Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedParents should be allowed to cast as many votes as they have children
Results so far:
| Disagree | 95% | 69 votes | Total: 73 votes | |
| Agree | 5% | 4 votes |
Disagree
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to Favorites"Power," as Massachusetts statesman Daniel Webster pointed out in the Commonwealth's 1820 Constitutional Convention, "naturally and necessarily follows property." Virginia's Benjamin Watkins Leigh echoed the sentiment that same year when he declared that power and property could be separated, but not divorced. Either those with property would seize power, or those with power would seize property.
So, what has this got to do with voting?
The issue in the Constitutional Conventions of 1820 was whether to extend the voting franchise to white males over the age of 21 who did not own property - meaning income generating property, or capital. Both Webster and Leigh opposed the change in the Constitution, believing that political power without economic power was either an illusion or a recipe for disaster.
A number of political commentators with a libertarian mindset, starting as early as Alexis de Tocqueville and his "Memoir on Pauperism" accurately predicted that if people without property could vote, they would, on the whole, vote to take away property from those who had it, for the ultimate benefit of those who did not have it.
By and large, this prediction has been proven accurate. Private property - the basis (according to Locke and Sydney) of a sound political order, has been systematically eroded as the proportion of the population without effective or direct ownership of a meaningful capital stake has declined. Virtually no country in the world has failed to implement nearly all of Marx and Engels "Ten Point Plan" in "The Communist Manifesto" for the destruction of property and the collapse of the capitalist system, especially the progressive income tax, a tax designed specifically to redistribute wealth from those who have to those who do not.
Should we thus embrace capitalism with all its flaws? Defining "capitalism" as a system in which a few people own the means of production and everyone else works for wages - no. What we need is a system that duplicates what Abraham Lincoln accomplished with the 1862 Homestead Act to distribute an equitable share of land to as many people as possible. Extending the same concept to industrial and other assets (thereby avoiding the injustice of redistributing land from Native Americans for the benefit of settlers from Europe), and limiting it to newly-created wealth-producing assets (thereby leaving the currently wealthy secure in their accumulations), has the potential to extend economic democracy to support political democracy; such a "capital homestead" would, logically, empower the owner with a political vote.
If participating in capital homesteading were truly democratic - that is, every citizen had equal access to the means of becoming an owner, as George Mason stated as a basic right in the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 12 June 1776 - then it would make sense that parents could have as many votes as they had dependent children ... if and only if each of those children had direct ownership of a capital homestead. They would thus be property owners, and entitled to the political power that is inherent in ownership, if only to protect that property. Since parents have the duty to exercise rights on behalf of dependent children, they would vote on behalf of the children, except in individual cases where a court had determined that a dependent child was competent to exercise his or her own franchise before reaching majority.
Without widespread ownership of the means of production, however, what you'd see is exactly what you'd expect: people having children just to gain more political power, instead of letting families decide for themselves how big they should be.
Learn more about this author, Michael Greaney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agree
Let parents cast one extra vote if they have at least one minor child. This is a change from my initial thought to have one vote for each minor child. It is true that children could be considered "special interest", however, the status quo does not seem to be fair in representing children. Right now, each adult can cast one vote. So, who votes for the children? Do you agree that children are represented by society as a whole instead of by their parents?
I don't mean that the children would actually vote, but that their parents would cast a vote on their behalf. Of course an infant would not know which way to vote, but, someone has to represent the interests of that infant. Right now, a family of 4 with 2 parents and 2 young children gets 2 votes: one for the father, and one for the mother. Some people say that the parents vote for whom they choose with the interests of their children in mind, but, since they still only have one vote each, that vote cannot be split among all their children and be equal. Each living person has the right to be represented by one vote, be they disabled, or very young. But, who decides?
Some people say that the underprivileged would have more kids in order to have more votes. The underprivileged don't tend to vote now. So, they wouldn't have more kids to do what they don't do already.
Some say that families with lots of kids are uneducated and could not be trusted with that much political clout. I submit that if they are parents, they still need to provide the best future that they can for their children. Even if they are uneducated, they still deserve to have a say in their children's destiny.
Some say that the status quo is fine. I say that there are some worries about how our tax dollars are spent concerning our children's future. Social Security issues are a real worry. The Moral Majority, who tend to be the aging, want tax dollars to go towards their immediate twilight years without regard to the legacy this leaves for our kids. They don't feel the need to siphon money off for our children's benefit as long as they are endowed with funds to take care of their aging needs and wants. This is not equitable.
What might change if parents had an extra vote if they had kids? Maybe where tax dollars are spent would change. Maybe how schools are run would change. Maybe the educational system would be re-vamped. Who knows? Parents would have more power to decide who would be elected and, therefore, the destiny of their offspring. Why should it be society as a whole that decides what is best for our children instead of the parents of our children? Who dares to say that they have the best interests of someone else's child at heart?
The young are being dealt a poor hand in our political system because they can be. It is time for us to stand as strong parents and demand that our children be represented with a real, powerful vote, just like any adult American. Children in America are equal and worth the same as any adult. Each child needs representation, therefore, by one vote. Children's suffrage...it is the right thing to do. Lets do it! Please write to your legislators.
Learn more about this author, Camille Morin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Elections (Other)
- Is the US primary election season too long?
- Should there be spending limits on political campaigns?
- Should religion play an important role in choosing presidential candidates?
- Should Senators resign their seats to run for President?
- Is eighteen too young to vote?
- Should senators and congressmen have a term limit?
