2 ms·

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.

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.