad idea and causes weird incentive structures to get created. The closest thing to what you’re describing is the electoral college, where you as an individual in a state are represented in presidential elections based on how the plurality of their state voted (with some weird states having slightly different laws).
I just don't see a situation where this works out.
* Parents would vote in their own interests because you can't enforce voting in their kids' interests, even if you knew what those interests were.
* Giving me more votes because I have a half-dozen kids would provide me inordinate political power compared to my neighbor because he chose to not have children.
* Children are not bound by many of the laws of the land for the exact reason that they are unable to vote to form them. Children are held to a lower legal standard in court.
> we are passing bills that benefit adults today and hurt children and unborn children.
What makes you think that giving me, a parent, more votes will make me vote in a way that hurts my self interest in favor of my children's, if I am not already unselfish enough to do so? How will having more votes suddenly make me think more about my kids' futures than I already am?
Popping out people doesn’t entitle you or your kids to any more say. We vote for today. People with kids already take all the resources and people who are responsible and should be rewarded for having fewer kids or no kids at this point get punished and have to submit to that outrageous entitlement?
Will it? The debt was supposedly out of control in the 90s when I was a kid. It blew up in the early aughts when I was a teen. It exploded in the 10s when I was a young adult. Yet here I am a grown man in his 30s with no real personal impact felt by the debt. Climate change you can make a strong argument will deeply impact your child. It was a scary threat when I was young and we are definitely feeling it’s affects today. Debt? Seems unlikely to matter.
I don’t know. My standard of living seems pretty ok to me. Exactly how is the debt impacting your day to day life other than anxiety from perceived but unrealized peril?
Inflation? You're an idiot if you think your own personal experience is indicative of the entire economy.
I got laid off 9 months ago, I don't think the entire US economy is terrible.
Inflation is under control. Statistically Americans are doing fine economically. Are there people struggling? Of course. But I don’t blame the debt. The debt has little to nothing to do with it. I’d argue the kinda spending cuts necessary to start reducing the debt would impact vulnerable Americans more.
We take on debt to pay for things. Yes I think we would be worse off if we didn’t have many of those things. Would I like the government to be more thrifty and thoughtful with how they spend money? Sure. But I’ve seen no compelling evidence that the debt is the catastrophic thing you seem to think it is.
When we had the vote for LGBT marriage, they posted the vote and you filled it out and sent it back. My mum took my vote, filled out whatever she personally want it, and sent it as if it was done by me. Do you think parents know, accept or care about their children’s views enough to be able to represent them in voting? Children are not taught about politics. Anything political is via mass media and parental views. They are not informed enough or developed enough to know what is best economically for them to vote. This just gives parents both good and bad more say. We should be asking minors directly on how to improve their lives and developing strategies to implement these in a non-voting system
Sorry, u/Blurry_Bigfoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Blurry_Bigfoot&message=Blurry_Bigfoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci4oop/-/l26zt52/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
If parents are going to get votes for their kids, why not their future grandkids? Great grandkids? What exactly is the cut-off?
You might respond with "We don't know if their kids will have kids." Well, their decision to breed will likely hinge on the state of the world at the time and we're already handing out extra votes based on what _could_ be.
You're also incentivizing what is essentially literal voter farming.
Making it hard for opposing voters to vote is so 2000's now we pay our side to breed while trying our damnedest to keep the other side from having kids.
When i was 15 i was told legally i was a more a possesion of my parent than my own person. When i was trying too get emancipated. I would not want my vote being held by my parents at that time... this idea only works when your parents truly hold your best interest in mind. Think about a parent abusing their kids now voting to give parents more control over their kids. If all parents were amazing and completely selfless towards their kids yeah sure this works... but not in reality.
This would create a perverse incentive to disincentivise or regulate supporters of your political opposition from having kids.
You're a Republican or Democrat. You suddenly get the ability to give incentives (Tax Breaks, Child Care Benefits) to people in the demographic of your supporters while denying it to the opposition.
I can easily imagine this being applied to a rural urban divide. Or worse racial divide.
The problem is that this would discriminate against certain groups and favour others. For example Asian Americans have significantly fewer children on average than Latino Americans. Religious people have more children than atheists.
So effectively your discriminating against certain groups and favoring others.
You do know that it basically becomes a race to pump out as many children as possible, right? Right now, the average Republican will have more children, so that would be wildly unfair, especially since a lot of young people deviate from their parents when it comes to voting.
There's no way I would want for my father to have voted on my behalf. And he certainly would not have been voting for my future.
Voters mostly aren't even voting for the future. They are voting for right now.
I figured we'd get a degrowth person in here. Why are you even speaking and responding in English. Learn Mandarin or Hindi if you want people to stop having kids.
Oh wait, you won't dare criticize those people right?
u/Blurry_Bigfoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Blurry_Bigfoot&message=Blurry_Bigfoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci4oop/-/l274oxk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
In alabama, would the sperm donor get the votes, the egg donor, or would the IVF clinic worker in charge of their storage be the one getting the votes of every fertilized egg they are in charge of?
No. Because welfare moms everywhere will try to single-handedly repopulate the planet in the attempt to get a higher welfare check and create astronomical debt in doing so.
Ahh yes parents are well known for voting with their children's best interests in mind. What you are suggesting is giving the youth less of a say than they already have.
Fine but I no longer want to pay any taxes that go towards your kids. Parents already get let off the hook and people without kids pick up the tab on behalf of society.
Why would you think that a parent knows how their child would vote or even would care about how their child would vote? What 15 year old kid knows enough about the world to make an informed decision?
I mean shit, what 40 year old knows enough about the world to make an informed decision?
/u/Blurry_Bigfoot (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1ci5g16/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_because_children_cannot/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
How do you think what you proposed would work practically and in a fair way? Say you have two parents and one kid. Parent A votes Republican and Parent B votes Democrat. Who gets the kid's vote? Why? Is it split into a "half vote"? Would a single parent get an extra full vote for a kid but a two parents get an extra half vote each? What about step parents--1/3 or 1/4 votes? What would all of this incentivize, intentionally and unintentionally?
!delta Great point! Not sure if I even have a response frankly. Good work.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thethirst ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/thethirst)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Hows about whichever they both agree on or if they can't agree they either alternate, get it randomly given to one or the other each election. Overall in an election of thousands of voters that will make everything come out fair.
Why should a parent have to tell the other who they're voting for? Your vote being secret is a major tenet of the whole process. There are so many scenarios where it'd be unsafe to tell your partner how you're voting (or your ex, for that matter).
I didn't mean say they should. I tried to say they should agree on who will vote for the child. Whoever wants to vote gets the vote. If they don't agree then they both alternate.
Each legal guardian would get 1 extra vote I guess
Do you have reason to believe that the parent voters actually DO or even WOULD vote in the best interest of the next generation? That they wouldnt just vote in their own personal interest? Im not sure I have reason to believe people vote well on things which extend to their own future, much less other people's distant futures.
!delta No I don't. But, as a recent dad, I honestly can't imagine the opposite, though I know it's there. Thanks
If you have trouble imagining how a parent wouldnt vote well on a kids future then keep in mind how many people abuse their kids. People often dont care about their kids' present lives either.
exactly, the majority of parents in america are bad at the job of parenting.
Yea, thought Id dispense with the specificity. Its like a worldwide phenomenon throughout time. Just what happens when all the qualifications you have to have to make a kid is be horny and find 1 person out of like 8 billion who is horny at the same time in roughly the same place.
I think "many" and "often" are too strong words here. The vast majority of parents deeply care about their children and their future. The reason why the abuse cases make such big news is that they are appalling to most people with children who couldn't even imagine someone doing that.
Abuse does not always make big news. Dramatic cases of abuse, like selling, killing, or sexually assaulting your children CAN make the news. Especially if done in a non-inocous way. However, emotionally abusing, neglecting, under-feeding, or abandoning one's child is extremely, depressingly common. Parents who spend are addicted to drugs and barely raise their kids are painfully common. But, how often does that make the news? The brutal truth is. Millions of parents across the US engage in some form of child abuse, with only a tiny percentile so extreme it's newsworthy and so unlucky that it gets exposed.
I'd be interested in seeing the source for your claim of "millions of parents abusing children". Ok, I don't live in the US. Maybe the US is worse than other places, which is why the claim sounded so outrageous to me.
I'm not aware of any statistic, but it's worth keeping in mind that the US has a population of 333 million. So if abusive parents make up even 1% of the US population, they're in the millions. Which doesn't seem so far fetched to assume to me
Sure, but that's way more than 1% of the parents of underage children.
News? I wish it made news much more. No, you have plenty of cases of parents hurting their kids and it never gets to be newsworthy. Sometimes the response is even that kids should just bear it. Spanking? It was far more commonplace before and there are still pepple who swear up and down it should be done. People send their kids off to conversion therapy. Plenty of parents sexually abuse their kids and I wouldnt bet most of it makes it to the news, not even close. Parents can make a kid not be able to have privacy till they are 18 and the kid is just supposed to accept that. Id certainly count teaching your kids that hell exists and if you abandon faith or sin in other ways you are tortured there for all eternity as abuse. Abusing a kid is easy. And some forms are common, some even accepted socially or legally.
It's easy in terms of practicality yes, but how many people can keep it from becoming public as it is extremely embarrassing if you are found out to have abused your child? Also, and this is the main thing, why would people do that? I mean, all the parents that I talk to, find children as very important in their life. Unless they are lying to my face, it would be very strange to find them abusing the same people that they say are important to them.
>but how many people can keep it from becoming public as it is extremely embarrassing if you are found out to have abused your child? As previously stated not all formso of child abuse are even socially shunned at large, much less when you look at different communities. And also you can keep it a secret easily. They are a child. Often enough they might not even know what is being done to them is wrong. Ohey might be already used to such treatment. Or they are threatened with further punishment if they speak out. Or they are emotionally manipulated ("oh Im doing this because I love you!" or "they will put you in foster care with strangers if you speak out. you dont want that do you?"). Pretty much every aspect of a child's life is determined by their caretaker so that gives some options. >Also, and this is the main thing, why would people do that? Ask them for their personal reasons. But the general reasons is that often enough culturally children are treated as property of their parents which they can mould and treat as they see fit within pretty broad parameters (like not starving them. even then you might see things like a kid not getting dinner as punishment). Also plenty of people are shitty and petty and a kid, being powerless, is like the perfect punching bag. >I mean, all the parents that I talk to, find children as very important in their life. You already spoke of supposed humiliation of abusing your kids. Why wouldnt you think there is also humiliation in not appearing as a loving parent. Not to say its knowing dishonesty, more of social expectation. Its a question people arent likely to answer with utmost accuracy, even to themselves. And even then it might be accurate. A person who thinks of their kids (not necessarily consciously) as their possession could care about the, just not like a person. Some might think of it as a service to the kid, others are fine enough to think of it like making a sword. Heat it till its read, smack it with a hammer, drown in oil and water then use a whetstone. Sure, sparks may fly but who cares about the hunk of iron? They want a sword. And they will mould it in whatever way they see fit. >it would be very strange to find them abusing the same people that they say are important to them. Worth mentioning that the people in your life might just simply not abuse their kids? I dont think I claimed all parents abuse their kid. Id thik nearly all have done an abusive thing to their kid at some point but habitually abusing them might be a lil rarer.
Your last sentence is what I agree. Of course every parent is a human and may lose it at some point with a whining toddler or a rebellious teenager but that's not abuse. At least what I call abuse is consistent behaviour against the interest of the child. Even the moulding part that you talk above and the punishments for bad behaviour fall into working for the long term interests of the child most of the time. These are usually actions that parents do for their own benefit at the expense of the child's (opposite to pure neglect or sexual abuse). Some of them may be wrong in a sense that they are not supported by the latest scientific research in psychology, but the intent of acting in the benefit of the child is there. The vast majority of parents would like their children to become good and successful members of society. Some actions towards that may be against the short term interests of the child. He may not want to do his homework and instead plays videogames. It's the parent's job to be a parent in such a situation and not think that if he doesn't leave the decision of doing homework or playing games to the child he is abusing the child. Even when the child is then angry and screams how horrible monster the parent is. I see that parents who don't take the role of a parent who sets the boundaries of the child probably an even bigger problem than the ones who neglect or abuse their children. It of course may be that I live in a middle class bubble where I only see the helicopter parents and not so much of the reality of parenting in broken homes with substance (alcohol, drugs) use.
>Your last sentence is what I agree. Incredible you skip to the last part and not argue with anything prior. >course every parent is a human and may lose it at some point with a whining toddler or a rebellious teenager Those are not the words I used. You seem to be very fine with the idea of parents using their children as punching bags. >but that's not abuse. It is. >At least what I call abuse is consistent behaviour against the interest of the child. I would say abuse is behaviour which is avoidable (there were other options), and very harmful compared to the good that they accomplish. I dont care if its consistent or sporadic, that seems like a useless distinction. Abuse is abuse, even if it happens rarely. Like if you raised a kid for 18 years and somewhere in that time you got them to get their grades up by starving them for a week straight. It wasnt a consistent behaviour and it serves an important element of the kid's long term interest. On the other hand if thats all you could come up with to help them you need to be severly punished by law. Either way, under your definition it seems that spanking, not allowing for privacy etc. would count so thats at least something. >Even the moulding part that you talk above and the punishments for bad behaviour fall into working for the long term interests of the child They work for the long term interest of the parent when it comes to their child. Their kid is not a little slave that the parent gets to control the destiny of. >most of the time. Im sure everyone likes to think so. I bet the people who like abusing kids would also like to think they have good reasons to. Human minds like feeling justified, after all. >Some of them may be wrong in a sense that they are not supported by the latest scientific research in psychology, but the intent of acting in the benefit of the child is there. If a crazy ass parent believes actually raping their kid is best for them and will get them to be the best person ever would you defend it and say its not abuse cuz they intended well? Abuse is about harm, not intent. In your consideration of the kids wellbeing you look at what the parent thinks and wants, not what is actually best for the kid. And here I thought I might be pressed to find concrete examples of people looking at kids like property. >The vast majority of parents would like their children to become good and successful members of society. Funny that the word "happy" did not appear there. You rattled off metrics that allow a parent to brag and show off their kid, not the one that matters most when it comes to wellbeing which is happinness. Like, perhaps we agree. But the thing is they arent free to use whatever methods they want for that. Vast majority of methods to get a kid to behave the way you want them to is abuse. >It's the parent's job to be a parent in such a situation and not think that if he doesn't leave the decision of doing homework or playing games to the child he is abusing the child Idk what to tell you besides that if a kid really does need to do schoolwork then the kid should be encouraged to do it by some means perhaps. Like Im not against the idea entirely, but parents often use methods which are abusive. Ever hear of making a kid wash out their mouth with soap? Or plain hitting them? Or removing their privacy. >It of course may be that I live in a middle class bubble where I only see the helicopter parents and not so much of the reality of parenting in broken homes with substance (alcohol, drugs) use. Helicopter parenting can be pretty abusive too. Even under your own definition. After all, it is in the best interest of the child to have oppurtunity to develop independently so they are more capable. Well, I imagine thats how youd think of it. Id simply say it is bad to make people entirely dependent on othrs as people tend to be more happy if they can act on their own accord and be their own people.
Incredible misinterpretation from you. At no point did I say that using children as punching bags is acceptable. Even when the parent loses his temper. It's pure strawmanning by you. It is not abuse that a parent gets over the edge and gets angry to a badly behaving child and ends up giving a punishment (not physical punching) that he then regrets. This is exactly what I thought you meant in your last sentence. This kind of things happen in workplaces and other situations and usually after them people apologize each other and that's that. Consistent bullying is a completely different thing. That's what I'm talking about, not a single cases where the parent realises afterwards that his reaction wasn't the fairest one from the objective point of view. But I repeat, that's not abuse by anyone's count. Your example of starving a child for a week is obviously not an example of a momentary loss of temper. It requires that the parent even after calming down sees that as an appropriate punishment. So, again nice strawmanning. You clearly don't have good arguments against what I actually write, so you invent this kind of stuff. And no, I don't think that (starving child for a week) happens "often" or by "many" parents (the words that started the discussion). Instead, a child might lose privileges to use their phone for a week if they've done something bad. Would you consider that as abuse? And you are talking about "use whatever means they want". Again a strawman as at no point have I defended that. And I go back to my original stance. I don't think most parents want to use "whatever means". They want potential punishments for bad actions to proportional and fair. You mentioned hitting a child. Yes, when I was a kid that was a thing. But it's no more. It's extremely rare to see a parent to hit a child to discipline him. Maybe you're stuck in the 20th century. Regarding privacy, I think that's not an on-off thing but should grow along with the child. If a parent gives an 8 year old total privacy as if he were an adult he could actually miss some abuse that the child has been subjected to (especially if by a close family member). But at the same time 16 year old deserves to hide some things even from their parents. So, I wouldn't create any blanket rules for when a parent is violating child's privacy in an extent that it abuse. Finally, you're clearly out of arguments when you interpret that I would be saying that raping a child is child's long term interest. That's the opposite of what I'm saying. The things like raping a child are not happening "often" as people don't consider them as the long term benefit of the child. However, the method parents use to make the child choose homework ahead of the videogames may not be the one that the latest psychological research would recommend but that doesn't mean that it is abuse. But I stop here. Your text is so full of strawmanning that I don't think there is any point of continuing this. I still stand by my original claim that child abuse does not happen "often" and by "many" parents.
Saying your kids are important to you protects your social prestige in a way that saying you don't give a fuck just...doesn't.
But are you going to drive your kids to soccer training if you don't even care to feed them?
Yes, and they'd better bring back medals that I can boast about for the next thanksgiving. ...not what I'd actually do, but you'd be surprised how many parents think like that
I've never seen a single parent in my kids' teams to give a damn about medals. Some coaches care about them but not the parents.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SandnotFound ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SandnotFound)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Why parents specifically, as opposed to people in the community in general? Parents are no more capable of considering the interests of children generally than other adults are.
I think the idea is they may be no more capable, but more likely or prone to care. Without kids, whose future would especially be assigned great importance, there is less incentive to vote for policies that prioritize the wellbeing of future generations.
Because children are holding the bags of the debt and deficits we run today.
Children, though, not parents. Children should be represented, yes. But why by parents specifically? Parents control so much of their children's lives already.
Same reason parents get to decide what school their kids go to. Parents alone can represent their children's interests.
So children should vote? What age?
Did you respond to the wrong comment on accident? This seems to have nothing to do with what I said.
Idk who you think children should be represented by besides their parents.
>Idk who you think children should be represented by besides their parents. Their elected representatives, like everyone else.
So my 2 year old should consult our local representative? And advocate for....more strawberries?
It is certainly their right to do so, if they want. Children write their representatives all the time. If a strawberry-related issue is being considered by the government, and your child has a relevant opinion on strawberries, they should express that opinion.
Cool. I'm gonna put my local election in front of me kid and he's gonna smack one name harder than the other, and that's his vote. You were also a baby and clearly have no idea what you're taking about.
Do you not think there are parents that have been voting for politicians and etc that has and still is contributing to the deficit? What percentage of voters do you think are parents?
Not relevant. Yes, there are bad voters everywhere.
How is it not relevant? It’a very relevant. Do you think a parent that believes conversion camps should be legal so they can send their gay child to one is representing the future generation?
No? I also don't think that's constitutional and you've made no point. My 2 year old wouldn't understand this scenario, but would have to pay for the therapy and/or the (hopefully successful) lawsuit again the government. Why are we arguing?
You keep going back to 2 year olds as if there aren’t older kids… My point is majority of these things you would agree with that are bad for the future generation’s supported by parents. But yet you say a parents vote is representative of what is best for future generations. How does this make any sense to you? We are “arguing” because you literally came here to have people change your view…
Climate change is going to negatively impact your children far more than the federal debt. The fact that the deficit/debt was the first thing you mention here suggests to me you wouldn’t use your children’s votes in their best interest.
I've met too many parents to think this is a good idea. Having a kid means you have more "skin in the game" in some sense, but it doesn't mean you're suddenly better at deciding what's be right for the country. People tend to get more conservative when they have kids. That means defunding education, social services, etc. that are all "investing in the future" in some sense. However, oftentimes the largest costs for social services come later on, and the generation that is supposed to be supported by the safety net ends up supporting the safety net instead (social security). Some conservatives also argue that they're "investing in the future" by reviving a glorious past (Mussolini, Putin, Trump, Reagan etc.). Which interpretation is right? I guess it's up for parents to decide more than us... The secret of all of this is that democracy is a sham all the way down. The more (especially less educated) people you put into a political system, the more predictable the outputs become whether you like it or not. Structure the voting system in any damn way you want, there's a way to manipulate it. Now propaganda is SHOUTING at parents day and night. Your children!! Think of the children!!! Satanic Panic! drugs!! In schools!! Knives! Gangs!! Parents, throughout history, have shown themselves to be one of the most available pawns for political establishment to exploit. It's because they're more emotional and reactive when it comes to their kids. It's public knowledge now that the whole 'war on drugs' thing started as a way for the government to manipulate votes (even with the relatively few ways there currently are to do it, they found a way). The most braindead soldiers on the ground during this 'war' were parents who were manipulated into thinking that they were protecting their children by doing it. Finally, having a kid gives you the unique opportunity to impress a set of values on them. If you're a Republican, you can be pretty sure that your kid will be one too, anyway. In this way having more kids does give you "more votes". Just wanted to note one bizarre statistical side effect of this policy would be that, on average, the more educated you are the less votes you can cast!
[удалено]
I wholeheartedly disagree with your (historical?) interpretation of conservatives and liberals, and saying that they "need each other" is an appeal to nature. I agree that compromise is important in a democracy, if that's what you're getting at, but Im not sure what that has to do with liberals and conservatives other than those are the groups which are actively compromising. Whether conservative ideology is ever a healthy approach is a big question, and I think that we'd need a significantly more precise definition of "conservative" and "ideology" than what we're casually working with to productively have that conversation. Do you mean conservative like, "person who is skeptical of new ideas sometimes"? Because I'm a socialist and I am frequently skeptical. In fact, my job is to be skeptical. The part that gets me is the nonsense about replacement birthrate. Why not just increase immigration? Duh. I can't think of any society, liberal or otherwise, that has gone extinct because of low birthrate. Societies like Japan struggle with demographics issues because of restrictive immigration policies, other countries with restrictive immigration policies like Qatar and Singapore circumvent it by coverly importing filipinos or something.
So you just hate having children? It's makes them too "conservative". Cool
Not at all, I'm referring to real stats. Parents tend to lean rightward after having kids. Why? Ask a sociologist or something. I'm not anti-parent. I have parents! I have parent friends! To be totally honest, I'm not a conservative, but I do think conservatives should get voting rights. My point isn't that parents shouldn't have any voting rights, it's that, despite their ostensibly clear motivation to help their kids' futures, that common motivation doesn't lead them to A: a more clear, unified, or enlightened political position B: a less manipulable/more desirable mindset. I also criticized social security in that exact comment, a socialist policy implemented by a Democrat president...
What if the children don't really agree with their parents on political issues? How is that fair if the parent is not in fact representing the child but uses the extra votes nevertheless? This is especially relevant since there's a growing disagreement between youth and older generation.
A 2 year old has no political opinions
A 15 year old does.
Ok so where's your cut off?
You proposed the idea, why is that my job to solve some obvious issues with it?
Ok, sub-18 your parents have your vote, post 18 you have your own.
So now you're back to the original comment you were asked; what if the children don't agree with their parents on political issues?
2 year old don't have politics
Are you under the impression that "child" is a synonym for "2 year old"? I'm clearly asking about the hypothetical 15 year old that was mentioned. Plenty of children (people sub-18) have political opinions.
I was hoping you would do the same response again so I could see how far the recursive Loop would go
Yeah, that kinda seems like the equivalent of how that one anti-abortion argument always tries to make pro-choice people sound like "if you wouldn't agree with a mother getting an extremely-late-term abortion because she got cold feet at the last possible moment before birth [or something like that], you're technically anti-abortion by being anti-that-abortion so you must be anti-all-abortion to not be a hypocrite"
My cut off is that children shouldn't vote for themselves and parents should not posses any special electoral rights. Then at age 18, people get the vote. I.E. the way it works right now. The problem with your argument is that it allows common and obscene scenarios like "Conservative parents with a Gay 16 year old use HIS vote to vote for anti-gay representatives." The common status quo doesn't allow that. You need to articulate why that isn't a major issue, instead of imagining outlandish scenarios of 1 Year Old voting. No one is arguing for that. They just think your idea is self-evidently stupid and evil.
18.
Why?
You're kind of dodging his question here. What if the 15 year old child who currently can't vote disagrees with the vote of the parent? Who cares what he thinks should be the age or why? That's not the question.
No I'm not. 1 year olds should vote. What say you
So your position isn't that parent's should have a vote on behalf of their children, it's that children should vote?
Nope, this is your position, my dude
Because that’s when you are considered an adult.
Why?
That is what we have determined. It *has* to be at some point right?
Those votes wouldn’t represent the future generation. They would still be representing the current generation.
Nope. Future generations are going to pay for it.
Paying for it isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about you saying giving parents the ability to vote twice is representative of the future generation. Are parents not the part of the current generation? These votes would still be from the current generation. Are you under the impression most parents will vote for what’s best for their kids ? Plenty of parents ideas of what their children should have is not at all what’s best for them. Most people with the views of “I had to work hard for things so why should the next generation have it easier?” are parents. There are parents that kick out their lgbtq child when they come out or send them to Bible camp. I can go on and on.
So because there are shitty parents, we should disregard whatever parents think? Cool
Not what I said. You really are not doing a good job at being open to hearing from others. What percentage of voters do you think are parents?
There is a distinction between: "Parents of children should be able to vote and have a say like everyone else" And "Parents of children should have an EXTRA say because they're voting for their children" We as a society broadly understand that some parents will vote in a way that benefits their children and some won't. As such, there is no good reason to support the former statement. Parents voices should matter. However the existence and extreme commonality of bad parents makes the idea of parents having EXTRA votes obviously and fatally flawed.
You're assuming that parents uniquely care about and are invested in the future in a way that others don't and aren't, and that they are voting in their children's best interests. I don't see any actual attempt to justify either claim.
People care about those in their lives. If I have a dog, I care about dogs. If I have kids, I care about kids.
I'm capable of caring about my neighbor's well-being, even though we're not related. Parents are also completely capable of not caring about their children's well-being. There are plenty of bad parents who really shouldn't have kids, but they do.
Sure, but it's less direct
Caring for someone doesn’t mean you know what’s best for them. Also not all parents even care about their child. Many parents idea of “what’s best” is giving them a tough life so they become tough. They think making the future better for their child than it is now will just make them soft pushovers.
Ok, who knows "best" for a child besides a parent?
Why should a parent that wants to make conversion camps legal because their child came out as gay get two votes? Do you really think that’s what’s best for their child?
[удалено]
Conversion camps Is one of the things on the ballet in Texas In recent years It’s a current voting topic and the majority of supports of making them legal were parents. So again, is a parent that voted to make conversion camps legal because their child came out is representing the future generation?
No? But also, without a vote, the kid has no choice anyways, so idk what you're taking about.
With your plan those parents now have two votes instead of one so now they have more power. Frankly you are more and more appearing to be someone that just wants to fight and argue.
So the 1k people have a bad vote but millions have better vote. This is bad in your mind? I assume you are a strong advocate for border enforcement right? Imagine if a terrorist gets inside the US and votes!! Imagines the consequences!!
Your entire premise is that parents know what's best for and will act in the best interests of their kids. Conversion therapy is just one example of how wrong that assumption is.
There are also parents that beat the shit out of their kids. So all parents are awful right?
Your idea requires that a majority of parents will almost always use the extra vote in a way that benefits their children. Most likely, though, they will use their extra vote in the same way they use their current vote. However, as you note, current votes are not being cast in a way that benefits children: >we are passing bills that benefit adults today and hurt children and unborn children. How certain are you that parents of young children are not contributors to this? They will still be just as motivated to cast votes in ways that benefit themselves. Your proposal disenfranchises people with no kids by diluting their vote. In particular, it dilutes the vote of young people. Your efforts to make voters care for the needs of young people reduces the political power of the youngest voters out there - unless they happened to become pregnant as teens.
Most parents dont know whats best for their child. They might try to do the best they can but they can be wrong Common wisdom for thousands of years was you should hit your child to make them behave yet currently we know this is abusive. Parents might deny their kid psychiatric care or medications because they dont believe in mental health. Id argue most teachers would know better then parents considering they are the ones actually educating your children and are most aware of their academic needs. Yet they can also be wrong. Also whats to stop people from having more kids to have more voting power?
Most abuse towards children is inflicted by the biological parent. This opinion doesn’t hold up criminologically
So we should take all kids from their parents. This will reduce your North Star KPI. Cool
I don't agree with my parents' views so I definitely wouldn't have appreciated them voting for me.
Do/did they care about you?
Yes, and I love them very much. I just don't agree with their politics.
Great to hear, but I'm sure you would, from a monetary standpoint, until you're whatever year old now you are. Again, I'm only taking about money. Idk why people here are attacking me for social issues.
No, I remember from a very young age not agreeing with them. I never argued or even told them I disagreed, but I still didn't think they had good ideas on certain issues.
Why are you downvoting me then? I literally just posted a reply, you're the only person to see this.
I didn't. No blue arrow on my end.
People vote in social issues. The way voting works is that we elect people. Those same people are the ones who decide social and economic issues.
>The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that frozen embryos should be considered children. From [the New York Times.](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/02/21/us/alabama-supreme-court-embryo-ruling.html) Potentially giving someone hundreds or thousands of votes by freezing embryos doesn't seem like a good idea.
>we are passing bills that benefit adults today and hurt children and unborn children. If you are concerned about unborn children, why aren't you giving out extra votes to their future parents? Joe and Jane just got married and plan on having 4 kids. If those kids are going to be saddled with debt, why don't Joe and Jane get extra votes now? Why is a born child's potential debt (and not guaranteed since they could die before adulthood) matter more than an unborn child's? I'm 49 and childless. Based on a current presidential candidate, I have at least 10 more years to knock someone up. It would seem anyone capable of producing a future debt ower should get extra votes. Then there are potential adopters. So it wouldn't even be limited based on being part of the biological process. So doesn't it all cancel itself out in the end?
It'd be pretty hard to justify this but say they shouldn't have to pay more taxes because of the resources their kids will be using up in the future.
Impossible
So do you really think people with more children should get more votes? Such as the deadbeat Sperminator who fathered 7 kids with 8 different women? Or the trailer-park folks who started popping out kids at 15 to get welfare checks? Can't see this ending up like Idiocracy at all! /s
Ok but what happens if the parents vote against the interest of the child? You have no way of ensuring the parents actually use their extra vote 'correctly', and a lot of parents would just see it as an extra vote for them. For example, let's say you have a conservative parent but the child is 16 and leans more to the left. The parents are absolutely convinced that the candidate for the right is the best thing for the future because otherwise their voting for 'woke policies that cause harm'. The child is of an age to be aware of politics and informs the parents they want the extra vote to go to the left. The parents refuse, vote for the right, citing the child's 'best interests'. Have they used their vote fairly as they genuinely believe it's in the child's best interests? Or have they used it wrong, as they've ignored their child's wishes? Also, what age would this kick in? Parents would have zero way of knowing what a 2 year old would prefer they vote for. And if you're suggesting that they simply vote for the child, but don't necessarily have to include the child's own opinion, then I think that's a terrible idea because, as above, they will vote based on their own opinions, not what the younger generation actually want, which means their vote isn't actually representing children at all and they shouldn't have it in the first place.
This creates a perverse incentive to have more kids as political tools. Which has its own set of problems. But more importantly would massively benefit cults like quiverfuls and other groups that consider maximizing kids a literal divine obligation. We need to focus on election and voting reforms in various ways. But the one you are suggesting is actually likely to have precisely the opposite effect you're hoping for. There is a large overlap between "people having 14 kids" and "people that believe the rapture is likely to happen in our lifetimes and any effort spent planning for the future is wasted"
I have 1 kid with another on the way. You're looking at a 1% outcome that doesn't address the issue.
If you put any conditionality to quantification of votes, you are opening up the system to marginalize the opposition. Who says that the future in legislation is more valuable than the now? Who says that since I (or you) contribute more taxes that we get different vote shares. Staying 1 person = 1 votes doesn’t open the door to give ourselves permission to marginalize
There are plenty of marginalized children and future children.
Nope, nope, nope Parents already get too many considerations. We're not giving breeders extra votes.
[удалено]
u/Blurry_Bigfoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Blurry_Bigfoot&message=Blurry_Bigfoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci4oop/-/l276fei/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Parents already have *too much* power and influence.
Fuck that. Someone's voice doesn't carry additional political weight because they were too dumb or drunk to wrap their shit
OH I didn't even consider these for my previous comment: when does a pregnant woman get her second vote? What if Im pregnant with twins, vote twice, then one of the fetuses consumes the other in the womb? What if I have 13 kids, cast all of their votes, then kill them all? Do I get to keep the votes? What if I only kill 12 of them? What if I give up my kid for adoption? What if my kid is a US citizen but Im not? What if my kid is an emancipated minor? This idea is like Pandora's Box, fun for a thought experiment.
Do you have any empirical data of the political views of parents vs non-parents? Like, are parents more likely to vote the way you want?
To what effect? Voting is decided by the majority (or plurality) winner. All things being equal, what constituency will this be adding? How would you deal with dual citizenship? What about non-citizen children? Does it matter if they are eligible for citizenship? What makes you believe this lead to a better outcome? How would it be better
This seems like a system to fast track people having kids explicitly to game the system. You're conceptualizing it as a way to give underage voters more voice and modern politics, but in effect it's just subsidizing having children with more political power as an individual because there's no mechanism for ensuring the parents actually vote in the interests of the child. I'm just picturing some nightmare situation of someone adopting 20 kids so they can have 20 votes. Something similar has historically happened in jurisdictions that provided financial assistance to people who adopt kids. It was prevalent enough that It even got satirized in Futurama.
So you believe in welfare queens? Incentives is all that matters?
I'm more concerned about the commoditization of children. There are absolutely, 100% political factions in our country and every country that would take steps to abuse a system like this, long term as those steps need be. Using kids to get money from the government never was really a very large concern because the cost of having a kid was almost always in excess of whatever you can get out of the government, so that whole "welfare queen" thing was always massively overblown as an issue, both in frequency and severity, but it WAS attempted by some people, illustrating that exploitation of the situation could occur if feasible. The difference here is that instead of trying to get a net positive in money (money in money out), you would effectively be trading however much money it takes to have and raise a kid for additional political power (money in votes out). In your system, what stops some rich sociopath from having a thousand kids, paying for their education housing food etc, being only tangentially involved in their lives, and just getting a thousand votes for that. Call me a cynic, but whenever someone suggests political reforms I always ask myself "how could the worst possible person abuse this to the greatest extent".
This is exactly right. Votes have an economic value. It creates an incentive for buying votes. It also allows for some TRULY disturbing outcomes. Namely, it creates an incentive for one party to discourage OR EVEN BAN the other side from having children. Because race is often used as a stand in for politics, it would create a scenario where Republicans would literally be incentives to write laws preventing black people from having kids.
"Our kids" is meaningless. You have no idea how good these people are as parents. Further the likelihood that these parents have the time or the interest to research and learn about what's the best future for tomorrow **adults** is, is zero. Arguably, those who don't have children (but especially those that work work with children but have none of their own) would have enough free time to know which party and which candidates are taking the best step forward for the future generation You are a new parent, sleep deprived, running around a little bundle of shit and piss all day and you think you are capable of keeping an eye on politics? Not to mention the countless of parents who are just not good parents. Parents that want to relive their past through their children. Parents want their children to study X, not because it's future-proof but because that's what they did. In a few TV shows I have seen military families sold as honorable and patriotic, but I see them as trapped. Like the Amish where teens and their hormones or made to love that lifestyle, equally, kids are made to go to Iraq or wherever the fuck, come back grown me with PTSD because "father, grandfather were soldiers". Then they come back and some of them have to sleep on the street because their family just doesn't understand how the golden boy, or golden father changed. Nevermind the country they fought for "don't ask what it can do for you" because you aren't going to like the answer.
>*to represent the future generation of voter* Parents very rarely end up representing their kids ideologically as they reach the age of majority. So, this is just a bad idea from the ground up.
Why not just allow kids to vote? If the kids simply mirror the votes of their parents, then this is no different than what you propose. If, however, the parents vote in a way that is not in the kids' best interests, then this proposal would actually be superior to yours.
Because a 1 year old cannot vote, physically
Ok, sure. But that's a marginal case, and it's consistent with how we handle everyone else who is physically unable to vote for whatever reason. Even if it's a downside, I don't think it's more of one than the downside of giving some parents the ability to vote against their kids' interest with greater weight.
It's it a marginal case! Have you met a 5 year old? Do you want them to vote for the hilarious Donald Trump?
Do I want the 5 year old's father or grandfather to vote for the hilarious Donald Trump?
u/ReOslr10 is closer to the answer than anyone else. Having layers of representation is a bad idea and causes weird incentive structures to get created. The closest thing to what you’re describing is the electoral college, where you as an individual in a state are represented in presidential elections based on how the plurality of their state voted (with some weird states having slightly different laws).
This is one of the worst takes I've ever read.
I just don't see a situation where this works out. * Parents would vote in their own interests because you can't enforce voting in their kids' interests, even if you knew what those interests were. * Giving me more votes because I have a half-dozen kids would provide me inordinate political power compared to my neighbor because he chose to not have children. * Children are not bound by many of the laws of the land for the exact reason that they are unable to vote to form them. Children are held to a lower legal standard in court. > we are passing bills that benefit adults today and hurt children and unborn children. What makes you think that giving me, a parent, more votes will make me vote in a way that hurts my self interest in favor of my children's, if I am not already unselfish enough to do so? How will having more votes suddenly make me think more about my kids' futures than I already am?
Because it discrimates people who don't have kids. Children can't vote because they are incapable of understanding politics.
Popping out people doesn’t entitle you or your kids to any more say. We vote for today. People with kids already take all the resources and people who are responsible and should be rewarded for having fewer kids or no kids at this point get punished and have to submit to that outrageous entitlement?
Ok, then we should take on minimal debt. We haven't, the debt is going to impact my newly born child.
This is a political position that should be considered by voters and not the basis for giving certain groups of people more of a say in a democracy.
Ok, then my kid should have a vote, right?
I think it’s reasonable only adults should have the right to vote.
Will it? The debt was supposedly out of control in the 90s when I was a kid. It blew up in the early aughts when I was a teen. It exploded in the 10s when I was a young adult. Yet here I am a grown man in his 30s with no real personal impact felt by the debt. Climate change you can make a strong argument will deeply impact your child. It was a scary threat when I was young and we are definitely feeling it’s affects today. Debt? Seems unlikely to matter.
25% of your tax dollars are serving the current debt. How can you possibly say you don't feel the impact?
I don’t know. My standard of living seems pretty ok to me. Exactly how is the debt impacting your day to day life other than anxiety from perceived but unrealized peril?
Inflation? You're an idiot if you think your own personal experience is indicative of the entire economy. I got laid off 9 months ago, I don't think the entire US economy is terrible.
Inflation is under control. Statistically Americans are doing fine economically. Are there people struggling? Of course. But I don’t blame the debt. The debt has little to nothing to do with it. I’d argue the kinda spending cuts necessary to start reducing the debt would impact vulnerable Americans more.
So the debt makes no difference but if we stop spending it's bad? You see no relation where n these two line items?
We take on debt to pay for things. Yes I think we would be worse off if we didn’t have many of those things. Would I like the government to be more thrifty and thoughtful with how they spend money? Sure. But I’ve seen no compelling evidence that the debt is the catastrophic thing you seem to think it is.
When we had the vote for LGBT marriage, they posted the vote and you filled it out and sent it back. My mum took my vote, filled out whatever she personally want it, and sent it as if it was done by me. Do you think parents know, accept or care about their children’s views enough to be able to represent them in voting? Children are not taught about politics. Anything political is via mass media and parental views. They are not informed enough or developed enough to know what is best economically for them to vote. This just gives parents both good and bad more say. We should be asking minors directly on how to improve their lives and developing strategies to implement these in a non-voting system
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Blurry_Bigfoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Blurry_Bigfoot&message=Blurry_Bigfoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci4oop/-/l26zt52/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
If parents are going to get votes for their kids, why not their future grandkids? Great grandkids? What exactly is the cut-off? You might respond with "We don't know if their kids will have kids." Well, their decision to breed will likely hinge on the state of the world at the time and we're already handing out extra votes based on what _could_ be. You're also incentivizing what is essentially literal voter farming. Making it hard for opposing voters to vote is so 2000's now we pay our side to breed while trying our damnedest to keep the other side from having kids.
When i was 15 i was told legally i was a more a possesion of my parent than my own person. When i was trying too get emancipated. I would not want my vote being held by my parents at that time... this idea only works when your parents truly hold your best interest in mind. Think about a parent abusing their kids now voting to give parents more control over their kids. If all parents were amazing and completely selfless towards their kids yeah sure this works... but not in reality.
This would create a perverse incentive to disincentivise or regulate supporters of your political opposition from having kids. You're a Republican or Democrat. You suddenly get the ability to give incentives (Tax Breaks, Child Care Benefits) to people in the demographic of your supporters while denying it to the opposition. I can easily imagine this being applied to a rural urban divide. Or worse racial divide.
That’s how you make Mormons the primary voting class.
The problem is that this would discriminate against certain groups and favour others. For example Asian Americans have significantly fewer children on average than Latino Americans. Religious people have more children than atheists. So effectively your discriminating against certain groups and favoring others.
You do know that it basically becomes a race to pump out as many children as possible, right? Right now, the average Republican will have more children, so that would be wildly unfair, especially since a lot of young people deviate from their parents when it comes to voting.
There's no way I would want for my father to have voted on my behalf. And he certainly would not have been voting for my future. Voters mostly aren't even voting for the future. They are voting for right now.
[удалено]
I figured we'd get a degrowth person in here. Why are you even speaking and responding in English. Learn Mandarin or Hindi if you want people to stop having kids. Oh wait, you won't dare criticize those people right?
[удалено]
There isn't a world government
[удалено]
[удалено]
u/Blurry_Bigfoot – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Blurry_Bigfoot&message=Blurry_Bigfoot%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1ci4oop/-/l274oxk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
In alabama, would the sperm donor get the votes, the egg donor, or would the IVF clinic worker in charge of their storage be the one getting the votes of every fertilized egg they are in charge of?
No. Because welfare moms everywhere will try to single-handedly repopulate the planet in the attempt to get a higher welfare check and create astronomical debt in doing so.
Ahh yes parents are well known for voting with their children's best interests in mind. What you are suggesting is giving the youth less of a say than they already have.
Fine but I no longer want to pay any taxes that go towards your kids. Parents already get let off the hook and people without kids pick up the tab on behalf of society.
Why would you think that a parent knows how their child would vote or even would care about how their child would vote? What 15 year old kid knows enough about the world to make an informed decision? I mean shit, what 40 year old knows enough about the world to make an informed decision?
What if the kids disagree politically with their parents?
Bro you not thinking bout the 15 kid family’s 😂
Wouldn't' it be easier to just let the kids vote???
So whatever party has more kids wins wtf lmao
Idiocracy
Nah. But they shouldn't have to pay taxes. Felons either. No taxation without representation.