AIBU to think children should get a vote?

[Bumpitybumper]

I was thinking about democracy and voting in general and was wondering what people would think about allocating a vote to everyone irrespective of their age. Obviously those who were under a certain age (16/18?) would rely on their parents to make an informed decision about who to vote for on their behalf but this would surely mean that everyone's interests are better represented in a vote? My arguments are:

1. If you are a single parent with 5 children under the age of 18 then your family of 6 would currently only have one vote to cast. Your influence over the end result would be the same as any other individual despite the fact that you are effectively representing 6 people's interests.
2. Parents who vote may genuinely think that one party/result is best for them but another party/result may offer better policies for their children. The current system requires parents to set aside and compromise on individual preferences in order to effectively cast a "family" vote.
3. It is impossible to combat the impact of the "grey" vote if children and teenagers aren't properly represented. The current distribution of votes does not represent the distribution of the population and is skewed heavily in favour of older generations and therefore their interests.

I'm not an expert on this so would be interested in other views on this.

Why should children's interest be not represented at all?

But they are, by their parents

@SillySallySingsSongs
Focus on getting everyone eligible to vote rather this ridiculous idea
These are two different issues. Redefining who should be eligible to vote is not necessarily related to how much of the existing electorate actually go out and vote.

My concern is that the current system is intrinsically weighted to benefit older generations. This concern would remain even if every single eligible adult voted.

OP there isn't a range of responses to see, every one thinks the idea is stupid so a range of one.

Off all the ideas about voting representation this is head and shoulders above any other on the stupidity scale





@Onlyjoinedforthisthread
I agree the overwhelming majority have suggested it's a bad/stupid idea but there have still been a range of responses as to why they think this. This is what I was referring to.

@Theyprobablywill
So you agree it is so open to abuse that it should never be implemented?
I think it may be impractical to implement it in the manner I first thought of yes.

Part of voting involves going to a voting station (or organising a postal/proxy vote). If the parents are cba to vote, the kids won't vote anyway.

Adults voting on behalf of kids will create potential problems in families. Imagine 2 parents with different views- are judges really able to say which party should get the child's vote?

The youth not voting is a big problem though and I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16 as you can join the army and get married at that age.

Another one saying stupid idea, for much of the same reasons pp have suggested.

This has to be one of the stupidest ideas I've ever read on MN and I've been on here for quite some time now.

My child will not be able to vote when he is adult so it could be argued that his interests will never be properly represented and this will be for the rest of his life not just the relatively short period of childhood.

I think that the voting age should be lowered to 16 as you can join the army
Why is this always trotted out. The real campaign should be to raise enlistment age!

My husband and I vote differently, it would cause one hell of a row!

The principle of one vote per person is an essential and established part of a proper democracy. It’s required as a means of ensuring equality - regardless of who you are, you have the same voting power as anyone else.

Giving people who have children extra votes would make them more powerful than people without children, and would therefore lead to inequality in voting clout. It could also be easily abused - wealthy people who can afford lots of children could have big families to ensure they have more voting power than poorer families who can only afford fewer children.

It would also be impossible to administer. What happens when parents split up and don’t agree on their political views? What happens if a family has two children who would each benefit from the approaches of different political parties?

Furthermore, giving all children the vote independently of their parents would be forcing a responsibility upon them that they aren’t old enough to bear. They could do huge damage to their own interests by not knowing what they were doing.

I think 16 years olds should be given the vote, however, as I believe they are old enough to bear the responsibility of voting.



Um, no.

Why should someone with children get what would essentially be a weighted vote? Why do their political opinions matter more than those of someone without children (or someone whose children have grown to the age where they make their own decisions)?

What a joke!

@Blanchedupetitpois
I agree with many of the issues you raise but I just find it difficult to reconcile the one person = one vote concept and how this works with children and parents. Basically for families it is one vote for multiple people as the only way children can have their interests represented is through their parents' (and other voters') vote.

@AmericanEskimoDoge
Why should someone with children get what would essentially be a weighted vote? Why do their political opinions matter more than those of someone without children (or someone whose children have grown to the age where they make their own decisions)?
The child would be allocated the vote not the parent who would only be voting by proxy. Conflict of interest and other practical issues aside, if you could guarantee that the parent would use this vote to represent their child's best interest would you still oppose this? I know this would be virtually impossible to guarantee but if it were theoretically possible would your views still be the same?

But it isn't possible. Which is one of the reasons it is such a stupid idea.

No. Lower the voting age to 16 and make voting compulsory.
Having said that I reckon my cat could vote in a more informed way than some of the voters I've heard.

Also, which parent? What if you can't agree, which we wouldn't.

@Theyprobablywill
I understand you think it's a stupid idea . I am interested to understand whether it's the practicalities of implementing the idea that makes it "stupid" or if people fundamentally disagree with the underlying concept.

No. Lower the voting age to 16 and make voting compulsory.
Having said that I reckon my cat could vote in a more informed way than some of the voters I've heard

I'm curious ~ what makes you think that people who were forced to vote but otherwise wouldn't bother would cast an informed vote?

I'm not an expert on this so would be interested in other views on this
Hahaha - clearly.
My DD at 20 didn't know who the prime minister was a year ago!
She has no clue about any of it.
And freely admits it!
Imagine an 8 YO making an informed decision?
Politics would certainly be more fun though.
They would be promoting power rangers and unicorns and free sweets on every street corner for the under 12's.

Children are not responsible enough to make informed decisions or give consent in several types of situation, so no. They should not be given the vote.