h a l f b a k e r yReformatted to fit your screen.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Children Voting
Give parents the right to vote on behalf of their children. | |
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.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Chiiild for sale! I say, CHIIIILD FOR SALE! |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
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] ... 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. |
|
| |
Best for your son is not necessarily best for society. |
|
| |
I'm guessing we'll have a lot of grandparents wanting full custody of the grand children the minute anyone accepts this idea. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
For variation 1, would those older than 100 get negative votes? It might be nice to vote against people for a change. |
|
| |
Like the negative vote idea [dbmag9], the "anybody but you" approach would work for me. |
|
| |
//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. |
|
| |