“Who gets the extra votes if there’s an odd number of kids and/or the parents are estranged or have opposing views?”
That’s the beauty. The husband, as the head of the family, gets the children’s votes—and his wife’s as well. Also, from now on, her name is “Mrs. “ followed by his name.
I’m sure Vance meant to explain this detail but somehow got sidetracked.
I’m sure Vance meant to explain this detail but somehow got sidetracked.
There was a stuffed loveseat nearby.
I’m sure you meant, “A yet to be stuffed loveseat nearby”
If we’re going through with this fictitious scenario, using the same logic of childless adults not having the same investment in the future, everyone over the age of 70 should no longer be able to vote for the same reasons.
Something tells me that would help Democrats even more.
Children should be allowed to vote. Kids would show up in droves. They'd get their parents voting. I'd love seeing politicians that were forced to pander to young people. There's no downside.
People like Mr.Beast gain their massive success from producing overstimulating content that attracts a forever young audience that doesn't recognize the basic manipulation and scams that he employs.
This is what politics would turn into if we earnestly let kids vote. Manipulating child audiences is practically a science now.
Even discounting that, in 2016 when I was 16 I was a "both sides are bad" centrist type. I simply didn't have the roots to consider how things like basic public policies would affect me personally. You need some grounded experience in order to realize that the things on screen will affect you and your community directly.
That's crap. Kids don't outnumber adults, and politicians would still need to appeal to older generations.
Also, when you were 16, you were right. Both sides are bad. But one side is much, much worse. Politicians would need to spend some time and effort engaging with children and explaining why their policies do matter. Imagine how valuable that would be for a significant population of adults!
Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. They can smell bullshit, and they will vote their conscience.
Maybe I’m an outlier or I was a shitty kid, but I was straight up defending Cheney in high school, because my dad was a bush fan. My first year of college, I entered rapid decompression and started understanding how my morals actually aligned with politics. I don’t think it’s because I was a dumb kid, but kids are really influenced by their parents.
That said, it doesn’t matter if there are more republican voters, it is morally right imo to allow children 15/16+ to vote.
12 year old me didn't know anything and knew it. 16 year old me still didn't know shit but believed he knew everything. Allowing any age to vote is crazy.
That's the same argument that was made against women's suffrage. Adults are influenced by their parents, their peers, their employers, their professors, and many many adults live in a social echochamber that gives them a skewed sense of the world. That's still not an argument to deny the right to vote.
If your aim is to legally prevent demographics that lean Republican from voting, your effort would be better spent campaigning against the right of mormons and scientologists, to vote. Hell, campaign to prevent straight white men from voting. You'll have better results than trying to prevent democracy for children.
Our children will have to live in the world the longest, and as such they have the greatest need in our society for a right to vote. Greta Thunberg inspired the world when she was 15. There is no reason she shouldn't have been able to vote at the same time.
Exactly, we tend to reflect our parents from a young age. Mostly because their world view is basically what we know.
It isn’t until we get out from under that, that we fcan begin to form our own perceptions.
I feel this would work in theory, but in practice the path of least resistance for a political party wouldn't be to appeal to young voters and teach policy. It would be to crank up the indoctrination machine and encourage parents to do so too.
I'm sure some families would teach their children how the world works, but most would just not change; or they'd indoctrinate and abuse their kids to supporting their political party (even harder than before).
That's happening anyway. You're describing the current world we live in.
You know what would help kids see through their parents' bullshit? If adults and other kids were talking directly to them about issues relevant to their lives.
Kids of 1 aren't smarter than we give them credit for. People who can't speak in sentences or wipe their own butts probably shouldn't be weighing in on the presidential election.
I don't care. No taxation without representation! No country is a democracy unless it allows ALL of its people to vote. This is a matter of equal rights. I also defend the right of mormons and scientologists to vote, and I'll defend the right of children to vote, consequences be damned. If the human species can't raise kids well enough to participate as equals in the electoral process, it deserves to go extinct.
Kids are paying taxes now?
Sure are. They pay sales tax on their toys and candy
There are no federal sales taxes in the us, so, care to try again?
Well I'm not American, I'm talking about my own country when I say no taxation without representation. The rest of what I said stands in America though
Well I'm not American, I'm talking about my own country when I say no taxation without representation.
You understand this is a post about American politics?
In any case,
Where are you going to draw the line? Neonatals literally cannot do anything other than eat, sleep and look around at a blurry world. Do they get a vote?
What about toddlers? Who might be able to buy something with their parent’s money?
You’re going to have to set the line somewhere, and there’s going to be people disenfranchised. It’s that simple.
The age of majority, whatever that is in your country is usually the simplest and least offensive way to do it.
The minute a baby pops out of the womb, it has the right to vote. It will not be able to exercise that right until it can hold a pencil, but it theoretically has the right, and it can vote as soon as it's decided it wants to participate in politics.
When you say “hold a pencil”…. Do you mean simply holding it? Can some one help put it in their hand?
Do they have to scribble be able to scribble something? Can some one help with that?
What about the very old people who need some help with the pencil?
And this is ignoring the fact that a baby obviously cannot understand the implications of voting.
Same too with a toddler (most of whom can in fact “hold a pencil”
Edit, this is also ignoring the simple fact that children are represented; they simply cannot choose that representation.
Utter nonsense. I already feel like I'm surrounded by children in this conversation.
Utter nonsense. I already feel like I’m surrounded by children in this conversation.
Naw. What's 'utter nonsense' is that you're unwilling to consider complications and criticism.
Children voting poses a lot of problems. you (more or less) espoused 2 qualifications. the first being that they express a desire to vote. Children- especially very young children- are super easy to manipulate into wanting to do things. Tom Sawyer's fence comes to mind. "gee isn't painting this fence fun? Pay me 2 bucks and I'll let you paint!"
It's why most religious circles will have children's programs. children are way more easily manipulated into forming beliefs that are then assimilated into a world view without any conscious consent on the child's part. They become so ingrained that as adults, childhood beliefs are incredibly hard to kick; even when you come to the belief that they were wrong. those beliefs are largely adopted from the parents.
In terms of children voting, what that means is that the parents are vastly more likely to be the ones to decide who the child votes for.
It's utterly nonsensical that you would expect strangers to be able to adequately assess whether a child has the capacity to understand the implications of their vote, as well as ascertaining whether an expressed desire to vote is genuinely from the child, or from undue influence from those around them. And pushing this point a bit further, to also ascertain whether or not that child is truly voting for how they see things- or if their parents are some how coercing that choice.
All of this leads, then to questions about if that child is being coerced to vote outside their best interests by their parents or some other adult.
Further, to your assertion that children don't have representation. again: they do. and that representation is (presumably) elected. What they do not have is the ability to participate in the deciding who that representation will be. unless you live in some authoritarian hellhole, it's unlikely that those representatives would refuse to hear the concerns of children (or indeed, teens), where they would not refuse an adult.
Nice ad hominem, though.
They aren't taxed. Their parents are taxed. The same parents who get to vote.
I think children have the right to own things, and if children own the goods they buy, children are taxed. What you're advocating is total parental control over children. That would harm so many kids! Especially queer kids. What if a trans boy spends his birthday money on a binder and hides it from his parents because he knows they'd throw him on the street if they saw it. Are you going to say the goods and services tax on the binder is a tax on the parents? No, that boy has his own property!
You are steady stuck on taxation. The actual point is that a baby that has just dropped out it's mothers womb screaming and crying and shitting on itself isn't capable of helping make decisions for their country. A 25 year old is clearly a fully capable adult at the height of their health and brain development if not maturity.
At some point between inception and 25 we pile increasing responsibility, rights, and privileges. A 3 minute old can't drive, read or understand a voter pamphlet hold a job, decide where they would like to go today, decide what they would like to eat, or realistically anything whatsoever. They have no rights other than the right for their caregiver to perform their duties ably to protect the safety and health by making all decisions for them.
So we have to choose a point between A and B when we think people are capable of taking on that added responsibility. Arguments can be made for different points or even appointing some users those privileges early based on capability. Some are wiser and smarter at 16 than others will be ever. That said the most ridiculous position is to provide that privilege at year zero. This is functionally identical to giving their parents extra votes.
If you are going to argue for giving parents extra votes argue that position directly.
Parents should under absolutely no circumstances be allowed to vote on their children's behalf. Voting should 100% be the kid's choice without any coersion or nonsense.
neither babies nor young children have the faculties for this task. 16-18 is literally the only reasonable choice
From their time working in the mines and getting a wage? Where do you live, pal?
From pocket money and birthday money, obviously. A lot of kids also get lunch money, and some 15 year olds even work at McDonald's
Buddy, you said ALL of its people. You realize there are pre-k kids with opinions that can write and fill in circles or press buttons? You want them voting?
Just trying to figure out what your end game here is. There’s something called experience and even brains are still developing into their 20s.
pre-k kids should vote if they want to. It's up to the individual.
But they can't vote and up to a certain point kids don't really differentiate from parents so you are effectively giving adults more votes for popping out kids.
If you were stranded on an island with 28 5-6 year olds, an adult teacher, and yourself would you run it like a democracy and let the kids vote?
If I were on a deserted island I'd run it anarchically. I wouldn't erect a state, democratic or not. But if we must have states, then we must also have democracy.
So you would let the 5 year olds die because you wouldn't just tell them what to do knowing they were 5
No society can raise 1 year olds sufficiently to participate in the political process. Clearly all citizens can't participate so we in fact DO need to set an age limit. 18 seems pretty reasonable. Do you have a different suggestion?
1 year olds should vote if they want to. Most don't want to, but it's still important that they have the right.
It's like in Life Of Brian. Loretta has the right to have babies even though her body can't do it.
1 year olds can't want to because they are only capable of saying mama or hungry. I'm trying to get you to understand their is a minimum amount of understanding one needs to actually participate.
Okay, suppose I buy your argument that we should restrict people's rights to do things that they already physically cannot do. It seems pointless and absurd, but let's say I buy your premise.
Set the voting age to 3, then.
3 year olds can use 2-3 word sentences, don't understand people die (on average) or really most anything other than that they like candy and hate bed time. This is again just giving their parents extra votes. Would you like to argue directly for that position?
Most adults barely have a clue about the issues they're voting on, let alone kids. And many topics that are voted on aren't really appropriate for children to be discussing. Plus, would you really want our schools to become 6 hours of propaganda for whatever political party is in charge?
Children would be voting virtually at random, to the point where elections would essentially be decided by random chance.
I’d say the vast majority of things we vote on in politics can be discussed with children. Kids who are talked to like adults mature far more gracefully than those who are artificially shielded from anything mildly uncomfortable.
Politicians should have to explain directly to kids why their family is deep in medical debt. Or why they can’t have certain books in their library. Or why we should bomb children in other countries.
Politicians should have to explain directly to kids why their family is deep in medical debt. Or why they can’t have certain books in their library. Or why we should bomb children in other countries.
Are you absolutely insane? These are examples of things I don't want being discussed in my kids' classrooms (High school classrooms as a matter of general discussion notwithstanding). A 10 year old kid does not need to be spending his days discussing the world of geopolitics. There is a such thing as "age appropriate", you know.
When I was in kindergarten (back in the 70s), my teacher was Jewish. Do you know how she explained the difference between Christmas and Hannukah to us? "You know how Santa comes by and gives you some gifts on Christmas morning? Well instead of getting all the gifts at once they get 1 a day for a 8 days instead. You get to put up a tree, they use a menorah (while showing us one)"
We were 5 years old. Was that accurate? Not entirely. Was it enough for a 5 year old? Absolutely. "Jews celebrate things a little differently than you do, and that's OK". That's it. That was the message. And it's all we needed to know. We didn't need to get into some discussion over Israel or get into some religious viewpoints or anything. 5 year olds don't need to worry about that shit. Same thing applies here. We don't need to make them worry about topics that their parents probably barely understand. Your idea would destroy the mental health of children who are in no way prepared to handle and process those kind of topics.
When I was 10, I heard about North Korea and asked my caregiver what communism is. He told me communism is when a country doesn't trade with any outsiders. I made it to high school without knowing what the holocaust was.
When my baby cousin was 10, we had an honest conversation about Korean geopolitics and I was blown away by the understanding he already had. Now he's a 12 year old communist who stands with Palestine. I wasn't half as based as he is when I was 12.
Kids whose grownups talk to them about the big issues grow up to be awesome. I consider sheltering children from politics to be child abuse.
I think you underestimate the capability of children to understand sensitive topics and maintain their mental health. There’s not a lot of research on it either way yet, but the little I’ve seen is all in favor of having the difficult discussions with your kids, as early as possible.
Feel free to send me some peer reviewed research that says otherwise though, I’m always willing to listen if there are facts being brought to the table.
Go to bed gramps
What topics are we voting that are not appropriate for children? I went to the polls with my dad almost every time he voted starting at age 6 and he talked with me about most of it.
More adults would have a better idea if they had been voting as kids. And if you don't think topics like abortion affect kids, you're out of your fucking mind. Schools are already ideological battlefields, with conservatives posting pictures of Jesus and the 10 commandments, forcing kids to stand and pledge allegiance to their God, demanding kids conform to gender roles and societal norms. Shouldn't the people most affected by those decisions have some say in them?
Adults vote at random. We don't take away their right to vote just because they are uninformed.
More adults would have a better idea if they had been voting as kids.
You think a 6, 10, 12 year old is going to vote based on their understanding of the significant geopolitical issues of the day or something?
For all the bullshit stories that people have said about "When I was 10 years old, my mommy told me all about North Korea and......oh fucking bullshit she did. But let's say those stories actually happened. Do you think that supposed 10 year old was given accurate, unbiased information? When they walk into a voting booth, do you think they're going to be able to understand, or in many cases even read the information being given to them?
At best, you would have children being marched into voting booths and checking off whatever boxes mommy and daddy told them to check off and then they'll go out and get some ice cream. You would be giving parents of large families outsized voting power, as that mother of 8 now essentially has 9 votes instead of just one. You would basically be giving the JD Vances of the world exactly what they want.
And that's a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that we end up with another Donald Trump because there were enough kids in swing states that voted for him either because their parents told them to or they just recognized the name from TV and went with it. Voting results would have little to do with the issues or even party politics and more to do with just random chance. It would be basically flipping a coin with a lot of extra steps.
Or, we end up with a GOP takeover because Democrats tend to have less children than Republicans and would therefore have less voting power in a race that was already skewed in favor of the GOP by the electoral college.
Every minute Vance is spouting dumb shit rather than policy is a good minute for Harris-Walz.
That's the neat thing. The policy is also dumb shit.
The answer is still no.
What age?
This is great reporting and all, but don't show this to a White Supremacist because they're going to run the complete opposite direction with this data.
::: spoiler Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Mother Jones:
JD Vance puts his cast iron in the dishwasher pass it on
Jorkin Dapenis Vance uses sugar substitute in his sweet tea. Pass it on.
Jelly Donut Vance puts the toilet paper on the far side of the holder, and doesn't have pets. Pass it on.
Jorts Dangler Vance has a secret humiliation fetish, pass it on.
Jerkin' Dongs Vance applied the eyeliner to his butthole first, then his eyes, p[ass it on.
James David’s face when you call him Jorkin Dapenis
Just A. Dipshit Vance after getting bedbugs from that couch sitting on the corner.
Whatever, the pink stuff is the only right stuff for iced tea
“Who gets the extra votes if there’s an odd number of kids and/or the parents are estranged or have opposing views?”
That’s the beauty. The husband, as the head of the family, gets the children’s votes—and his wife’s as well. Also, from now on, her name is “Mrs. “ followed by his name.
I’m sure Vance meant to explain this detail but somehow got sidetracked.
There was a stuffed loveseat nearby.
I’m sure you meant, “A yet to be stuffed loveseat nearby”
If we’re going through with this fictitious scenario, using the same logic of childless adults not having the same investment in the future, everyone over the age of 70 should no longer be able to vote for the same reasons.
Something tells me that would help Democrats even more.
Children should be allowed to vote. Kids would show up in droves. They'd get their parents voting. I'd love seeing politicians that were forced to pander to young people. There's no downside.
People like Mr.Beast gain their massive success from producing overstimulating content that attracts a forever young audience that doesn't recognize the basic manipulation and scams that he employs.
This is what politics would turn into if we earnestly let kids vote. Manipulating child audiences is practically a science now.
Even discounting that, in 2016 when I was 16 I was a "both sides are bad" centrist type. I simply didn't have the roots to consider how things like basic public policies would affect me personally. You need some grounded experience in order to realize that the things on screen will affect you and your community directly.
That's crap. Kids don't outnumber adults, and politicians would still need to appeal to older generations.
Also, when you were 16, you were right. Both sides are bad. But one side is much, much worse. Politicians would need to spend some time and effort engaging with children and explaining why their policies do matter. Imagine how valuable that would be for a significant population of adults!
Kids are smarter than we give them credit for. They can smell bullshit, and they will vote their conscience.
Maybe I’m an outlier or I was a shitty kid, but I was straight up defending Cheney in high school, because my dad was a bush fan. My first year of college, I entered rapid decompression and started understanding how my morals actually aligned with politics. I don’t think it’s because I was a dumb kid, but kids are really influenced by their parents.
That said, it doesn’t matter if there are more republican voters, it is morally right imo to allow children 15/16+ to vote.
12 year old me didn't know anything and knew it. 16 year old me still didn't know shit but believed he knew everything. Allowing any age to vote is crazy.
That's the same argument that was made against women's suffrage. Adults are influenced by their parents, their peers, their employers, their professors, and many many adults live in a social echochamber that gives them a skewed sense of the world. That's still not an argument to deny the right to vote.
If your aim is to legally prevent demographics that lean Republican from voting, your effort would be better spent campaigning against the right of mormons and scientologists, to vote. Hell, campaign to prevent straight white men from voting. You'll have better results than trying to prevent democracy for children.
Our children will have to live in the world the longest, and as such they have the greatest need in our society for a right to vote. Greta Thunberg inspired the world when she was 15. There is no reason she shouldn't have been able to vote at the same time.
Exactly, we tend to reflect our parents from a young age. Mostly because their world view is basically what we know.
It isn’t until we get out from under that, that we fcan begin to form our own perceptions.
I feel this would work in theory, but in practice the path of least resistance for a political party wouldn't be to appeal to young voters and teach policy. It would be to crank up the indoctrination machine and encourage parents to do so too.
I'm sure some families would teach their children how the world works, but most would just not change; or they'd indoctrinate and abuse their kids to supporting their political party (even harder than before).
That's happening anyway. You're describing the current world we live in.
You know what would help kids see through their parents' bullshit? If adults and other kids were talking directly to them about issues relevant to their lives.
Kids of 1 aren't smarter than we give them credit for. People who can't speak in sentences or wipe their own butts probably shouldn't be weighing in on the presidential election.
I don't care. No taxation without representation! No country is a democracy unless it allows ALL of its people to vote. This is a matter of equal rights. I also defend the right of mormons and scientologists to vote, and I'll defend the right of children to vote, consequences be damned. If the human species can't raise kids well enough to participate as equals in the electoral process, it deserves to go extinct.
Kids are paying taxes now?
Sure are. They pay sales tax on their toys and candy
There are no federal sales taxes in the us, so, care to try again?
Well I'm not American, I'm talking about my own country when I say no taxation without representation. The rest of what I said stands in America though
You understand this is a post about American politics?
In any case,
Where are you going to draw the line? Neonatals literally cannot do anything other than eat, sleep and look around at a blurry world. Do they get a vote?
What about toddlers? Who might be able to buy something with their parent’s money?
You’re going to have to set the line somewhere, and there’s going to be people disenfranchised. It’s that simple.
The age of majority, whatever that is in your country is usually the simplest and least offensive way to do it.
The minute a baby pops out of the womb, it has the right to vote. It will not be able to exercise that right until it can hold a pencil, but it theoretically has the right, and it can vote as soon as it's decided it wants to participate in politics.
When you say “hold a pencil”…. Do you mean simply holding it? Can some one help put it in their hand?
Do they have to scribble be able to scribble something? Can some one help with that?
What about the very old people who need some help with the pencil?
And this is ignoring the fact that a baby obviously cannot understand the implications of voting.
Same too with a toddler (most of whom can in fact “hold a pencil”
Edit, this is also ignoring the simple fact that children are represented; they simply cannot choose that representation.
Utter nonsense. I already feel like I'm surrounded by children in this conversation.
Naw. What's 'utter nonsense' is that you're unwilling to consider complications and criticism.
Children voting poses a lot of problems. you (more or less) espoused 2 qualifications. the first being that they express a desire to vote. Children- especially very young children- are super easy to manipulate into wanting to do things. Tom Sawyer's fence comes to mind. "gee isn't painting this fence fun? Pay me 2 bucks and I'll let you paint!"
It's why most religious circles will have children's programs. children are way more easily manipulated into forming beliefs that are then assimilated into a world view without any conscious consent on the child's part. They become so ingrained that as adults, childhood beliefs are incredibly hard to kick; even when you come to the belief that they were wrong. those beliefs are largely adopted from the parents.
In terms of children voting, what that means is that the parents are vastly more likely to be the ones to decide who the child votes for.
the second qualification, is an apparent ability to actually vote. taking your statement literally... it should be noted that infants have a grasping reflex that causes them to hold whatever is placed in their hand.
It's utterly nonsensical that you would expect strangers to be able to adequately assess whether a child has the capacity to understand the implications of their vote, as well as ascertaining whether an expressed desire to vote is genuinely from the child, or from undue influence from those around them. And pushing this point a bit further, to also ascertain whether or not that child is truly voting for how they see things- or if their parents are some how coercing that choice.
All of this leads, then to questions about if that child is being coerced to vote outside their best interests by their parents or some other adult.
Further, to your assertion that children don't have representation. again: they do. and that representation is (presumably) elected. What they do not have is the ability to participate in the deciding who that representation will be. unless you live in some authoritarian hellhole, it's unlikely that those representatives would refuse to hear the concerns of children (or indeed, teens), where they would not refuse an adult.
Nice ad hominem, though.
They aren't taxed. Their parents are taxed. The same parents who get to vote.
I think children have the right to own things, and if children own the goods they buy, children are taxed. What you're advocating is total parental control over children. That would harm so many kids! Especially queer kids. What if a trans boy spends his birthday money on a binder and hides it from his parents because he knows they'd throw him on the street if they saw it. Are you going to say the goods and services tax on the binder is a tax on the parents? No, that boy has his own property!
You are steady stuck on taxation. The actual point is that a baby that has just dropped out it's mothers womb screaming and crying and shitting on itself isn't capable of helping make decisions for their country. A 25 year old is clearly a fully capable adult at the height of their health and brain development if not maturity.
At some point between inception and 25 we pile increasing responsibility, rights, and privileges. A 3 minute old can't drive, read or understand a voter pamphlet hold a job, decide where they would like to go today, decide what they would like to eat, or realistically anything whatsoever. They have no rights other than the right for their caregiver to perform their duties ably to protect the safety and health by making all decisions for them.
So we have to choose a point between A and B when we think people are capable of taking on that added responsibility. Arguments can be made for different points or even appointing some users those privileges early based on capability. Some are wiser and smarter at 16 than others will be ever. That said the most ridiculous position is to provide that privilege at year zero. This is functionally identical to giving their parents extra votes.
If you are going to argue for giving parents extra votes argue that position directly.
Parents should under absolutely no circumstances be allowed to vote on their children's behalf. Voting should 100% be the kid's choice without any coersion or nonsense.
neither babies nor young children have the faculties for this task. 16-18 is literally the only reasonable choice
From their time working in the mines and getting a wage? Where do you live, pal?
From pocket money and birthday money, obviously. A lot of kids also get lunch money, and some 15 year olds even work at McDonald's
Buddy, you said ALL of its people. You realize there are pre-k kids with opinions that can write and fill in circles or press buttons? You want them voting?
Just trying to figure out what your end game here is. There’s something called experience and even brains are still developing into their 20s.
pre-k kids should vote if they want to. It's up to the individual.
But they can't vote and up to a certain point kids don't really differentiate from parents so you are effectively giving adults more votes for popping out kids.
If you were stranded on an island with 28 5-6 year olds, an adult teacher, and yourself would you run it like a democracy and let the kids vote?
If I were on a deserted island I'd run it anarchically. I wouldn't erect a state, democratic or not. But if we must have states, then we must also have democracy.
So you would let the 5 year olds die because you wouldn't just tell them what to do knowing they were 5
No society can raise 1 year olds sufficiently to participate in the political process. Clearly all citizens can't participate so we in fact DO need to set an age limit. 18 seems pretty reasonable. Do you have a different suggestion?
1 year olds should vote if they want to. Most don't want to, but it's still important that they have the right.
It's like in Life Of Brian. Loretta has the right to have babies even though her body can't do it.
1 year olds can't want to because they are only capable of saying mama or hungry. I'm trying to get you to understand their is a minimum amount of understanding one needs to actually participate.
Okay, suppose I buy your argument that we should restrict people's rights to do things that they already physically cannot do. It seems pointless and absurd, but let's say I buy your premise.
Set the voting age to 3, then.
3 year olds can use 2-3 word sentences, don't understand people die (on average) or really most anything other than that they like candy and hate bed time. This is again just giving their parents extra votes. Would you like to argue directly for that position?
Most adults barely have a clue about the issues they're voting on, let alone kids. And many topics that are voted on aren't really appropriate for children to be discussing. Plus, would you really want our schools to become 6 hours of propaganda for whatever political party is in charge?
Children would be voting virtually at random, to the point where elections would essentially be decided by random chance.
I’d say the vast majority of things we vote on in politics can be discussed with children. Kids who are talked to like adults mature far more gracefully than those who are artificially shielded from anything mildly uncomfortable.
Politicians should have to explain directly to kids why their family is deep in medical debt. Or why they can’t have certain books in their library. Or why we should bomb children in other countries.
Are you absolutely insane? These are examples of things I don't want being discussed in my kids' classrooms (High school classrooms as a matter of general discussion notwithstanding). A 10 year old kid does not need to be spending his days discussing the world of geopolitics. There is a such thing as "age appropriate", you know.
When I was in kindergarten (back in the 70s), my teacher was Jewish. Do you know how she explained the difference between Christmas and Hannukah to us? "You know how Santa comes by and gives you some gifts on Christmas morning? Well instead of getting all the gifts at once they get 1 a day for a 8 days instead. You get to put up a tree, they use a menorah (while showing us one)"
We were 5 years old. Was that accurate? Not entirely. Was it enough for a 5 year old? Absolutely. "Jews celebrate things a little differently than you do, and that's OK". That's it. That was the message. And it's all we needed to know. We didn't need to get into some discussion over Israel or get into some religious viewpoints or anything. 5 year olds don't need to worry about that shit. Same thing applies here. We don't need to make them worry about topics that their parents probably barely understand. Your idea would destroy the mental health of children who are in no way prepared to handle and process those kind of topics.
When I was 10, I heard about North Korea and asked my caregiver what communism is. He told me communism is when a country doesn't trade with any outsiders. I made it to high school without knowing what the holocaust was.
When my baby cousin was 10, we had an honest conversation about Korean geopolitics and I was blown away by the understanding he already had. Now he's a 12 year old communist who stands with Palestine. I wasn't half as based as he is when I was 12.
Kids whose grownups talk to them about the big issues grow up to be awesome. I consider sheltering children from politics to be child abuse.
I think you underestimate the capability of children to understand sensitive topics and maintain their mental health. There’s not a lot of research on it either way yet, but the little I’ve seen is all in favor of having the difficult discussions with your kids, as early as possible.
Feel free to send me some peer reviewed research that says otherwise though, I’m always willing to listen if there are facts being brought to the table.
Go to bed gramps
What topics are we voting that are not appropriate for children? I went to the polls with my dad almost every time he voted starting at age 6 and he talked with me about most of it.
More adults would have a better idea if they had been voting as kids. And if you don't think topics like abortion affect kids, you're out of your fucking mind. Schools are already ideological battlefields, with conservatives posting pictures of Jesus and the 10 commandments, forcing kids to stand and pledge allegiance to their God, demanding kids conform to gender roles and societal norms. Shouldn't the people most affected by those decisions have some say in them?
Adults vote at random. We don't take away their right to vote just because they are uninformed.
You think a 6, 10, 12 year old is going to vote based on their understanding of the significant geopolitical issues of the day or something?
For all the bullshit stories that people have said about "When I was 10 years old, my mommy told me all about North Korea and......oh fucking bullshit she did. But let's say those stories actually happened. Do you think that supposed 10 year old was given accurate, unbiased information? When they walk into a voting booth, do you think they're going to be able to understand, or in many cases even read the information being given to them?
At best, you would have children being marched into voting booths and checking off whatever boxes mommy and daddy told them to check off and then they'll go out and get some ice cream. You would be giving parents of large families outsized voting power, as that mother of 8 now essentially has 9 votes instead of just one. You would basically be giving the JD Vances of the world exactly what they want.
And that's a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is that we end up with another Donald Trump because there were enough kids in swing states that voted for him either because their parents told them to or they just recognized the name from TV and went with it. Voting results would have little to do with the issues or even party politics and more to do with just random chance. It would be basically flipping a coin with a lot of extra steps.
Or, we end up with a GOP takeover because Democrats tend to have less children than Republicans and would therefore have less voting power in a race that was already skewed in favor of the GOP by the electoral college.
What age and why?
Every minute Vance is spouting dumb shit rather than policy is a good minute for Harris-Walz.
That's the neat thing. The policy is also dumb shit.
The answer is still no.
What age?
This is great reporting and all, but don't show this to a White Supremacist because they're going to run the complete opposite direction with this data.
::: spoiler Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Mother Jones:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/jd-vance-extra-votes-parents-children-families-thought-experiment/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support