It is completely moronic and absurd. Almost as absurd as thinking that anything Vance says has any credence at all.
2024 U.S. Elections | Trump wins
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
It is completely moronic and absurd. Almost as absurd as thinking that anything Vance says has any credence at all.
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:
Just been catching up. That guy Vance really did seem to fall out of the tree of stupidity didn’t he? He’s awful
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A genuine question. Could you link some of these sources? It's always interesting to see hard research support something that's otherwise counterintuitive.
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:
Can you take this discussion to the US politics thread or somewhere else, please?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s actually not in the book. It’s a meme that stuck
We also don’t increase voting power based on fertility
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.
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?
-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?
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.
Brilliant. And some parents will get 3/5 of a vote.
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’.
That doesn't happen in america. People with more votes regularly lose, so not all votes are equal.
The idea of "half a vote" is even more ridiculous than the initial one 
To be fair, he does have the Gillead Commander look down, makes sense he'd be spounting almost mandatory procreation doctrine.
Handmade tale
One person, one vote you fecking idiots.
Well, since the unborn will be considered "persons" in the MAGA vision of the future it's gonna be wild!
Imagine the joy when you get twins. Yeeaaaah, 4 votes, 2 votes for each parent!
Sorry, one person who has reached the age of majority, one vote.
The new undervalued voter pool: People with family history of twins.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, you think the woman is going to be allowed to choose in this Republican fantasy world? She'll vote how her husband tells her. Hell, he might as well vote for her, too.
Half a vote for women then. And only if she has kids. If she doesnt she has -1 vote.
well now your just getting into algebra and in the MAGA future of universal school vouchers there will be very few people who can actually calculate how many votes the husband gets.
Don't want the American public school system teaching any of them there Arabic numbers to God's precious children.