To think parents should be given a proxy vote for their children

[OldLondonDad]

Bit of a random topic for AIBU, but since we've had a few threads recently on politics and taxes, why not?...

A decade or so ago I thought it seemed that those who will impacted most by today's policies have the least (no!) say in them. Our politics are largely shaped by the vote of the oldest section of society and the youngest just have to live with it.

Solution? Give parents an extra vote per child. They will be highly likely to use it in the way that benefits their child, so the country's policies will be more likely to favour the young (and the future of the country) rather than the old.

There's a name for the concept - demeny voting. It gets considered here and there in various countries, but what does mumsnet think?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demeny_voting

(no I'm not a journalist / politician / think-tank analyst etc., just a regular dad)

How about the more tax you pay the more votes you have? Nonsense isn’t it. One vote per person is the way a democracy works.

Exactly. I'm not arguing with you. I just hate constantly seeing that PARENTS are costing more. They're not. They have a cost and their kids have a separate cost. Kids are people in their own right - society pays a cost for them and then they pay it back one day.

Instinctively I hate it. Also, JD Vance is into it, which is gross.

Genuinely curious to see what it'd do to the birthrate crisis though!

Absolutely not. It's just giving parents 2 votes.

So humans under the age of 18 aren't people?

DH and I don't agree politically.
We have 1 DC
So who gets their vote

Also just no

Oh crap, he is? Ugh, I didn't know that. Ok I take it back :-(

As to whether a parent would vote in the same way the child would vote if the child could vote - that's not the point

Ohhhhh, so what you're saying is adults should do what they think best, even if the children don't agree with it? Rather than what they do now, which is, do what they think best, even if the children don't agree with it?

Ok, got it.
Make it make sense.

Don't think anyone is actually suggesting that. I wasn't

Yes, because giving people extra votes wouldn’t be open to abuse at all…

Not to mention the logistical nightmare it would pose to the already convoluted, bureaucratic horror show that is voter registration in the UK.

Take your children’s needs and future into account when using your vote. That’s what it’s for.

We need compulsory voting.

This is a stupid idea as it would just reward people even more for feckless breeding and it would give childless people even less power.

I think that would be a terrible idea.

I have 6 children and have a relatively decent political knowledge, but BIL, who has no children, has a much better political knowledge and financial knowledge than I do.

My choice to have a large family shouldn't impact on government's choices for the country as a whole.

Plus anything other than "one person one vote" is just asking for other types of extra votes to be added to people impacted by choices. Extra votes for people with more land? Extra votes for business owners?

You could apply that to anything.

Higher taxes for people with chronic/long term conditions because they use more NHS resources?

Higher taxes for the elderly because they use more social care resources?

No. There would (rightly) be outrage. Children benefit society as they are the future workforce and tax payers, so we should collectively be investing in them.

Also, no I don't agree about an additional vote - I think the key is politics being taught as part of the curriculum so they understand the value of their vote and they can make informed decisions once they are 18.

Pretty sure my 6 year old would want me to vote Monster Raving Loony on her behalf.

Ha! So would my 10 year old. Count BinFace was running for mayor of London and she said that the policy of (not sure this is EXACTLY right but it's close) free croissants for everyone on a Friday was good reason for me to vote for him. I didn't obviously.

Well the more people born the the more pressure on schools, hospitals and doctors, roads and the environment

So populating the world with as many people as possible is not really the way we should be buying votes

It’s so ridiculous it’s laughable. Just handing out extra votes to people and assuming they’ll use them wisely for the benefit of their children’s future? I’m in NI and am subjected to images of young children building bonfires with effigies of people they hate and singing anti Catholic songs, babies wearing Red Hand of Ulster bibs and various other demonstrations of sectarian hatred. Their parents TAUGHT them that. I shudder at the very idea of those parents having any more votes. I’m sure they wouldn’t be especially appreciative of my choices either.

An absolutely ludicrous notion

It doesn't matter if you've got one day left to live on earth or 80 years in front of you, everyone has a right to have a say on the country and and everyones vote is worth the same. Nobody is more valuable than others or should have more say just because they have longer to live.

I see thousands of 'parents should have an extra vote for each child they have' comments on twitter all the time along with comments about wanting obscenely high taxes for childfree people in response to any posts about the declining birth-rate, normally to stick the boot into or punish childlfree people (so many internet subcultures that have a deep hatred for them at the moment).

It should be one person, one vote. People can vote for their own interests, the interests of the population, a combination of the two, they can abstain, they can do a protest vote, they can vote for anarchy, they can vote for whatever reason they like. Not only would it be undemocratic but a bureaucratic nightmare. Children may have completely different political opinions to their parents and have different outlooks on what is best for the country. Husbands and wives themselves can have differing political views. Which one takes precedence for the child's vote? It's a nonsense idea.

Worst of all, it will mean that policies that punish or disadvantage childless people will become more prominent. Imagine a currently childfree couple desperate for a child but unable to afford one in this economic climate so voted for a political party who promised more affordable housing and daycare so they could have the chance to raise a family, only for their vote to be worth half or a third as much as a couple who had children and were voting for a political party to tax childfree couples more or reduce income tax even further for people with kids.

It's the same thing as when only people who had land could vote. It just meant that everyone who wanted policies that made it easier to own a home/land are rendered powerless and voiceless because of course land owners would vote for policies that did the complete opposite.

I would definitely not advocate for this, for a start my parents had massively different politics to me when I was younger and this is still the case now I'm an adult. I wouldn't have wanted them voting on my behalf because I wouldn't have agreed with the vote they'd place.

What is a much better option is to provide a much better, neutral political education system for young people, promoting young people becoming leaders and involved actively in their communities and allowing them to vote at 16 once this is established. Or, hold a young person's shadow vote which counts as a certain percentage of the overall vote.

The problem really, is that there is a big lack of voters in younger age brackets in general but plenty of voters in much older age brackets. Politicians also pay much less attention to younger voters than they should as a result. Its something we should be promoting much harder than we currently are but really working on developing the critical thinking around voting, how we hold Politicians/parties to account, and providing much more accessible clear information as to what each party is offering.

So.....you had a cause you believed in, supported, felt strongly was right......but someone you don't like supports it so "Oh crap, he is? Ugh, I didn't know that. Ok I take it back" "sad face" Seriously. 🙄

Yeah it's a great idea. As lots of people have said 'one person, one vote'. Children are people too.

A childless person votes based purely on what they think is best for themselves/the country

A person with children votes based on what they think is best for themselves, their children and the country. They have to split their vote between their own priorities (or what they would be if they were childless) and those of their children. One vote represents what they want and also what they feel is best for their children.

One vote per person (including children) means that every person in the country is represented. Yes you could say that parents may not know exactly how their child would vote but surely with conversations with them, they are best placed to make that decision. Better than just ignoring the children anyway!

I also agree with carers voting on behalf of adults without the capacity to make the decision because again I feel that, in the majority of cases, carers will vote with the person they care for in mind.

I'm also childless if that is relevant at all.

As to whether a parent would vote in the same way the child would vote if the child could vote - that's not the point. The point is voting in the way that you think best benefits the child, and their future
What you seem to be saying, indirectly is that older people shouldn't be voting about matters that impact on young people rather than them.

The thing is, older people are grandparents and care about their grandkids and ultimately, just like older people, many parents think about their own welfare before anyone else. Gives parents more voice doesn't forcibly mean better decisions for the next generation. However, I dare to think where it would live the older generation. Younger people don't care much about the welfare of the elderly.

You should read what we owe to the future by William MacAskill. Talks about how to protect future interests and is fascinating read. Discusses these concepts.