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.

Now something I do believe in is a Universal Living Wage for everyone over 18.

[stands back as cat hits pigeons]

Totally stupid. So a single person has one vote but a parent with 10 children has ten votes?

IlikebigbotsandIcannotlie
I’m all for raising the voting age to 25 actually, so no.

I agree with this.

I am saying that if the population of the country is x million then there should be x million votes cast, not y million where that excludes children.

I don't have a problem with parents voting by proxy on behalf of young, or incapable, children.

That does mean that parents have more votes than non-parents. I think that's fair because the extra votes are enabling extra people to be represented.

It's not a logical fallacy. It's possible to disagree reasonably without impugning a person's logic.

nornironrock

I think that at 16 you are old enough to enough to be politically engaged. A 16 year old is as capable of understanding policies and making decisions about their future as an 18 year old.

The question is distinct from other areas of responsibility that require you to be 16. We make somewhat arbitrary decisions about when a person is old enough to do things like drive, drink, have sex etc (as shown by the fact that other countries have different ages for these things). We allow children different responsibilities at different ages - they aren’t all linked. So there is no logical reason why the right to vote should be linked with other rights. These are already independently assessed, and should continue to be so.

No. No. No. No. And no.

The voting age should be no lower than 16. I wasn't even keen on that, but I was working at 16 and paying tax so I think a say in our country's future at that age is appropriate.

@Bumpitybumper

Sorry if I misjudged your seriousness of opinion on this - I was just thinking absurdly of the potential place that this could end up.

The whole idea of the vote is that everybody deemed old enough (and with capacity) to make an informed decision is able to do so. The accepted way that we do this is that, once reaching 18, you get to vote in every election there is until you die. Even the older people whom you appear to resent having their democratic say were not allowed to vote in the first 18 years of their lives. They didn't just appear as old people: they were children and teenagers once, too, and their parents had to make voting decisions with their well-being in mind as well. Children and their needs are indeed very important. The exact same is true of the elderly, and everybody else in between.

Your suggestion (albeit unintentionally) gives fuel to the ill-educated arguments some people make when complaining about people who have a lot of children - all of them 'a massive drain' on the NHS and the education system etc. etc.; whereas each person who is born will individually cost the state a lot of money throughout their lives and, theoretically, also individually pay a lot of taxes into the system throughout their lives - it's completely immaterial how many other children their parents had, as the emphasis is on the individual.

Like it or not, except for a very, very tiny minority possibly, everybody votes selfishly - it's what suits ME and/or MY family the best (because people don't tend to have children altruistically for society - they have them because THEY want them).

Why should those who have lots of children because they want lots of children (as is their absolute right) then get to dictate policy unfairly, based on what THEY believe is best for their children and all children in general (which will not necessarily be the same as other parents believe - 'Parents' aren't just one great big homologous group)? How do we even know that their children will grow up and agree with the voting decisions that were made on their behalf? Could we see court proceedings and irretrievable family breakdowns in extreme cases?

And why just children? What about, say, terminally ill people? Should they get more votes because they won't have as many future voting opportunities as healthy people - or, conversely, should people be banned from voting when they're not expected to live until the next election? How about elderly people in general? Should a 90-year-old be disenfranchised because they won't be around to live with the consequences of long-term decisions for which they voted? Maybe we should only allow people between the ages of 0-70 to vote, or 0-40. Or even ONLY children: once you reach 18, you lose the vote that you had from birth.

Sorry, I'm still not convinced at all.

I think that's fair because the extra votes are enabling extra people to be represented.

No they aren’t. It isn’t possible to cast a vote to represent the interests of a child who cannot articulate or understand those interests yet. Whether it’s a parent or an independent body, nobody can objectively identify and assess the interests of another person.

All you are advocating for is that people who are parents get their own interests represented multiple times. That is fundamentally undemocratic.

Also, I'm in no way whatsoever suggesting that an adult's right to vote should be based on their financial contribution to society; but, as a parent, I can well understand why people without children (whether through choice or not) would feel bitterly aggrieved at effectively having a fraction of a vote compared to parents of several children, when they are statistically much more likely to work full-time, unbroken for decades, than at least one of the parents - and thus pay much more tax for far less representation.

I think that only taxpayers should vote because it's their money the political partys are dividing.

Just to clarify: If that taxpayer is 16 then I'm fine with it.

I think that only taxpayers should vote because it's their money the political partys are dividing. I agree.

"I meant that parent's should vote on their child's behalf. People acting in another person's best interest is not unheard of if you think about how power of attorney works. Just because an individual may not have the capacity themselves to do something doesn't mean that they automatically don't count or are unworthy of representation."

But that means you and say DH get 6 votes EACH and my brother who has no kids only gets 1 vote.

Also how do you deal with things like split/blended families.

Do I get a vote for my child with Father 1, a vote for child with Father 2, but not my step child that lives at the same address as me? What about my adopted child? What about foster children?

also - would I have to viote for Party A for all my 'representative" votes, or could I go "party A for me, Party B for Jason, Party C for Camilla"

how do you prose 'proving' how many children you have?

I think that only taxpayers should vote because it's their money the political partys are dividing.

It’s fundamentally wrong to disenfranchise people who don’t pay income tax. That group includes stay at home parents, people who earn below the income tax threshold, people with illnesses and disabilities that prevent them from working, carers, retirees, and hosts of others who deserve to have their interests represented as much as any other person. You are a valued member of society by virtue of existing in it, not by virtue of the income tax you pay.

You are a valued member of society by virtue of existing in it, not by virtue of the income tax you pay. Why should be people be able to vote in favour of stealing more of my hard earned money?

You are a valued member of society by virtue of existing in it, not by virtue of the income tax you pay.

Whilst I agree that not only taxpayers are valued members of society I don’t believe you earn that right merely by existing in it.

Why should be people be able to vote in favour of stealing more of my hard earned money?

What an absurd statement. Income tax isn’t stealing. And if you’ve ever benefitted from the NHS, state education, public roads, policing, MI5 and MI6, public arts funding, libraries, community care, state pensions, defence, public museums, street lights, environmental protection, public parks or any number of other things funded by taxation you’ll appreciate exactly why income tax is required, and why some people think it worthwhile voting for higher taxation in return for improvements to all of the above services.

@explodingkitten
I think that only taxpayers should vote because it's their money the political partys are dividing
What about people that work but earn under the income tax threshold? Surely almost everyone pays some form of tax whether it be council tax, VAT, road tax etc anyway?

I don’t believe you earn that right merely by existing in it

The alternative is that instead of seeing voting as a human right that you get by virtue of being a mentally capable member of society, we see it as something you have to earn by exhibiting particular traits, behaviours or characteristics. This is a dangerous precedent to set, because who gets to decide what traits and behaviour are acceptable? And how do we avoid the inevitable abuse of that? Democracy is based on the inalienable principle that every member of a society (save for those who lack capacity due to age) as the same right to vote, and that all of those votes are equal.

To kill liberty one must kill the economy, and that makes taxation the coffin of enterprise, everything it pays for are just the nails holding down the lid of the coffin.

Suttree I know you think you sound clever but that is truly the most nonsensical non-statement I’ve ever read. Are you a 19 year old man living in your mother’s basement, making lofty pronouncements about libertarianism online while you eat crisps? Because if not, those are your people and you should seek them out.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

20 million kids under 18..

I prepose if I win all children can have £100 a week pocket money and free sweets...
Oh look I won
.. Now what the heck do I do...

I don't pay tax because I earn below the threshold- does that mean I have no right to say how i want the country run. It's not just about money either; choosing a government is also based on your moral beliefs, not just economic ones.