51 ms·

Recent right-wing ideology in the US would fight back against this. JD Vance made a comment a few years ago saying that votes should tied to the number of child

Recent right-wing ideology in the US would fight back against this. JD Vance made a comment a few years ago saying that votes should tied to the number of children one has. Elon Musk has several posts on X decrying birth rates in the US, sounding alarms about the need to counter. Perhaps these are little more than bad ideas that will fade away, but that's less certain in today's policy climate.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
They can pass executive orders but they're not disciplined enough or sophisticated enough to do much with actual legislation. They couldn't even repeal the ACA when they had control of all three branches. Vance can tweet whatever dumb shit comes into his head but I wouldn't give it any chance of revamping how our voting works.
redwall_hp 1y ago
Now where have I heard that before...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn
- Saline9515 1y ago
  Natalism isn't a nazi ideology, every State has dealt with it as some point of its existence. Romans passed many natalist laws and heavily discussed it, for instance.
- joemazerino 1y ago
  Probably elsewhere, too, but that doesn't lead to calling the current administration Nazis.
Saline9515 1y ago
Giving more votes to the family to align with the amount of children they have isn't far-right. It's a reasonable policy to correct a problem in democracies, where young citizens have no representation and are as a result often the fifth wheel of the cart. Currently western democracies are dominated by 50+ years old, who tend to vote more conservative policies, which benefit them. Why would we spend very large amounts of the GDP to support old people through health and retirement programs, but refuse to fund quality daycare, schools and child-oriented infrastructure (playgrounds, sports clubs and so on). Especially given that a healthy and educated youth will create tomorrow's prosperity for the country. Unlike the old who have already lived their lives. If you think that I'm exagerating, I'd suggest listening to what happens in city councils, in retired-dominated cities: they often refuse improvements for families to fund their own programs. It's not a myth, I saw it with my own eyes, and it's very rational.
- estimator7292 1y ago
  So if you don't have kids, you only count as three-fifths of a person
  - Saline9515 1y ago
    Why so? If you don't have kids you count as one vote. Right now children have no more representation as illegal aliens, they don't count at all. If a child inherits an estate, or earns significant money, their parents are supposed to manage it until they're adults. Why wouldn't it the same for votes?

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

They can pass executive orders but they're not disciplined enough or sophisticated enough to do much with actual legislation. They couldn't even repeal the ACA when they had control of all three branches. Vance can tweet whatever dumb shit comes into his head but I wouldn't give it any chance of revamping how our voting works.

redwall_hp 1y ago

Now where have I heard that before...? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensborn

Saline9515 1y ago
Natalism isn't a nazi ideology, every State has dealt with it as some point of its existence. Romans passed many natalist laws and heavily discussed it, for instance.
joemazerino 1y ago
Probably elsewhere, too, but that doesn't lead to calling the current administration Nazis.

Saline9515 1y ago

Giving more votes to the family to align with the amount of children they have isn't far-right. It's a reasonable policy to correct a problem in democracies, where young citizens have no representation and are as a result often the fifth wheel of the cart. Currently western democracies are dominated by 50+ years old, who tend to vote more conservative policies, which benefit them. Why would we spend very large amounts of the GDP to support old people through health and retirement programs, but refuse to fund quality daycare, schools and child-oriented infrastructure (playgrounds, sports clubs and so on). Especially given that a healthy and educated youth will create tomorrow's prosperity for the country. Unlike the old who have already lived their lives. If you think that I'm exagerating, I'd suggest listening to what happens in city councils, in retired-dominated cities: they often refuse improvements for families to fund their own programs. It's not a myth, I saw it with my own eyes, and it's very rational.

estimator7292 1y ago
So if you don't have kids, you only count as three-fifths of a person
- Saline9515 1y ago
  Why so? If you don't have kids you count as one vote. Right now children have no more representation as illegal aliens, they don't count at all. If a child inherits an estate, or earns significant money, their parents are supposed to manage it until they're adults. Why wouldn't it the same for votes?