Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Sugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                       

Children Voting

 Give parents the right to vote on behalf of their children.
 
(+3, -3) 		  [vote for,
against]

In a system where the current government can appoint judges that will likely rule for the next 30-40 years, it is blatantly unfair that children do not have the right to vote.

We often talk about that the current budget deficits and national debt is passing on a financial burden on our children and grandchildren.

We talk about the destruction of the environment and waste of resources and how that will be a problem for our children and grandchildren.

It is just not right that infants and children have no voice.

I say, allow them the right to vote at birth, but give that right to the parents until the child turns the age of majority.

Variation 1: make your vote proportional to your remaining life expectancy. To make it easy, consider the normal life span to be 100. Infants get 100 votes, 100-year olds, get 1 vote.

—Goesta Berling, Jul 18 2006

[link]






       Could result in the parties seeking to exploit - that is, buy - the votes of previously pilloried shaghappy single mums and dads, further incentivising procreation and leading to a population explosion. Might be just the thing for areas with a negative population growth.
—calum, Jul 18 2006
   

       Chiiild for sale! I say, CHIIIILD FOR SALE!
—methinksnot, Jul 19 2006
   

       i like this idea. i've thought that i should be able to vote for years, yet i've still got to wait another year and a half. i'm at least as sensible as our prez.
—tcarson, Jul 19 2006
   

       Hmm....   

       I don't know. It seems to me that parents could just vote for anything they want and not consider their child's opinion. Unless that's what you want to happen?...well, in any case, it seems a bit risky.   

       ( and yay, I'm back. Haven't visited this site in forever)
—hobbitcoat, Jul 20 2006
   

       [hobbitcoat] ... do you have children? I have found that now that I am a parent,my decisions are all around what is best for my son. I think all parents are that way. ... well may be not all, but all who really are parents and not just sperm producers. My idea is a sure way of making sure that long term impact is not ignored.
—Goesta Berling, Jul 20 2006
   

       Best for your son is not necessarily best for society.
—methinksnot, Jul 20 2006
   

       I'm guessing we'll have a lot of grandparents wanting full custody of the grand children the minute anyone accepts this idea.
—ye_river_xiv, Jul 20 2006
   

       yeah, but people don't think that way [methinksnot]. people think about what's in their best interests, and by extension, what's best for their progeny.
—tcarson, Jul 20 2006
   

       For variation 1, would those older than 100 get negative votes? It might be nice to vote against people for a change.
—dbmag9, Jul 20 2006
   

       Like the negative vote idea [dbmag9], the "anybody but you" approach would work for me.
—Zuzu, Jul 21 2006
   

       //the "anybody but you" approach would work for me.//   

       A while back I found on snopes.com weird news that a guy who had absolutely no campaign except for a tiny newspaper ad got in. Apparently there were two other candidates, both with large canvassing schemes, but it seemed that the townspeople voted 'anybody but you two'.   

       May I point out that if you seriously did not wish any of the candidates to be elected, you could 'spoil' your vote by ticking *all* the boxes? Therefore, by voting for everybody, you voted for nobody.
—froglet, Jul 21 2006
   
      
[annotate]
   


 

back: main index
business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle