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.

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.

This idea presupposes that 'children' are a monolithic bloc who all have the same interests, and that these interests can be determined by some external body.

They're individuals. With different life circumstances, experiences and values.

The only fair way to include children in the franchise is by doing just that - lowering the voting age. It's not, in my opinion, the best of ideas, but it's better than any of these pseudo-representative alternatives you're positing.

My main concern with this is that someone - either the child or an adult involved - would have to determine which party represented the child's best interests. And most children aren't able to determine that because their life experiences haven't given them the tools to work such a thing out yet.

If I let DS1 (13) vote he'd think through policies, manifestos and promises. He'd look up the voting history of those standing for election and work out which one aligns most closely with his own political views. Since he was small he's held opinions on pretty much every 'big' piece of political history as it interests him.

If I let DS2 (7) vote he'd vote for whoever promised him a packet of skittles and Vienetta for pudding every day. He has no interest in anything beyond his own sphere and I doubt that'll change for a long time.

I honestly think too many people already get the vote. People need to go back and read Plato.

It's ridiculous. There has to be something special about becoming an adult surely?

Do you think most parents don't have their children's best interests at heart

Ha. Ha, ha,ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha. No. A lot of parents do not.

@Polenta and @Blanchedupetitpois thank you for your responses and I do generally agree with you.

I would say for certain children there are poilicies that could pretty objectively be deemed to harm that child's interests. I am thinking of some of the welfare reforms that have disproportionately affected some families and have led to some pretty dire situations.

I also think that there are some policies that target certain demographics that can objectively be viewed as being in a certain group's interests. For example the free childcare hours benefited children and their families whereas the winter fuel allowance benefited pensioners.

I do take on board what you say though about value judgements being complex and that it would often be impossible to identify a definitive "best party" for a child.

“I'm not an expert on this”

Shocker.

11.3 million people aged 65 and over.
14.3 million people aged 18-34 (2015 figures)

In 2017
71% 65+ voted
55% 18-34 voted

Of course, a problem that is never addressed with the ‘grey vote’ is that in surveys everyone over 65 (and often over 55 - yes Mumsnet, I’m looking at you) is lumped together, although they represent an age and experience range of 30-40 years, whereas all the other age groups are 10 years, or in the case of 18-24, 6 years. So it’s assumed that 65-75 year olds vote the same as 75-85.

Let's say a couple have four children ... some PPs have suggested that means the family would get 6 votes in total

But why should only one parent be entitled to vote on their behalf? Tell you what - let's give both parents the right to vote for them, so now that family will have TEN votes

It really doesn't work does it?

Children under 10 in England & Wales are exempt from criminal responsibility.

Children 10-18 are treated differently to adults when they commit a crime.

These laws recognise that children are not the same as adults and this is why they are also not deemed old enough to vote.

If they were allowed to vote, don't you think other protections they have as children might be adjusted too?

Look at it this way. I’m a high earner. High taxes mean less money in my pocket, which means I am worse off in terms of my household budget.

I am also someone who uses public services. Higher taxes means the public services that I use are better.

So should I vote for the party offering tax cuts and austerity, or the party offering increased public spending and a higher band tax increase?

The answer is, what is more important to me? What choice do I make? Which priority is more important to me - more money in my pocket, or better public services?

No independent body could ever make that decision for me. Only I can make the decision about what I value more.

That’s why nobody can cast a vote for children on the basis of what is ‘objectively’ best for them. Voting is always subjective.

I would say for certain children there are poilicies that could pretty objectively be deemed to harm that child's interests. I am thinking of some of the welfare reforms that have disproportionately affected some families and have led to some pretty dire situations.

Welfare reforms might disproportionately harm children, but they might benefit others (perhaps those whose parents have more money due to tax cuts).

Children don’t have identical interests by virtue of their being children. And their interests cannot be objectively measured.

@MondayImInLove
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?
Interesting that you think people generally vote on the basis of what they view to be in society's best interest. I certainly know some people that do this but I do believe most people are more self orientated. At the very least I think people tend to view "society" as being their community as opposed to society at large if you know what I mean? Hence why we have large regional variances in voting.

I think when you think about issues such as housing it's easy to see how parents and children could have different interests, especially if the parent is a home owner who is not looking to move up the property ladder. Lots of home owners want house prices to at the very least remain stable whilst you could argue that young people would benefit from quite a large drop. The wider repercussions for the economy would obviously need to be considered but I think it wouldn't be crazy to suggest that the beneficiaries of a falling house market would be future renters or first time buyers (the children) and the losers would be existing home owners (parents).

By the way although everyone seems pretty much in agreement that the idea is stupid, this was what I meant earlier by the "range of views" expressed:

@ACatsNoHelpWithThat
Why should children's interest be not represented at all?
But they are, by their parents confused

And then this

@Neshoma
Do you think most parents don't have their children's best interests at heart
Ha. Ha, ha,ha. Ha, ha, ha, ha. No. A lot of parents do not

People do seem split between thinking it's a bad idea because children are already adequately represented by their parents OR because parents would just use the additional vote for their own selfish purposes so the child would remain unrepresented. Admittedly both of these posters are unsupportive of my proposal but it's still interesting to read.

I'm going to change my name by deed poll to Poopy McPloppypants and stand as an independent representing the one-person SmellyBumWillyBoobies Party, with promises of free sweet fountains (plumbed into the newly-installed sweet-mains system) on every single corner, compulsory triple lego every morning in all school timetables and parentally-enforceable bedtimes to be absolutely abolished.

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you your next Prime Minister....Me

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll
This is getting old now. I haven't suggested that children cast their own vote. If you're going to make fun of what I've written at least read it properly!

You don’t wake up on your 18th birthday as a free thinking person devoid of influence from your life and family - most of us never do. 10 is the age of criminal responsibility. It would seem just to have voting influence at the age of criminal responsibility. I believe I t is outrageous that 16 year olds can’t vote, when they can pay tax etc.
www.commondreams.org/news/2018/10/20/teen-climate-activist-crowd-thousands-we-cant-save-world-playing-rules-because-rules?fbclid=IwAR2Yfh1RcX8RWie3A9aWyDEkewEA1PxVlp8ZdCy2v2z6TYaWU1_jFvI9vcI

@bumpitybumper You used one of my comments to illustrate your point: that "People do seem split between thinking it's a bad idea because children are already adequately represented by their parents OR because parents would just use the additional vote for their own selfish purposes so the child would remain unrepresented".

See I don't view these as points as contrary to each other. I do believe children are represented by their parents - if a minority of parents chose to use their additional vote(s) for their own interests this doesn't mean the children are still unrepresented any more than people choosing not to vote means we don't live in a democracy.

If the parent deems that xyz policy will produce the best society for their children to be part of even if their child themselves might not benefit directly from that policy, then they will vote for that despite it not representing their own particular child. Example - say there was a proposal to scrap 30 hours free childcare and use the funds to lower the higher rate income tax threshold. It would be in the interests of children with one SAHP and the other a high earner to "vote" for that policy because their family would benefit financially. Is that the kind of society the parent would want their children to live in though? I would hope not. Your proposal treats "children" as some kind of homogeneous group who would all be served best by the same kind of policies which is where the idea becomes unworkable.

@ACatsNoHelpWithThat
I think the two statements do contradict each other, although I do take your point about a child's best interest sometimes being served by taking a wider view of what kind of society that child would benefit from living in.

I think @Neshoma was suggesting that some parents don't have any intention of acting in their child's best interest. I believe you're suggesting that parents may vote on the basis that something has a indirect benefit for the child? I think that is different.

This is the stupidest idea I’ve heard for a long time

What if I am really well-off, so in order for free childcare to be provided for all, I have to pay much higher taxes for this.

Which means less money for my individual children - so is it in their best interest?

I haven't read all the replies. But for those of you advocating votes at 16, I have a genuine question. If you think a 16 year old can influence government of us all, then would you agree they should be subject to the same law? Surely they must.

So, if they are to vote at 16, surely they can: drive, drink, be sent to die in a war, get a mortgage, watch porn, etc etc.

As far as I am concerned, if there is anything on that list that you think a 16 year-old shouldn't be doing, then they shouldn't be voting.

Yes. I have advocated votes for all for a while. I would have the mother cast the votes by proxy until the child had written to the local election officer requesting control of their own vote - in this way those who were motivated could gain control of their vote earlier and children who remained dependent would still have their vote cast on their behalf into adulthood and so would still be represented.

Can you not see the logical fallacy here? You say that naturally parents will be the ones deciding who vote for. So the children are not voting at all. You are just giving parents extra votes. You are saying that parents votes are more important than non parents.

@Bumpitybumper the vast majority of parents with dependant children will vote in the interest of their family unit because what is best for the parents is by default highly likely to be best for their children too, however selfish or not the individual parent might be. It is not right to double or triple the voting power of a family with dependant children when they are already highly likely to be voting with their own family unit in mind.