2024 U.S. Elections | Trump v Harris

Real Name said:
People with kids should have more than 1 voting right.

Only reasoning why Vance is putting it out is to have a sly dig at Harris. As if people with kids are more special than the people who have no kids. Also Harris is a stepmother but that doesnt stop Vance from his disguisting attacks.
Click to expand...
I already said in previous post that it was a dig to harris and also twice that he is not saying that for the right reasons. I am well aware of that. And is not how are more special. Is not about being special is having voters voting for their future and all the decisions that affect future kids are delegated. Vote could be one of it.

Don't get me wrong. I understand your argument and could well be that I would be inclined on that side also, but I see the other point too. Why if I decide for my kid, his school, I decide for him, the curriculum, I decide the extra curriculars basketball over football, piano over violin. judo over karate, etc...His diet and many more, why I should not decide for him/her his/her vote for the country that I think is best
 
So anyway, JD Vance is turning out to be a disaster, no? Claims about him having sex with a couch, his comments on childless women and so forth.
 
VorZakone said:
So anyway, JD Vance is turning out to be a disaster, no? Claims about him having sex with a couch, his comments on childless women and so forth.
Click to expand...
The GOP must've used those charlatans over at vetting.com to perform a background check.
 
4bars said:
No is not. Is your opinion. If we should blame our father for voting each 4 years, imagine what you could blame for the day by day decisions that they do for you constantly. Day care, school, books, TV shows and a big fecking etcetera. But sure, an autocratic vote each 4 years is what you can through at their faces. See it how you like but parents are the influence for the future of their kids every single day and denying that it is what is really stupid

I am not saying that I would agree on this, I would need to give it a better thought, but saying stupid that parents have a saying on the future of their kids is amusing. And again, the fabric of democracy is attack in many other voting skewing and unelected powers
Click to expand...
Please give it more thought becuase it’s clearly an extremely stupid idea. Making personal decisions relating to your household, schooling and lifestyle do not impact society at large. Voting for your leaders and government does. Handing a person two votes becuase they have two kids makes no logical sense whatsoever. And which parent gets that second vote anyway? What if the kid is being taken care of by the grandparent with the parents doing very little?

Each vote counting equal is an essential part of the democratic fabric. Giving a shitty parent with 5 kids a more relevant vote than a great human being who is unable to conceive is wrong.
 
4bars said:
I already said in previous post that it was a dig to harris and also twice that he is not saying that for the right reasons. I am well aware of that. And is not how are more special. Is not about being special is having voters voting for their future and all the decisions that affect future kids are delegated. Vote could be one of it.

Don't get me wrong. I understand your argument and could well be that I would be inclined on that side also, but I see the other point too. Why if I decide for my kid, his school, I decide for him, the curriculum, I decide the extra curriculars basketball over football, piano over violin. judo over karate, etc...His diet and many more, why I should not decide for him/her his/her vote for the country that I think is best
Click to expand...
You're mixing things up. One theme is deciding on kids school, activities, judo over karate and so on, the other is deciding for them what's their political stance before they get to know things. And as @amolbhatia50k said deiciding on the future of society based on having kids and so on.
Also he made great points, so a someone who has kids but is a shitty parent should have more voting rights than someone who doesnt have or cant have kids?

The whole idea is ludicrous.
 
Real Name said:
You're mixing things up. One theme is deciding on kids school, activities, judo over karate and so on, the other is deciding for them what's their political stance before they get to know things. And as @amolbhatia50k said deiciding on the future of society based on having kids and so on.
Also he made great points, so a someone who has kids but is a shitty parent should have more voting rights than someone who doesnt have or cant have kids?

The whole idea is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

It is completely moronic and absurd. Almost as absurd as thinking that anything Vance says has any credence at all.
 
Real Name said:
You're mixing things up. One theme is deciding on kids school, activities, judo over karate and so on, the other is deciding for them what's their political stance before they get to know things. And as @amolbhatia50k said deiciding on the future of society based on having kids and so on.
Also he made great points, so a someone who has kids but is a shitty parent should have more voting rights than someone who doesnt have or cant have kids?

The whole idea is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Not really, it's simply deciding what's in the kids best interest which is what parents do all the time. A legal requirement in most cases.

I actually think it's a very valid concept. A kids future is impacted more by some policies than someone in their 70s so why shouldn't they get a (delegated) vote? I know I wouldn't have agreed with my dad's voting decisions on my behalf but it doesn't feel wrong that he could have that right.

I will also point out as it seems some are judging the idea through the prism of it being associated with Vance. It's already a long standing idea proposed by political academics. It's certainly not the first time I've come across it.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
Not really, it's simply deciding what's in the kids best interest which is what parents do all the time. A legal requirement in most cases.

I actually think it's a very valid concept. A kids future is impacted more by some policies than someone in their 70s so why shouldn't they get a (delegated) vote? I know I wouldn't have agreed with my dad's voting decisions on my behalf but it doesn't feel wrong that he could have that right.
Click to expand...

Jessica is 50 years old, not married and doesn’t have any kids. She is well-educated and opts to vote for the candidate that campaigns on more safe guards for children, protecting them against child labor and providing free school meals. Additionally, she also votes for a party that wants to help parents with funding child daycare.

Karen is also 50 years old and has 6 children. She votes for the party that wants to lower the working age, get rid of child labor protections and the party she votes for wants to lower the age of consent/marriage. They also want to get rid of free lunches and funding for child daycare.

Luckily Karen now has two votes. Or maybe 6 if we go per kid. Her choices will surely be better for the future of her children than the choices childless Jessica has made.

Do some of you actually think these things through or just accept any moronic idea instantly? Bizarre you need this explained.
 
4bars said:
No is not. Is your opinion. If we should blame our father for voting each 4 years, imagine what you could blame for the day by day decisions that they do for you constantly. Day care, school, books, TV shows and a big fecking etcetera. But sure, an autocratic vote each 4 years is what you can through at their faces. See it how you like but parents are the influence for the future of their kids every single day and denying that it is what is really stupid

I am not saying that I would agree on this, I would need to give it a better thought, but saying stupid that parents have a saying on the future of their kids is amusing. And again, the fabric of democracy is attack in many other voting skewing and unelected powers
Click to expand...
Nobody is saying parents don’t have a say on the future of their kids. You get your say when you vote, just as does everyone else.

What happens if my wife and I are trying for a kid but she only gets pregnant one month after the election? Does that now mean the future of your kid is more important than that of mine because I couldn’t pop mine out quick enough?
 
Smores said:
Not really, it's simply deciding what's in the kids best interest which is what parents do all the time. A legal requirement in most cases.

I actually think it's a very valid concept. A kids future is impacted more by some policies than someone in their 70s so why shouldn't they get a (delegated) vote? I know I wouldn't have agreed with my dad's voting decisions on my behalf but it doesn't feel wrong that he could have that right.

I will also point out as it seems some are judging the idea through the prism of it being associated with Vance. It's already a long standing idea proposed by political academics. It's certainly not the first time I've come across it.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's not because it comes from JD (!), it truly just is ludicrous, and I say this as a parent myself. It's wrong on every possible legal and practical way. If only because so many parents are just such thick cretins, I'd oppose this tooth and nail. Not to mention the blatant discrimination against childless people (many of them not by choice, not that it matters though), the consequences on birth rates, and every other imaginable unintended and/or unpredictable negative effect, some of which are already being rightly pointed out by other posters.
 
Smores said:
ssNot really, it's simply deciding what's in the kids best interest which is what parents do all the time. A legal requirement in most cases.

I actually think it's a very valid concept. A kids future is impacted more by some policies than someone in their 70s so why shouldn't they get a (delegated) vote? I know I wouldn't have agreed with my dad's voting decisions on my behalf but it doesn't feel wrong that he could have that right.
Click to expand...

That is because you are thinking of it form a personal point of view. Think of it as a systemtic idea. Who gets the votes for children in foster care and institutionalised kids? What about the mentally challenged who will never have their own right to vote? Does this also include those who are living under enforced legal guardians as adults?

At current numbers that is between 1-2 million votes in the US. States can change their laws to make it easier to institutionalize, enforce legal guardianship or other shenanigangs. Foster care and adoption services becomes a very profitable industry for political organizations looking to influence politics.
 
RG77 said:
Jessica is 50 years old, not married and doesn’t have any kids. She is well-educated and opts to vote for the candidate that campaigns on more safe guards for children, protecting them against child labor and providing free school meals. Additionally, she also votes for a party that wants to help parents with funding child daycare.

Karen is also 50 years old and has 6 children. She votes for the party that wants to lower the working age, get rid of child labor protections and the party she votes for wants to lower the age of consent/marriage. They also want to get rid of free lunches and funding for child daycare.

Luckily Karen now has two votes. Or maybe 6 if we go per kid. Her choices will surely be better for the future of her children than the choices childless Jessica has made.

Do some of you actually think these things through or just accept any moronic idea instantly? Bizarre you need this explained.
Click to expand...

If you think you've proven anything there you haven't, all you've argued is stupid people are a threat to democracy and some people are bad parents. We allow stupid people to vote, we don't reduce voting power based on IQ.

I suggest actually looking up this idea as there's plenty of academic research on it that predates JD Vance even being born. It's immature to discount an idea immediately because of who you've heard it from.

There's cons to it of course, it may cause parents to be a more targeted voter base over those without children. It's whether those cons outweigh full rights for every citizen.

The better starting point is to allow 16 year olds to vote and I'd support even lower given the right framework.
 
There should not be any favouritism in voting rights, be it age, religion, skin colour, gender, wealth or intelligence. Doing so opens a whole raft of issues, every voice should be equal. It's the very basis of democracy. A very daft and frankly dangerous option.
 
No, having children does not make your political opinions more important than those without.
 
Smores said:
If you think you've proven anything there you haven't, all you've argued is stupid people are a threat to democracy and some people are bad parents. We allow stupid people to vote, we don't reduce voting power based on IQ.

I suggest actually looking up this idea as there's plenty of academic research on it that predates JD Vance even being born. It's immature to discount an idea immediately because of who you've heard it from.

There's cons to it of course, it may cause parents to be a more targeted voter base over those without children. It's whether those cons outweigh full rights for every citizen.

The better starting point is to allow 16 year olds to vote and I'd support even lower given the right framework.
Click to expand...
Most here aren’t discounting the idea because of who it came from but becuase it’s genuinely daft. I’m not even that into US politics and know next to nothing about this fellow.

- It proposes to give a vote to a person who isn’t deemed as being mature and mentally developed enough to vote. In certain cases, having committed a crimes or having certain illnesses bars you from voting - can these people also transfer their vote to someone?
- Even if we give a child a vote, we are then taking that right away by handing it straight to their parent who they might disagree with. What if a 14 year old kid is a big admirer of a politician but his parent supports the other party? And how do you decide which parents gets the single child’s vote? If he’s abandoned, can anyone swoop in and take advantage of this low hanging fruit? Are orphans less important than kids living with their folks?
- And then there’s the bigger picture - you’re encouraging discrimination based a very personal choice as well as encouraging family planning based on all the wrong reasons - politics. Maybe a rich politician can start paying his supporters to have an additional kid in change for some cash.

Basically, it’s a terrible idea.
 
Parents voting for their children is the most stupid idea ever. Especially considering that very often different generations have dramatically different political opinions.

It also was not a serious idea, just a very cheap shot at Harris. For all the GOP talks about Democrat's identity politics, GOP is much worse at that, and the entire party is build around 1) lowering taxes, 2) having the most stupid identity politics and shouting them non-stop.
 
Giving an extra vote (or even several) to people with children is the dumbest thing I’ve read on Redcafe today.
 
Smores said:
If you think you've proven anything there you haven't, all you've argued is stupid people are a threat to democracy and some people are bad parents. We allow stupid people to vote, we don't reduce voting power based on IQ.

I suggest actually looking up this idea as there's plenty of academic research on it that predates JD Vance even being born. It's immature to discount an idea immediately because of who you've heard it from.

There's cons to it of course, it may cause parents to be a more targeted voter base over those without children. It's whether those cons outweigh full rights for every citizen.

The better starting point is to allow 16 year olds to vote and I'd support even lower given the right framework.
Click to expand...

A genuine question. Could you link some of these sources? It's always interesting to see hard research support something that's otherwise counterintuitive.
 
Smores said:
Not really, it's simply deciding what's in the kids best interest which is what parents do all the time. A legal requirement in most cases.

I actually think it's a very valid concept. A kids future is impacted more by some policies than someone in their 70s so why shouldn't they get a (delegated) vote? I know I wouldn't have agreed with my dad's voting decisions on my behalf but it doesn't feel wrong that he could have that right.

I will also point out as it seems some are judging the idea through the prism of it being associated with Vance. It's already a long standing idea proposed by political academics. It's certainly not the first time I've come across it.
Click to expand...
Should we strip old people of voting rights for example? Cause they'll soon be dead and shouldn't vote on my kids future.

In any case, the fact that its proposed by political academics doesnt make the idea any less stupid.

Comparisons with parents' decisions on kids in every day life doesnt work really.

And its basically a definition od discrimination all in all.

I have kids and I dont feel any more special compared to people who dont or cant have kids so I should get 2 more votes.
 
Last edited:
Smores said:
If you think you've proven anything there you haven't, all you've argued is stupid people are a threat to democracy and some people are bad parents. We allow stupid people to vote, we don't reduce voting power based on IQ.

I suggest actually looking up this idea as there's plenty of academic research on it that predates JD Vance even being born. It's immature to discount an idea immediately because of who you've heard it from.

There's cons to it of course, it may cause parents to be a more targeted voter base over those without children. It's whether those cons outweigh full rights for every citizen.

The better starting point is to allow 16 year olds to vote and I'd support even lower given the right framework.
Click to expand...

1. Exactly, democracy isn’t perfect but the best we have at the moment. And now you want to give those same people more voting power. And even an incentive to produce more children (if we’re going with 1 vote per kid). The initial argument was that parents had a vested interest in the future and thus should get a proxy vote. Which on its own doesn’t even hold up. A 25 year old with no kids has just as much a stake in the future (whatever timeline that may be, 8 years or 40 years).

2. I looked it up and none of the results I found concluded that it was a good idea.

3. That is one way to diminish the cons. There are countless ones. As mentioned in this thread. From effectively giving stupid people even more voting power, parents who might disagree (with each other and/or the kids), effectively punishing those who can’t have or don’t want children, baseless line of thinking that parents somehow are going to do the right thing for their children (see how many idiots voted for a rapist that will happily destroy the country for his own ego). The list is endless.

4. Lowering the age of voting is something else entirely. We are discussing giving parents a proxy vote. Which is simply dumb.
 
4bars said:
He only says that because it would benefit republicans and a dig to Kamala. If it would benefit democrats he would say nothing. You might agree or not, But I don't think is a stupid idea. In the end when you vote is for the future of your kids also. The Electoral College and life time SCOTUS is up there in stupidity and they are real
Click to expand...

It's a stupid idea. Might as well say if you don't believe in patriarchy and my version of god your vote shouldn't count. Then what else? How about if you're not right handed? If you don't like baseball and apple pie? Basically, he's saying whatever I (he) believe in is what counts.
 
MrMarcello said:
It's a stupid idea. Might as well say if you don't believe in patriarchy and my version of god your vote shouldn't count. Then what else? How about if you're not right handed? If you don't like baseball and apple pie? Basically, he's saying whatever I (he) believe in is what counts.
Click to expand...
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe it not to mention it goes against the core principles of Democracy .
 
This is for you, Mr. Vance:

2024: You should only vote if you live in a big city and have a college degree.

2028: You should only vote if you live in a big city, have a college degree and registered Democrat/Independent.

2032: You should only vote if you live in a big city, have a college degree and registered Democrat.
 
Also, who gets the vote? What if the parents are divorced... do they each get a vote? Do they have to agree on who the vote goes to? What if the parents are in jail and/or have lost their right to vote? What if the child is a ward of the state?

Basically it is a dumb ass idea that could be take a whole lot further, right? I mean, Citizens United paved the way to considering corporations as voting stakeholders so I guess corporations, or their CEO's should have a right to vote.. right? Let's not forget about PAC's and Non-profits, after all they have a vested interest in the future.
 
Let's humor this nonsense for a minute. Let's even ignore the democratic principles it goes against and the blatant discrimination and go directly to the implementation:

-Who gets to decide the additional vote in traditional families? The mother or the father? Cause they can have different political opinions and do have the right to one vote each, right?

-Let's suppose that we figure the first one out by giving the extra votes to either the mother or the father. What happens with gay couples then? Do the ones that doesn't have a convencional mother or father lose their right to a vote?

-Let's suppose on the other hand that the voting would have to be agreed by both parents. Doesn't this go against the secrecy of the vote? How can we assure that one of them isn't pressuring the other for the vote? Should the disagreements be settled in court? Isn't possible that the judges may also be discriminating in one way or the other, and -as an aggregate- getting the power to decide elections?

-What about non traditional families? Single parents shouldn't be an issue, but what about divorced ones? Should the right to vote be included in the settlements?

-What about adoptive parents? Do they get the right to the vote, or do biological ones still hold them? When is the turning point: the moment the children go live with them or the moment they are legally adopted?

-What about families whose parents aren't legally married? Do they get the extra vote or not?

-What about families where the providers are the grandparents? Who gets the vote?

-What about parents who owe alimony? Do they lose their right to the extra vote? Does this happen to any amount or debt or if it's more than 3 months, six months or other? What happens in the cases that the alimony owed is being settled on trial?

-What about emancipated children? Can any of their parents decide for them? Or the vote is lost in that case?

Surely there are easy answers to all of this questions, right?
 
Krakenzero said:
Let's humor this nonsense for a minute. Let's even ignore the democratic principles it goes against and the blatant discrimination and go directly to the implementation:

-Who gets to decide the additional vote in traditional families? The mother or the father? Cause they can have different political opinions and do have the right to one vote each, right?

-Let's suppose that we figure the first one out by giving the extra votes to either the mother or the father. What happens with gay couples then? Do the ones that doesn't have a convencional mother or father lose their right to a vote?

-Let's suppose on the other hand that the voting would have to be agreed by both parents. Doesn't this go against the secrecy of the vote? How can we assure that one of them isn't pressuring the other for the vote? Should the disagreements be settled in court? Isn't possible that the judges may also be discriminating in one way or the other, and -as an aggregate- getting the power to decide elections?

-What about non traditional families? Single parents shouldn't be an issue, but what about divorced ones? Should the right to vote be included in the settlements?

-What about adoptive parents? Do they get the right to the vote, or do biological ones still hold them? When is the turning point: the moment the children go live with them or the moment they are legally adopted?

-What about families whose parents aren't legally married? Do they get the extra vote or not?

-What about families where the providers are the grandparents? Who gets the vote?

-What about parents who owe alimony? Do they lose their right to the extra vote? Does this happen to any amount or debt or if it's more than 3 months, six months or other? What happens in the cases that the alimony owed is being settled on trial?

-What about emancipated children? Can any of their parents decide for them? Or the vote is lost in that case?

Surely there are easy answers to all of this questions, right?
Click to expand...
I agree that the idea of parents voting for children is stupid and discriminatory, but to be fair, most of your questions can be answered by simply each parent getting half a vote.
 
Revan said:
I agree that the idea of parents voting for children is stupid and discriminatory, but to be fair, most of your questions can be answered by simply each parent getting half a vote.
Click to expand...
Brilliant. And some parents will get 3/5 of a vote.
 
The Firestarter said:
Brilliant. And some parents will get 3/5 of a vote.
Click to expand...
Nah, I think the analogy is not the correct. Both parents (regardless if biological or adopted, heterosexual or homosexual) getting half of the vote of their kid (so the kid is represented by a full vote, not the 3/5 slaves got), would solve most of those issues of ‘who gets the vote’.

It obviously would still be stupid though. The entire idea is even more stupid than Vivek’s ‘young voters need first to do some exam before they are allowed to vote’.
 
Carolina Red said:
Really wild seeing the topics Democrats are hemming and hawing over for the VP pick when this guy is the current opposition…

Click to expand...


To be fair, he does have the Gillead Commander look down, makes sense he'd be spounting almost mandatory procreation doctrine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.