4 ms·

> At what age do you get negative votes? Your remaining life expectancy is never negative. That's just a statistical fact. It's not your life expectancy at bir

> At what age do you get negative votes? Your remaining life expectancy is never negative. That's just a statistical fact. It's not your life expectancy at birth, though a figure in the same region is more or less where you're likely to die until you get quite close. So for instance if you're 10 your remaining might be 70 years (ie expected 80), when you're 60 it's 25 years (ie expected 85). Past about 90 people are down to single digit remaining years. > Because we all know that parents know what's best for their kids, or even care what's best for their kids? What about foster parents? What about parents who have been deemed unfit by a court? Wouldn't this just encourage unamicable divorces, especially in mixed-party households? And, of course, the Quiverfulls and Octomoms become a disproportionately large voting block. Ok but who is better than the parents at deciding what's good for the kids? Other people? We seem to be happy for parents to decide a lot of things for their kids, why not this thing? It doesn't matter whether you're married or divorced, you get half the votes of the kids. At the moment that's still the case, right? Whether you're married or not you and your partner get a vote each, and you can't take the other person's votes. Unfit parents, deceased parents shares, foster parents, minor quibbles. They don't add up to much. I'd say foster parents get the votes, courts can decide if you're unfit, and the deceased parents votes go to the surviving parent. Yes octomom will have a zillion votes. There's one of her. Big families, yes, they get more votes. Shouldn't they? They have more stake in society. There's more of them! > The problems with quizzes is that they are 1) going to be forced choice (with only one correct answer, that a biased person decided was correct, or at least only one answer getting the majority of the weight); 2) Salience of the questions; 3) There are too many additional criticisms, just look up "cultural bias in IQ tests" to get an idea of why fact-based quizzes are a bad idea. Yeah this is probably the most controversial one. I don't know, you can weaken the strength of the quiz so everyone's weight is 100 + percent correct. We want engaged voters, but we don't want to disenfranchise people. There's no value that will satisfy everyone. > The criticisms with this are 1) Unelected employees of the government gain more power, as they are the people the inexperienced representatives go to for advice; 2) If they aren't making decisions about getting re-elected (which hopefully would be about what the people who voted for them like, and not just gerrymandering or voter suppression), then they are making decisions that will personally benefit them after they are no-longer representatives. Such as the "important thing" of enabling particular industries to thrive at the expense of other considerations; industries which are likely to become their employer when they leave office. Indeed, the thing about the civil service is well known. It is a problem in every well-run country. The commission for MP income is meant to deal with the corruption issue. If you decide to make solar panels and windmills illegal and then take a job in the coal industry, they will tell someone. > Multi-representative districts might be a better idea. Generally how PR systems work already.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> Ok but who is better than the parents at deciding what's good for the kids? Other people? We seem to be happy for parents to decide a lot of things for their kids, why not this thing? Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. If kids don't get a vote because they aren't expected to know what's best for themselves at this point, then this vote shouldn't be given to someone else. Especially not in such a large proportion. This is what rights are for, not voting power. To protect and enable parents to decide what is good for their kids, regardless of who votes for what. And yes, for some people like the Turpins, basically almost anyone was better at deciding what was good for the kids. It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Let the parents first prove they have been good (or at least convincing), and let the votes fall in line. If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. Even in your system of greater voting power at a young age, the willingness of 18 year olds to vote in alignment with their parents is the single best test of whether the parents actually did parent well. It is the single best test of whether the parents actually made good decisions for the kids. > Shouldn't they? They have more stake in society. There's more of them! No, they don't. The children do. And once they reach their majority those children can then make their own choices. We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. There are plenty of people who have large networks of those they care for (many of whom are adults, so there would be no transferring of votes). And plenty of people who have almost no one they care for. But when it comes right down to it, our stake is our own, not someone else's. Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others > If you decide to make solar panels and windmills illegal and then take a job in the coal industry, they will tell someone. And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out?
- lordnacho 4y ago
  > Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. Of course there are parents who don't think about this, but I think it's reasonable that people who have kids by and large think about the future their kids are going to live in. We have to make some sort of assumption about what interests people will consider, and I think this is reasonable. Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? > It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. > If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. I think this a much riskier assumption than what I put forth above, that parents are thinking about the future of their kids. What I would say is good parenting is if the kids give thoughtful reasons to why they're voting for whatever, rather than them voting the same way as me. > We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. I'm not responsible for my adult friends because they're adults. Kids though, you have to do a bunch of stuff in their interest, while assuming you know their interest, aka making a good guess. > Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others They also produce more of society's resources, for the benefit of others. > And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out? Some kind of sanction of course.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

> Ok but who is better than the parents at deciding what's good for the kids? Other people? We seem to be happy for parents to decide a lot of things for their kids, why not this thing? Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. If kids don't get a vote because they aren't expected to know what's best for themselves at this point, then this vote shouldn't be given to someone else. Especially not in such a large proportion. This is what rights are for, not voting power. To protect and enable parents to decide what is good for their kids, regardless of who votes for what. And yes, for some people like the Turpins, basically almost anyone was better at deciding what was good for the kids. It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Let the parents first prove they have been good (or at least convincing), and let the votes fall in line. If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. Even in your system of greater voting power at a young age, the willingness of 18 year olds to vote in alignment with their parents is the single best test of whether the parents actually did parent well. It is the single best test of whether the parents actually made good decisions for the kids. > Shouldn't they? They have more stake in society. There's more of them! No, they don't. The children do. And once they reach their majority those children can then make their own choices. We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. There are plenty of people who have large networks of those they care for (many of whom are adults, so there would be no transferring of votes). And plenty of people who have almost no one they care for. But when it comes right down to it, our stake is our own, not someone else's. Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others > If you decide to make solar panels and windmills illegal and then take a job in the coal industry, they will tell someone. And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out?

lordnacho 4y ago
> Because there's nothing to guarantee that the parents are contemplating the future when their kids are adults, and not just the near future. Of course there are parents who don't think about this, but I think it's reasonable that people who have kids by and large think about the future their kids are going to live in. We have to make some sort of assumption about what interests people will consider, and I think this is reasonable. Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? > It would be unconscionable to strip the votes from a child and give them to an abusive parent. Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. > If you parent well, then your children, once they turn 18, will vote similarly to you. I think this a much riskier assumption than what I put forth above, that parents are thinking about the future of their kids. What I would say is good parenting is if the kids give thoughtful reasons to why they're voting for whatever, rather than them voting the same way as me. > We each, individually, have an individual's stake in society. A particular relationship doesn't change that. We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. I'm not responsible for my adult friends because they're adults. Kids though, you have to do a bunch of stuff in their interest, while assuming you know their interest, aka making a good guess. > Large families also use more of society's resources, at the expense of others They also produce more of society's resources, for the benefit of others. > And this does what to them? Given that they're already term-limited out? Some kind of sanction of course.