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)

"Younger people don't care much about the welfare of the elderly."
While I don't agree that parents should vote for their kids I do think voting should be lowered to 16 and made compulsory, with better education about politics in schools.
The above comment about young people is nonsense though. Young people are just as likely to care about elderly, as the elderly are about the young. That's why policies are geared towards benefitting pensioners, since they're the ones who vote. For the most part in their own interests.

That's ridiculous. So basically, anybody who has more than 1 child gets to have more votes? Also, you have no idea which way your children will lean politically when they're older - I know I don't share my mum's opinion on anything political, and, I daresay, many children when they grow up, wouldn't be happy with the choice their parents made on their behalf.

Ummm, it’s a joke?

I think JD Vance is reprehensible, but no
i don’t actually change my mind just because he likes an idea.

Having said that, posing a question and seeing what people think doesn’t necessarily say anything about how strongly I support it.

Looks interesting. Might be my holiday read

It's not about guessing which way your children will lean politically when they are older, it's about a vote in their interests at the time when they are children.

Parents can just vote for what they think would benefit their children though can't they? Having two votes seems inane as they may just contradict each other.

Nope
I'm right wing - my ds is left wing and has been since he was 16... I don't think voting left wing is in his favour as its filling our country with people we physically cannot house but in sure he would disagree and giving ME a vote on his behalf would not be voting in his direction.

I wouldn’t support that. But what we should do is think about how we encourage 18-24 year olds to vote. They are the lowest level of voting I believe and their views would be more attended to if they voted in the same proportion as older people.

That's exactly why. If parents are honestly considering their children's interests when voting then they are using one vote to represent their own interests plus those of their children. If a single parent has 2 children, that's one vote representing 3 people whereas childless adults have one vote per person.

The assumption with your idea is that older voters don't care about young people. Young people don't know what life is like, and have no clue at all what life is like for the older generations. Whereas older adults do know what life is like, across the ages, and can vote about it intelligently. Whether any voter of any age actually does vote intelligently is by the by. If you're an adult but, say, a young parent, I don't necessarily trust you to know what it's like to be older.

Of course but, as a gross oversimplification, if we had 151 people, 50 are children, 50 are parents and 51 are childless. If the 50 parents all vote for what they think would benefit their children (option A) and the 51 that are childless vote for option B (again, gross oversimplification, not saying they all would but they would be more likely to) then option B happens when theoretically option A would have benefitted more people.

I'm childless by the way, I just think this idea makes loads of sense. It would obviously need a bit more thinking though. Potentially a way that any child over the age of 11 has the right to withdraw their vote if they feel their parents will not vote in their interests. But that's just one idea, I'm sure there would be loads.

It's an interesting suggestion 😀

It's quite clear older voters don't care about younger people. If they did they would consider sharing their wealth so people can have the families and homes that they did. But they don't and any party that promised to redistribute in this way would be unelectable.

Exactly. Some of our friends have a daughter with Downs Syndrome and it is pretty servere. Even her dad sometimes has trouble understanding what she is trying to say. Her mum claims that the daughter can write but the mum is the only one who can interpret the texts. The mum ensures that her daughter goes to vote st every election. That is just wrong.

OP YABU for thinking voting does anything other than legitimise corporate power. We may aswell let children vote - hell toddlers. At least then its transparent and everyone can actually see the extent to which we are utterly powerless and held in contempt.

"Potentially a way that any child over the age of 11 has the right to withdraw their vote if they feel their parents will not vote in their interests. "

Big no. So families that agree get double the votes of offspring that disagree with their parents over what their interests are and how they're best served. Doesn't sound very fair...

Life isn't fair. deal with it.

Agree
And the person down the road with 5 feral tweens should get 6 votes when my husband and I only get 1 each ?
Not voting for this one thanks.

Well, let's get rid of democracy altogether then!

My political views were very different from my parents from the age I became politically aware at about 12. They would never have voted in a way that I woukd have considered aligned with my views.

They can get married (in England they would need parental consent but in Scotland they don’t), that can have children but can’t vote…life experience isn’t needed to have an interest in politics. Loads of people with life experience have mashed tatties between their ears but can vote.

You seem to think we have it to start with.

Do I? Have you actually read my posts on this thread or are you just a random snark generator

Exactly. So you need "life experience" to vote. But it's totally fine if you're ages 95, with mild dementia. Go ahead

So extremists and controlling arses can have loads more kids to get extra votes and vote for their extremist ideas