366
submitted 5 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 79 points 5 months ago

How about we give parents one extra vote per child.

But they have to wait 18 years to use it.

And they can't directly use it, it's more that they get a delegate of sorts.

And this delegate


let's call them, I dunno, ~~their kid~~ "offspring voter"


isn't legally bound to vote one way or another.

And how about this person votes in a manner that in some way reflects how they were raised, and their worldy experiences


possibly voting exactly as the parents would, or possibly exactly opposite, or anywhere in between.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 59 points 5 months ago

So do we get an extra vote per child?

Is it more of the person who claims the child on their taxes gets the extra vote?

Does custody play into this? In other words, I get to claim one kid on my taxes, and my ex gets the other kid…

…or because she’s a woman, she shouldn’t be voting in the first place, so I get both kids’ and her votes?

Either way, I wouldn’t mind legally voting for Kamala two or four times in November. 😁

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 23 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

If historical precedent is any guide, they’ll count each child as an extra 3/5 of a vote.

[-] Pronell@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I couldn't resist. This is from the video game episode of Community, where a legal contract being presented on the fly is actually the text of the 3/5ths compromise.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 39 points 5 months ago

How low can Vance creep Trump's poll numbers?

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 20 points 5 months ago
[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago

He’s the new Sarah Palin. Normally VP picks don’t move the needle, but when you get it wrong, it can spoil the whole thing.

That being said, vote! vote! VOTE! This election is going to come down to the wire in a few states.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Agreed! Vote as if people you care about could be deported or lose their lives. Because they might.

VOTE!!!!!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 33 points 5 months ago

And on the opposite end, his running mate would prefer to see some children just die off.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In order to vote, I think American voters should have to pass the same history test that immigrants need to in order to gain citizenship.

edit: This sits at +11 because Americans don't know their history. We already did it to African Americans and it went extremely poorly. That's the point: Pick up a book.

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 17 points 5 months ago

I've taken and passed practice tests before. A lot of Americans who may be down-voting may remember things like Jim Crow laws and how tests were widely used to disenfranchise voters, particularly non-white or otherwise "the wrong kind of" voters, in the past and it still leaves a bad taste.

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It isn't about having a bad taste from the past. Policy like this would further disenfranchise vulnerable populations present day. A barrier for entry like this is going to disproportionately impact lower income folks. Hard to study for a test like this when you're busting your ass at 3 part time jobs trying to make ends meet. That's not even to mention the inequality that exists within the education system between higher and lower income areas to begin with. "Our system failed you, so now you're not qualified to vote. Cheers!"

Three guesses as to who this policy would affect more: white people or people of color?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 12 points 5 months ago

I think candidates for office should have to pass those tests.

Tests administered publicly with no lifelines available.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 27 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Same-Sex and Refugee/Immigrant-Adopting and Single parents also get more votes.

Vance: "No, not like that!"

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 26 points 5 months ago

Kids can have a vote when they start paying taxes. No representation without taxation!

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Bye@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago

I think you should get more votes if you DONT have children. And the government should give out free sterilizations, and if you can prove you’re sterilized you get to take paternity leave twice.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Statistically, parents already have more votes: inasmuch as children contribute to the apportionment of congressional districts and presidential electors, voters in districts with a disproportionately high ratio of children to adults have correspondingly greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. (Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, but it should be taken into consideration.)

[-] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 19 points 5 months ago

But wait, Republicans, what about all the welfare queens with like 10 Democrat party welfare sponsored kids? Are they now the most powerful voting block? Or did they never exist?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
366 points (97.4% liked)

News

23649 readers
2405 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS