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

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



random, halfbakery