Mass Delusion spreads in Germany.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-03 09:35am

Actually, since children will probably vote the way their parents tell them to, this is really just a clever scheme to skew the voting process to favour the opinions of families. In that sense, it is clearly a "family values" platform. People with children would gain much more political power under this scheme, and would have their opinions listened to much more carefully by government.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-03 09:43am

Darth Wong wrote:Actually, since children will probably vote the way their parents tell them to, this is really just a clever scheme to skew the voting process to favour the opinions of families. In that sense, it is clearly a "family values" platform. People with children would gain much more political power under this scheme, and would have their opinions listened to much more carefully by government.

Well of course it is. Did you miss the part where it says parents vote on behalf of their children?

In other words, you get an extra vote for each half a child you have full custody of.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2003-09-03 09:45am

sorry, I didn't mean 'full custody'. I wasn't thinking straight.

You get half a vote for each child you have, if you have shared guardianship, a full vote if you're a single parent.

Peregrin Toker · Post by **Peregrin Toker** » 2003-09-03 11:02am

I suppose that they might not want all children to vote - I simply can't take the idea of a 6-year old going lonely to the voting booth seriously. (Of course, few people of that age probably know anything about politics)

Rather, maybe the purpose is to make sure that high school students also can vote. (and if interpretated this way, it's not that weird an idea since many high school students are affliated with the "youth group" branches of some political parties)

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2003-09-03 02:38pm

Half a vote each for both parents?
Soooo, then I guess the ballots will have to be changed to allow fractions of votes to be counted.
This will be interesting if it goes through, or is this just some lunatic fringe getting disproportionate coverage?

All men are created equal.
Some are more equal than others.

One man, one vote.
Four legs good, two legs better.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-09-03 04:39pm

EmperorChrostas the Cruel wrote:This will be interesting if it goes through, or is this just some lunatic fringe getting disproportionate coverage?

It's an attempt at social engineering, although it probably won't pass. If someone decides that families should be given more attention by government, this would be one way of ensuring it.

All men are created equal.
Some are more equal than others.

One man, one vote.
Four legs good, two legs better.

"One man one vote" is a fantasy. Equal representation by geographical region goes directly against that principle, as does the traditionally disproportionate weighting of rural votes vs urban votes via the layout of voting districts.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2003-09-03 04:47pm

*points and laughs at the stupid proposed legislation*

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-09-03 05:45pm

I say voting should be based on knowledge of the system. That way, we don't have a bunch of people who think the Speaker of the House is part of their stereo system voting, and perhaps those politically competent high schoolers (Yes, all 82 of them!) might be able to vote.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-09-03 07:50pm

This, is lunacy. I would not object to the voting age being lowered... but not dropped...