Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maria, a single mother of 9 - ten votes.
Quaneesha, a single mother of 7 - eight votes.
Mohammed, a married father of 6 - eight votes.
Jake, a Mormon polygamist with 5 wives and 24 children - thirty votes.
etc.
Seems pretty clear so far, but what about active-duty military? In a barracks containing 30 men, who is the "head of household"?
The matter of children's representation should not be passed over lightly. Children in society have legitimate interests, as previously mentioned, but in our present system they have no voice. A 40 year old man responsible for the upbringing of five young children has the same vote as a 19 year old sorority girl with no responsibilities whatsoever. This is a wildly lopsided situation, resulting in an economy and a society that treats children as little more than an economic burden.
When the 40 yr. old man's children reach 18 they will be able to vote. Until then, the parents can choose if their votes are more representative of themselves or what they want for their children. A 19 yr. old sorority girl has every bit as much of a responsibilty to make certain her vote upholds individual liberty and thus our Constitution as does the married man with five children.
When voting in regard to the federal government and its actions/programs ask the following:
Is it Constitutional?
Can we afford it?
Does it fit with our plans and philosophies of a Constitutional Republic?
In as much as that the parents easily can represent the interests of their children.
The family, not the individual, is the foundation of every society. For this reason I have long proposed that only a designated head of household should be permitted to vote, and his vote should be weighted according to the number of people living under his roof.
For example:
Bill, a married father of two - four votes
Jane, a single mother of three - four votes
John, a married father of seven - nine votes
Lisa, a single college student living alone - one vote
George, a single college student with two roommates - three votes (George is the designated head of household, his roommates do not vote)
This also ensures that children, who have legitimate interests in the common good, are fairly represented at the ballot box.
Yeah, this is exactly what I want: Leadership decided by whichever redneck was most opposed to the idea of wrapping it up. Cause, as we all know, these are the country's best and brightest, and the most sound decision makers.
Children are persons and members of society. They have an interest in being well fed, sheltered, educated, having a good family, etc., and because society has the same interest, this good is called "common".
Hardly. Taxes represent the taxpayer alone. Generally the more taxes paid, the narrower the interest of the taxpayer. Society is much larger than that.
The responsibilities of the federal government are not those in bold. Again with the collectivism.
The responsibilities of the federal government are not those in bold. Again with the collectivism.
And what do you think would happen if poor, uneducated people with lots of kids were suddenly given a huge increase in their share of their vote? indeed.
The matter of children's representation should not be passed over lightly. Children in society have legitimate interests, as previously mentioned, but in our present system they have no voice. A 40 year old man responsible for the upbringing of five young children has the same vote as a 19 year old sorority girl with no responsibilities whatsoever. This is a wildly lopsided situation, resulting in an economy and a society that treats children as little more than an economic burden.
And in a society where every harebrained idea is always justified by tacking on to the end of it "it's for the children!" or "think of the children!", I'm certain they're already well-represented.
Thye real problem I see i governig today is that too mnay want to spend for what they contribute no funding for.Its like 405 pay no income taxes at aland some actaully get back money they never contributed. Its like 44% in federal income tax.No skin in the game means poor spending decisions.
If there were ever to be a change in the model, it would have to be along the lines of tax dollars paid = weight.
Your model rewards irresponsible breeding. That's a race to the bottom, since those people will vote for their own interests - interests which include dragging everybody else down with them. At least with basing it off taxes paid, voting weight would skew towards the best & brightest, who are better equipped to make informed decisions. I've long held that it's kind of silly that what someone successful thinks is easily canceled out entirely by what some loser who's never made more than minimum wage in 20 years of adulthood thinks.
And children are the highest contribution anyone can make to society.
While I agree with the premise of the OP, certainly, children have nothing, whatsoever to do with it. My husband is the head of our childfree household and his vote is just as important as a breeder vote.
Children are the biggest burden upon any society. In fact, one of the reason that "single mothers" comprise MOST of the population that is below the poverty line in this country is because they have children. If it were not for that burden they could enjoy a productive and prosperous life.
20yrsiNBranson
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
