this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024
63 points (86.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44142 readers
1036 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In that regard, they already have representation by their parents' votes. All it would achieve is giving parents outsized voting power.
But that vote only counts as much as one person, so it doesn't give any more representation to the child if you ask me. My whole point is that a parent should have outsized voting power because they represent two persons, not one (okay actually each parent would get 1.5 votes as the child's vote would be split on each parent but my point is the same).
No, no citizen whatsoever should be able to cast the votes of other citizens, period.
If the kid can't get in the voting booth by themselves, cast their own vote without assistance, then they aren't voting, someone else is.
That's ableist. Not every voter can can get in the booth by themselves.
Dude. You know what I'm talking about, don't pretend otherwise
The idea is that the parent represents the child. We don't trust children to make an informed vote, but we trust parents to make all kinds of choices for their children, including extremely personal choices. The current alternative is to not give children a vote at all. I think letting parents choose the vote for their child is better, and fits pretty well with all the rest that parents currently choose for their child. I also think it's better than simply letting children of all ages vote, since again, they probably won't be able to make an informed vote.
So, all I have to do is pump my semen into enough women, get them knocked up, and have thirty votes? Awesome! I'll be my own bloc!
I mean... you can already kinda do that right? Raise your children to have similar values to you and they'll vote like you when they grow up. That happens constantly. There's just an 18 year latency to it. Obviously you lose the vote once they grow up to vote by themselves. I feel like you're making a bit of a strawman out of what I'm saying here. We clearly just disagree and that's okay.
It's been a pleasant disagreement :)
That's the kind of disagreement that is best.
Edit: also, my apologies. When I saw this earlier, I was on my phone and fat-fingered the down vote. I corrected that. Not that votes matter, but this far down a thread it can seem like disrespect.
which isn't a bad thing either if you want to encourage people to have more kids (which of course is debatable whether that should be a goal, but many people think it should)