8 ms·

> 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

> 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.

goodpoint 4y ago
>> 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. Not at all.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? Yes. Don't award anyone extra votes based on the kids that they raise. > Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. > > 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, This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/parent-child-politics-research-cartoon https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/... > Ojeda and Hatemi found that only two in three of these adult children could properly identify a parent’s party identification with the broad descriptions of Republican, independent, or Democrat. > And of that group, about one in four rejected their parent’s politics. > if a child felt she was supported and connected to her parent, she was more likely to adopt what she thought her parent’s beliefs were. Directly addressing your comment, "that parents are thinking about the future of their kids." > "Parents are especially bad at perceiving their children, especially compared to how children perceive their parents," he said > about two in three children were able to accurately perceive a parent’s party identification. But only 42 percent of parents were able to do the same. A second link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-p... > 7 in 10 currently say they're sticking close to their parents' positions on the ideological spectrum, many will possibly continue the voting tradition of at least one older family member. --- > We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. No, you aren't. Morally you may think that you are, but legally you aren't. You're just responsible for how you raise them. Morally I consider myself responsible for the future of all children, despite not being a parent. Legally, just like you, I am not though. I'm just legally responsible for not abusing other people's kids. Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future?
- lordnacho 4y ago
  > Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. > This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. Not quite sure the article supports what you're saying? It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. > Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future? Well I mean you might think you are helping the kids but you might not be? This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? Experiencing something might give you a new point of view on it. For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run?
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. So be cautious when adding yet another imperfect system onto all of the rest. Especially one with such disparate weightings attached to it. > It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. It's not confused. Most children get their political opinions based on: A) Whether or not they felt they had supportive parents. B) What they think their parent's political opinions are. It is thus up to parents to both be supportive of their children, and to affirmatively communicate to their children what their political opinions are. If this happens much more than 70% of children will mimic their parents' politics. > This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? It's not your skin in the game, it's your children's skin in the game. Some persons do indeed see people as cliques and tribes, which have interests in lock-step, and believe it is just to have them vote in sync. But I believe that most people are more nuanced. > For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run? You made the mistake of triggering one of my hobby-horses. :D The way I do this is by knowing what policies helped and hindered me, my spouse, and our siblings while going through school. And then reading the policies promulgated by those running for office (especially of the local school board), and of the school proposals submitted to the voting population as initiatives or referendums. And reading criticisms by teachers, parents, students, other politicians, etcetera. And then weighing all of this data to determine what I think is best, for students like me, my spouse, and our siblings. Let's say that all of your kids are still in primary school. How are you, as a parent, supposed to form an opinion about whether the secondary schools are well run? How are you supposed to form an opinion based solely on your own kids? Kids are not identical. My wife thrived in a particular pre-school, while her brother later said he thought it wasn't good for him. The schooling choices you make for the eldest of your kids may turn out to be bad decisions for your younger kids. Now factor in that your kids are only a tiny proportion of the school-attending population. I, at least, have spent a couple of decades researching these schooling subjects. I've watched documentaries on it (specifically Waiting for Superman, and Hoop Dreams). I've seen the movies Stand and Deliver and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. I know a bit about the differences between schooling in Scotland, England, Australia, and my home country the USA. I've read Miraca Gross's books on gifted education. I've read John Taylor Gatto's critiques of the education system for regular kids. You're telling me that with all of my knowledge my political power should be much less than your own? You gain knowledge I cannot by dint of having your kids in the system. I have knowledge that you do not by dint of having gone through a system, as well as having done my own research. Let us both have an equal vote. If you don't like how I vote you can always home school your kids, or send them to a private school (or "public" as they call them in England).
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
Another thought. Awarding parents of very young children more votes than parents of older children is giving more weight to inexperienced parents who are most concerned with immediate childcare needs than more experienced parents who are starting to think about the lifelong thriving of their soon-to-be-adult children.
- notahacker 4y ago
  The weirdest bit is that concern for the child apparently ceases at 18, and the same proposal considers elderly people - typically with more descendants than anyone else - so incapable of considering others' long term needs that the whole system is designed to reduce the effect of their votes. If old people are so selfish that "a large generation of retirees who essentially vote everyone else's resources to themselves" is the problem this proposal aims to solve, maybe parenthood just doesn't make people much more thoughtful about their votes... Say what you like about gerontocracy, at least it's the product of old people actually being more motivated to turn up to vote rather than the bizarro logic that twentysomething single mums of eight kids with unknown fathers are so good at decision making they need two orders of magnitude more votes than the average retiree (provided they sneak their phone into the voting booth to look up the trivia quiz answers)
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    More good points. Unfortunately it doesn't matter. lordnacho (what an appropriate user name) has more kids than all of us critiquing him do, so his idea will be the one voted into law. :( Maybe his kids will listen to us once they hit 18, and vote to overturn his law. It is, after all, men who voted to give women the vote.

goodpoint 4y ago

>> 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. Not at all.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

> Naturally there's a lot of people and some won't behave like the rest, but can anything be done about that? Yes. Don't award anyone extra votes based on the kids that they raise. > Sure, so don't let the abusive parents have the votes. Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. > > 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, This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/parent-child-politics-research-cartoon https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/22/13714556/... > Ojeda and Hatemi found that only two in three of these adult children could properly identify a parent’s party identification with the broad descriptions of Republican, independent, or Democrat. > And of that group, about one in four rejected their parent’s politics. > if a child felt she was supported and connected to her parent, she was more likely to adopt what she thought her parent’s beliefs were. Directly addressing your comment, "that parents are thinking about the future of their kids." > "Parents are especially bad at perceiving their children, especially compared to how children perceive their parents," he said > about two in three children were able to accurately perceive a parent’s party identification. But only 42 percent of parents were able to do the same. A second link: https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-political-perspectives.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/14515/teens-stay-true-parents-p... > 7 in 10 currently say they're sticking close to their parents' positions on the ideological spectrum, many will possibly continue the voting tradition of at least one older family member. --- > We each do, but I'm also responsible for my kids' stakes. The fact I'm their dad is why. No, you aren't. Morally you may think that you are, but legally you aren't. You're just responsible for how you raise them. Morally I consider myself responsible for the future of all children, despite not being a parent. Legally, just like you, I am not though. I'm just legally responsible for not abusing other people's kids. Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future?

lordnacho 4y ago
> Good luck with that, and also good luck correctly identifying only abusive parents as abusive. But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. > This has been studied. It is not 100%, but the trends do exist. I should have included some links along with this comment. Not quite sure the article supports what you're saying? It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. > Why would a single person, who doesn't know how long they will live, vote for policies that they think will be bad for your kids' future? Well I mean you might think you are helping the kids but you might not be? This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? Experiencing something might give you a new point of view on it. For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run?
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > But this is an issue with any identification problem, there are false positives and false negatives. If we have a bunch of laws mistakes will be made. So be cautious when adding yet another imperfect system onto all of the rest. Especially one with such disparate weightings attached to it. > It seems to be pretty confused about how kids get their political opinions. It's not confused. Most children get their political opinions based on: A) Whether or not they felt they had supportive parents. B) What they think their parent's political opinions are. It is thus up to parents to both be supportive of their children, and to affirmatively communicate to their children what their political opinions are. If this happens much more than 70% of children will mimic their parents' politics. > This is part of skin-in-the-game, right? It's not your skin in the game, it's your children's skin in the game. Some persons do indeed see people as cliques and tribes, which have interests in lock-step, and believe it is just to have them vote in sync. But I believe that most people are more nuanced. > For instance how will you form an opinion about whether schools are well run? You made the mistake of triggering one of my hobby-horses. :D The way I do this is by knowing what policies helped and hindered me, my spouse, and our siblings while going through school. And then reading the policies promulgated by those running for office (especially of the local school board), and of the school proposals submitted to the voting population as initiatives or referendums. And reading criticisms by teachers, parents, students, other politicians, etcetera. And then weighing all of this data to determine what I think is best, for students like me, my spouse, and our siblings. Let's say that all of your kids are still in primary school. How are you, as a parent, supposed to form an opinion about whether the secondary schools are well run? How are you supposed to form an opinion based solely on your own kids? Kids are not identical. My wife thrived in a particular pre-school, while her brother later said he thought it wasn't good for him. The schooling choices you make for the eldest of your kids may turn out to be bad decisions for your younger kids. Now factor in that your kids are only a tiny proportion of the school-attending population. I, at least, have spent a couple of decades researching these schooling subjects. I've watched documentaries on it (specifically Waiting for Superman, and Hoop Dreams). I've seen the movies Stand and Deliver and The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie. I know a bit about the differences between schooling in Scotland, England, Australia, and my home country the USA. I've read Miraca Gross's books on gifted education. I've read John Taylor Gatto's critiques of the education system for regular kids. You're telling me that with all of my knowledge my political power should be much less than your own? You gain knowledge I cannot by dint of having your kids in the system. I have knowledge that you do not by dint of having gone through a system, as well as having done my own research. Let us both have an equal vote. If you don't like how I vote you can always home school your kids, or send them to a private school (or "public" as they call them in England).

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

Another thought. Awarding parents of very young children more votes than parents of older children is giving more weight to inexperienced parents who are most concerned with immediate childcare needs than more experienced parents who are starting to think about the lifelong thriving of their soon-to-be-adult children.

notahacker 4y ago
The weirdest bit is that concern for the child apparently ceases at 18, and the same proposal considers elderly people - typically with more descendants than anyone else - so incapable of considering others' long term needs that the whole system is designed to reduce the effect of their votes. If old people are so selfish that "a large generation of retirees who essentially vote everyone else's resources to themselves" is the problem this proposal aims to solve, maybe parenthood just doesn't make people much more thoughtful about their votes... Say what you like about gerontocracy, at least it's the product of old people actually being more motivated to turn up to vote rather than the bizarro logic that twentysomething single mums of eight kids with unknown fathers are so good at decision making they need two orders of magnitude more votes than the average retiree (provided they sneak their phone into the voting booth to look up the trivia quiz answers)
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  More good points. Unfortunately it doesn't matter. lordnacho (what an appropriate user name) has more kids than all of us critiquing him do, so his idea will be the one voted into law. :( Maybe his kids will listen to us once they hit 18, and vote to overturn his law. It is, after all, men who voted to give women the vote.