6 ms·

No they wouldn't, mid-life parents with multiple kids would have the most voting power. For instance a 50 year old with kids who are 10, 12, and 14 would have

No they wouldn't, mid-life parents with multiple kids would have the most voting power. For instance a 50 year old with kids who are 10, 12, and 14 would have 30 + 35 + 34 + 33 = 132 votes, roughly. A 20 year old kid would only have about 60. Not sure what's logistically fragile about it either? There are records of who is the kid of who.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
What about 16 year olds who have children? > There are records of who is the kid of who. Without genetic testing some of these records are going to be wrong. And what of sperm/egg donors? I hope rapists get no votes, but what if the rapist convinces the raped person to not go to the police? I care so much about the quality of life of other people's children that I have decided not to have any of my own (this is not the sole reason, but it is a reason).
- lordnacho 4y ago
  Those are all minor issues. It's who is taking care of the kids that gets the votes.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    The fostering system is already known to have abusive foster parents. Now you just encourage them. You encourage extremely large foster households in which children cannot get adequate nurturing. You encourage hostile custody lawsuits in which parents do their best to alienate the child against the other parent. And at the margin you encourage the murder of children. This entire idea of granting votes from minor children to their adult caretakers would be extraordinarily bad for society.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      Nobody is going to take on extra kids because they get more votes every few years. Have you ever had kids? On what planet is it worth it to take on more kids for votes? I mean if you paid people they might, but I'm talking about voting. The thing that 15-40 percent of people don't even bother to do in various societies.
      - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        > I mean if you paid people they might In the US, at least, foster parents do get paid. A few hundred dollars per month, per child. Some of these foster parents have very large households, and effectively make being a foster parent their job. Some of these foster parents really care about the kids, others see the kids as a paycheck. Edit to add: If you get more votes for taking on more kids, then politicians will be incentivized to provide more benefits for those with more kids, in order to win their votes. So, regardless of the situation originally, eventually you will have a society in which people are getting paid to have more kids.
        lordnacho 4y ago
        > society in which people are getting paid to have more kids Yes, it's possible there will be more kids than in current society. But it would reduce the problem of having a large generation of retirees who essentially vote everyone else's resources to themselves. The society where you get votes in proportion to remaining life is also one where the kids have to think about not destroying everything for themselves, after all they have to live in it. The one where a huge group of old people are in power is where skin in the game is least well represented: if I'm 95 I'd like to vote to have three kids take care of me for my remaining years, thanks, adios.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Perhaps. Those middle-aged parents are definitely thinking about their upcoming retirement, though.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    "Those are all minor issues." Nope, or if you think so, you might have zero experience with actual politics. Once you start assigning coefficients to people, people will fight to death over them. That is similar to calling abortion or various speech-related controversies "minor issues". Such "minor issues" lead to convoluted SCOTUS cases that mess up the legal environment for decades.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      It's a comment on a message board. I'm not going to write a new constitution for an unspecified country and then meticulously go through each point, am I? I mean of course, you can address whether the voting is done by paper hole punchers or what kind of HB pencil to use, but in the context of a superficial debate on the internet, why not address the core issues? Someone brought up that quiz voting was wrong, that was a reasonable objection. On this one it's the principle of whether parents get to vote some share of their kids votes.
inglor_cz 4y ago
What is fragile? Recalculating everyone's score before each new election. (Remember that life expectancy changes constantly, even Covid moved it. Not to mention regional differences that go down to the level of actual neighbourhoods; some racial groups live longer than others, should they wield bigger voting power? Same with richer people. What a can of worms to open.) Subjecting voters to long quizzes - that alone would filter out a significant proportion of the population that just does not have time for such "fun", probably including the parents of kids that you mention, leading to overrepresentation of bored people at the ballot box. Uncertain status of kids whose parents are just undergoing divorce or their paternity has been challenged. (Not to mention stuff such as surrogacy, which is legally complicated already and different in each jurisdiction.) What about a kid dying a day before the election? The entire point system is a micromanagement hell, sorry.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  It's certainly an issue what goes into the life expectancy, but the question is whether that sort of thing makes sense. You could just say everyone is dumped in one table with no conditionality and that is the life expectancy. Or you could take into account all sorts of features like gender, occupation, and so forth. But it's the principle. I mean you could also just say each kid is a quarter vote, each retiree is a half. Quizzes, yeah, I can see why people think it's a bad idea. But what's the solution to idiots voting? You want people to actually know what's in their interest. And I'm not looking at it from the perspective of any particular country that might have a history of voter suppression through qualifying tests. Just thinking out loud about what to do about this particular issue. Kid dying before the election is no different from a candidate dying before the election. Or postal early voter dying. We can live with it.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

What about 16 year olds who have children? > There are records of who is the kid of who. Without genetic testing some of these records are going to be wrong. And what of sperm/egg donors? I hope rapists get no votes, but what if the rapist convinces the raped person to not go to the police? I care so much about the quality of life of other people's children that I have decided not to have any of my own (this is not the sole reason, but it is a reason).

lordnacho 4y ago
Those are all minor issues. It's who is taking care of the kids that gets the votes.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  The fostering system is already known to have abusive foster parents. Now you just encourage them. You encourage extremely large foster households in which children cannot get adequate nurturing. You encourage hostile custody lawsuits in which parents do their best to alienate the child against the other parent. And at the margin you encourage the murder of children. This entire idea of granting votes from minor children to their adult caretakers would be extraordinarily bad for society.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    Nobody is going to take on extra kids because they get more votes every few years. Have you ever had kids? On what planet is it worth it to take on more kids for votes? I mean if you paid people they might, but I'm talking about voting. The thing that 15-40 percent of people don't even bother to do in various societies.
    - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
      > I mean if you paid people they might In the US, at least, foster parents do get paid. A few hundred dollars per month, per child. Some of these foster parents have very large households, and effectively make being a foster parent their job. Some of these foster parents really care about the kids, others see the kids as a paycheck. Edit to add: If you get more votes for taking on more kids, then politicians will be incentivized to provide more benefits for those with more kids, in order to win their votes. So, regardless of the situation originally, eventually you will have a society in which people are getting paid to have more kids.
      - lordnacho 4y ago
        > society in which people are getting paid to have more kids Yes, it's possible there will be more kids than in current society. But it would reduce the problem of having a large generation of retirees who essentially vote everyone else's resources to themselves. The society where you get votes in proportion to remaining life is also one where the kids have to think about not destroying everything for themselves, after all they have to live in it. The one where a huge group of old people are in power is where skin in the game is least well represented: if I'm 95 I'd like to vote to have three kids take care of me for my remaining years, thanks, adios.
        anonymouskimmer 4y ago
        Perhaps. Those middle-aged parents are definitely thinking about their upcoming retirement, though.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  "Those are all minor issues." Nope, or if you think so, you might have zero experience with actual politics. Once you start assigning coefficients to people, people will fight to death over them. That is similar to calling abortion or various speech-related controversies "minor issues". Such "minor issues" lead to convoluted SCOTUS cases that mess up the legal environment for decades.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    It's a comment on a message board. I'm not going to write a new constitution for an unspecified country and then meticulously go through each point, am I? I mean of course, you can address whether the voting is done by paper hole punchers or what kind of HB pencil to use, but in the context of a superficial debate on the internet, why not address the core issues? Someone brought up that quiz voting was wrong, that was a reasonable objection. On this one it's the principle of whether parents get to vote some share of their kids votes.

inglor_cz 4y ago

What is fragile? Recalculating everyone's score before each new election. (Remember that life expectancy changes constantly, even Covid moved it. Not to mention regional differences that go down to the level of actual neighbourhoods; some racial groups live longer than others, should they wield bigger voting power? Same with richer people. What a can of worms to open.) Subjecting voters to long quizzes - that alone would filter out a significant proportion of the population that just does not have time for such "fun", probably including the parents of kids that you mention, leading to overrepresentation of bored people at the ballot box. Uncertain status of kids whose parents are just undergoing divorce or their paternity has been challenged. (Not to mention stuff such as surrogacy, which is legally complicated already and different in each jurisdiction.) What about a kid dying a day before the election? The entire point system is a micromanagement hell, sorry.

lordnacho 4y ago
It's certainly an issue what goes into the life expectancy, but the question is whether that sort of thing makes sense. You could just say everyone is dumped in one table with no conditionality and that is the life expectancy. Or you could take into account all sorts of features like gender, occupation, and so forth. But it's the principle. I mean you could also just say each kid is a quarter vote, each retiree is a half. Quizzes, yeah, I can see why people think it's a bad idea. But what's the solution to idiots voting? You want people to actually know what's in their interest. And I'm not looking at it from the perspective of any particular country that might have a history of voter suppression through qualifying tests. Just thinking out loud about what to do about this particular issue. Kid dying before the election is no different from a candidate dying before the election. Or postal early voter dying. We can live with it.