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.

choosing a government is also based on your moral beliefs, not just economic ones. Should other people have to pay to fund your "moral beliefs" though?

Suttree

What are you advocating in place of government? Straightforward anarchy with absolutely no public services?

This thread is great. 🤣🤣🤣

@Blanchedupetitpois - I mean the free market will provide

Having just asked next doors DC who I am watching for an hour, should we really reduce the voting system to "I'd pick the man who always wears a red tie, Lady Theresa is a poo head"?

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

There are a wider variety of ways to organise a democracy than one person one vote. For example it wasn't that long ago that there were extra "university" constituencies in the House of Commons so some people had more than one vote then. Democracy is about a lot more than a narrow conception of the electoral franchise.

This is about choices. I'm advocating making a different choice at present that gives more votes to younger people and their interests.

Old people are already over-represented (in my view) with the House of Geriatrics Lords.

Obviously the whole idea seems rather a load of nonsense. That aside for the moment, what would happen if the two parents disagreed on who to vote for? Its quite common for couples to disagree and vote for different parties, surely that would be very confusing for everyone?

I mean the free market will provide

Right - so, from your income you will privately pay for anything you require in respect of health, education, protection, national security, infrastructure etc? And you think you’ll be better off under that system than you presently are with public services funded by taxation? That is genuinely a belief you hold?

I wouldn't pay for all of the above, I'd just opt in to the services I need.

For example it wasn't that long ago that there were extra "university" constituencies in the House of Commons so some people had more than one vote then.

And we stopped allowing that because we could see that it was undemocratic.

This is about choices. I'm advocating making a different choice at present that gives more votes to younger people and their interests.

No you aren’t. You aren’t suggesting that children be allowed to vote (and if you are, there are serious issues with that). You’re suggesting that people with children be given extra votes, on account of them having children.

I have no problem with expanding eligibility to include 16 year olds (or even 15 year olds), but I absolutely refute any suggestion that you be given extra votes if you have children, because there is simply no way for a person to objectively assess the appropriate vote for another person and make it for them. Therefore any attempt to give parents votes ‘for their children’ is nothing more than giving parents extra votes to use for themselves.

I wouldn't pay for all of the above, I'd just opt in to the services I need.

Which of those services do you not need? And how would you calculate your contribution? And if nobody else was willing to opt in to a service you needed (for example, repairing a road leading to your house) and you couldn’t pay for it by yourself, what would you do?

In the example of roads leading to individual properties they're mostly unadopted, so people don't pay for those anyway. Which is right. People know best how to spend their money so I wouldn't have any concerns in that regard.

And private firms would run these services and set a flat rate subscription, or possibly gold silver and bronze levels depending on how much you use the service.

Old people are already over-represented (in my view) with the House ofGeriatricsLords.

Nice bit of ageism there.

I’m 55 so count as the “grey vote.” I suppose. I have children under the age of 16 so therefore I’ve just gained multiple votes for the greys.

With more and more people becoming parents in their 40s & 50s, that would seem to strengthen the grey vote, not counter it.

And who would cast these votes, mother or father? I can see all sorts of problems there.

Plus it ignores the fact that someone in their 40s generally has a lot more experience of foreign policy or economics than someone of 16 or 18.

My ds would vote green because his teaching assistant’s husband is a green candidate and likes Minecraft. Hardly helpful!

It sounds absurd to me.

BackInRed

😂😂😂

Seconded. Ahhhh, my aching sides!

🤣🤣🤣

In the example of roads leading to individual properties they're mostly unadopted, so people don't pay for those anyway. Which is right. People know best how to spend their money so I wouldn't have any concerns in that regard.

But what if you and your neighbours disagree about how best to spend money? You all share a road and it’s become impassable. Imagine you want to repair it because you’re disabled and you need to drive to your front door. Your neighbours are happy to park elsewhere and walk around the damage. Then what will you do? You can’t afford to pay tens of thousands of pounds to fix the road yourself. You can’t get your neighbours on board. Nobody else is going to take responsibility. What’s the solution?

What about things that you can’t individually pay for, like the army? What if the majority of people opt out of funding it because they don’t see the need and would rather have the money in their pocket. Suddenly we can’t defend ourselves. Russia decides to annexe the U.K. What’s the solution?

And private firms would run these services and set a flat rate subscription, or possibly gold silver and bronze levels depending on how much you use the service

How would this work - say you pay a private security company for a bronze level service. Does that mean they’ll come to your house if you have an armed intruder, but not if it’s just a weird man in your garden staring through your window? Or if you can only afford bronze level education, your kids will go to school but they’ll only be taught maths and English? Is that ok? How about bronze level healthcare - fine if you break a leg and need it set, but if you want chemotherapy at £10,000 per month you’ll need a gold subscription?

What happens to people on low wages who can’t afford to pay for these services? Do they get no protection, education or healthcare? Is your ideal society one where if you earn enough you can privately pay for services, but if you don’t you simply have to try and survive without the benefit of police, schools, doctors, infrastructure and the army?

Personally I think this is a terrible and ill thought proposal that couldn’t possibly work. I don’t know where to begin in explaining my reasoning for this, our system is based on everyone’s vote being equal and on the basis of one person one vote. The vote of every member of society has the same weight whether that was earned through social capital or by paying tax. Even this has its problems:
Homeless struggle to vote
UK taxpayers who are not nationals cannot vote.
Those with landlords who forbid them to be on the electoral role cannot vote.
Prisoners can’t vote
Until recently, certain severe mental illnesses prevented you from voting (hopefully someone can correct me on this).

Arguably all these categories of people deserve a vote and that should be the focus before giving children the vote IMO.
Children have no responsibilities in our society (I think there’s a genuine legal word for this) therefore they don’t get the associated rights.

To say that parents should have more voting power than non-parents is absurd and suggests that the voice of one member of society is more important than another’s. The same argument could also apply to:

• carers of pets/animals. Animals have no say (even once they reach voting age) yet have to live in the environment we create.
• Better educated. Should those who understand the issues better have more influence on the vote? Who defines educated?
• higher taxpayers. Pay more in get a bigger say.

Public service workers/community leaders. Again, if you are putting more in then should you get a bigger say?

Our voting system is far from flawless, in fact it needs reforming in so many areas. But giving children the vote is stupid. Having said that, I would quite happily much on the free haribos that I would inevitably become entitled to.

16 and 17 yes. Easy, they pay tax on their earnings and it's shitty to enforce taxation without representation, and frankly, I'd be tempted to exempt teens from taxation for a few years if they reach voting age just after an election and don't get a chance to have a say. Either that, or raise the taxation age to be in line with the voting age.

15 and below, daft idea, although I guarantee if kids could vote then party manifestos would promise lots of money for schools and other youth services. That would be fun to watch....

Not RTFT but the voting age is fine. What I do believe is that those who are taxed should get a vote rather than just being given to certain citizens. Taxation without representation is unfair.

“Taxation without representation is unfair.”
I’m tempted to agree JAMMYesPlease, but are you advocating those who pay more tax should have more of a say?

suttree, yes, in a democracy the majority get their way and the minority pay for it. What is the alternative? Absence of state, survival of the fittest and everyman for himself? If free markets worked we have adopted them years ago- even in the US there are some security systems in place.

Very well said @Blanchedupetitpois

There is no taxation age.

If a baby has earned income - due to fashion shoots or film/TV - and this income is above the personal allowance then they will pay tax on that income.

I would have the mother cast the votes by proxy

Why the mother? Both parents have equal responsibility. They would both need to agree, which may be difficult if they were separated.

Anyway, the whole idea is absurd. The idea that all parents would vote in their child's best interest is very naive. Some would, but certainly not all. Look at all the child stars whose own parents dip into their earnings. Look at the threads on here where people accept large cash gifts for their young children who haven't yet got a bank account, promise to pass it on to them when they're older, and then spend the money on something that directly benefits themselves. Not all parents care about their children's best interests.