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.

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?

I find it a waste of time to consider, since the result would be the same. How many parents under the current system would vote against what they see as the interest of their own child? They're already voting for that interest, presumably-- or as another person said, in the best interests (as they see them) of the nation as a whole.

Just because they have a child and think that it's in the child's best interest to vote for Party X doesn't mean they should get to cast another vote on the child's behalf. It's still unfairly weighting the votes of those with underage children.

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

I think that the issue is that children wouldn’t actually be any more represented by their parents getting an extra vote for them. Their parents would just be overrepresented. Until children are old enough to understand the political process and make informed choices for themselves, there is no way for their interests to be identified and accurately represented. So you would just have parents given extra votes for their own views (since they would inevitably think that the party they support is the one that best represent their child’s interests).

@hellsbellsmelons
I didn't say children should be casting votes themselves...

I'd be interested to see what they did with the party political broadcasts though. Any featuring PJ Masks would get DD's vote.

When parents vote, they can use it to vote in the interests of their child. They don't need another vote for that.

I think if you are happy for a 5 yo to want to vote for Santa or the tooth fairy, then off you go!

@AmericanEskimoDoge
Ok put simply do you object to children being allocated a vote that would definitely be cast for a party that represents their best interests? The parents wouldn't be involved and it would be done by some external body. I know this is theoretical but I want to establish of there is objection to this concept without straying into conflict of interests etc.

How funny OP

Ok, my idea is: only people with a degree should be allowed to vote (you know, they others don’t understand what they are talking about), oh and also only people that work (people on benefits would obviously only vote to increase benefits / increase tax)

It is impossible to combat the impact of the "grey" vote

And what's so wrong with the "grey vote " ? You'll be grey one day Honey, and your vote will be as precious to you then as it is now. We all get just one, so use it wisely and don't expect extra ones just because you have children at home.

I don’t think you’ve really thought this through. Even aside from the issue about this giving parents more voting power than non parents, how do you come to a consensus? What if you’re conservative but your teens are more labour leaning, how would you settle it? Imagine the rows!

How young are we talking? It’s only really as kids get into mid teens they begin to understand the nuances of politics (and literally the surface barely scratched!). Also things like taxes, working practices, transport, housing etc - these issues don’t always affect kids day to day, how would they know what their vote meant?

And of course young people and impressionable and sometimes vulnerable, so this would be hugely open to abuse.

I am open to the voting age dropping to 16 or 17 though.

On a serious note, I would be interested by an example of conflicting interests between parent/child, ie when they would cast a different vote?

I am asking as usually any voting adults choses the party that he believes is best for the country, rarely «best for myself but not for the country as a whole». For ex a Tory voter doesn’t vote just to pay less tax themselves but because they believe having rich pay less tax is better for the country’s economy etc. And even if it is by selfish interest , if they vote to pay less tax it also means more money for the child’s household so logically they would consider the same vote to be in the child’s interest, no?

Genuinely interested in your POV on this OP

All parties in my opinion don't have children's best interests at heart anyway
Teens need to step up and vote - as do those who can vote but chose not too.

And you seem to be assuming that people are unable to vote altruisically.

Op you have a touching faith in the wisdom of these "external bodies."

Actually how about getting more of the current 18-25 cohort off their backsides and actually using the vote they they already. Look at the attached graph. While the 18-25 mostly wanted to remain, a HUGE proportion of them didn’t even bother to vote! And I can’t think of a vote that was going to have a larger impact on their lived than the brexit vote.

Ok put simply do you object to children being allocated a vote that would definitely be cast for a party that represents their best interests? The parents wouldn't be involved and it would be done by some external body. I know this is theoretical but I want to establish of there is objection to this concept without straying into conflict of interests etc.

Yes, I do object to this. Because voting isn’t about identifying the party that actually and truly represents your best interests and voting for them. It’s about the individual choosing what their priorities are, what they hold to be important, what policies they can’t tolerate, and then deciding which party is most likely to meet these. There is no objective measure of what party would best represent an individual’s interests. It is an entirely subjective decision-making process.

Therefore having an independent body voting on behalf of children would not be the same as a person casting a vote. How could an independent body identify the best interests of a child without that child first having to undergo a decision making process they aren’t capable of understanding? How does anybody assess the priorities and beliefs of a five year old? Or a six month old? It isn’t possible because voting is too complex and too individual.

The fallacy you’re failing on is that you believe it’s possible to objectively identify which party would best represent the interests of an individual. This is not what voting is or how it works. A vote can only be meaningful when it is the exclusive decision of an individual. And children are unable to make that decision.

Not sure if it was attached.

Ok put simply do you object to children being allocated a vote that would definitely be cast for a party that represents their best interests? The parents wouldn't be involved and it would be done by some external body. I know this is theoretical but I want to establish of there is objection to this concept without straying into conflict of interests etc.

The issue you’re failing to grasp OP is that there is no way to objectively determine what party would act in a child’s best interest.

It is quite literally impossible.

And because your idea of an ‘independent body’ casting a huge block of votes that belong to someone else is one of the least democratic ideas I’ve heard in a very long time.

It’s authoritarian.

Ha, can I be the first to set up the party for children? I am happy to take a ridiculously highly paid job in McDonalds when I am finished in politics, rest assured this won't affect my policies at all.

And also, fundamentally, children don’t vote because they don’t pay tax.

No representation without taxation.

It’s not their money that is being spent so they shouldn’t get a say in how it’s spent.

Polenta; I thinks it's been already tried - unions and block voting...

@Polenta children who earn enough to pay tax do pay tax. It is just that few children are in a position to earn enough to pay tax. There are many good reasons for not giving children the vote, but tax isn't one of them. Unless we want to go dow note slippery slope of only tax payers to vote. We would then enter a dystopian world in which a downturn in the economy that is accompanied by redundancies results in the very people most affected by the downturn becoming politically disenfranchised and the government of the day not being accountable for their economic policy.

😂 What a ridiculous idea. I'm not sure the OP should even have one vote let alone 4 or 5 or whatever if they think this is an idea worthy of consideration.

please excuse the typos - it should read 'unless we want to go down the slippery slope of only granting tax payers the vote.'