Votes for children – even the unborn. Thus speculates the Observer Guardian* this morning in response to moves in Hungary. In effect, the idea is that parents would receive an extra vote to counterbalance those of the increasingly burgeoning greybeards. The logic, it suggests, is that the older generation are skewing policies away from the young, so an extra vote or two – or for Wayne and Chardonnay – three, four or five – will counterbalance the problem.
Not that there need be a problem at all if government just got the hell out of our lives and stopped trying to micromanage us. While I have been watching in despair at the state’s increasing infantilism of the population, never in my wildest nightmares did I suspect that anyone could seriously suggest giving the vote to children – or, more specifically, their parents, thereby making Animal Farm finally come true; all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others, it seems.
The Observer’s editorial finishes with an apt statement.
With climate change imposing a heavy price on a distant tomorrow, there’s even a case for enfranchising the unborn. That, however, would be impractical – and truly unthinkable.
I would have hoped so – but clearly someone is thinking it.
*see comments.
The Observer on a Saturday? It felt like a Sunday to me when I got up too. Good old bank holidays.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that the franchise should only be extended to those who can pass a voter comprehension test. Say a simple paragraph and ten related questions, in English (Or the host language of your country), to be completed when you turn up to vote. You pass, your vote counts. You don’t, it doesn’t. Simple.
This way the opportunity to vote could be safely offered to 16 year olds who have sufficient comprehension skills to understand some of the issues. š”
It is also a symptom of working nights. Oh, well…
So oldies skewing politics away from the youg is reponsible for climate change? And just who is buying all the smartphones, iPads, gadgets, electric cars, electric scooters, kewel stuff, and spending all their spare time simultaneously browsing the net, skyping their mates, watching TV and listeing to music.
Give votes to over 35s only. By that age most people should be capable of thinking for themselves even if they do not actually do so.
What do we want? Votes for sperm! When do we want it? Now.
š Sheesh.
parking the role of government issue for a moment, I think this is an interesting idea. Not so much the child vote per se, as the point about the issue of election results being skewed by unrepresentative electorates with vested interests.
By example, I understand that 70% of the electorate in the US is in net receipt of government benefits ie. receive more than they pay in. A large proportion of that 70% pay no tax at all. Which all means they have little or no interest in voting for reducing taxes, or indeed any other form of entitlement reform. It’s not quite that bad in the UK yet but we are heading that way, hence the reaction to the (not) cuts from the electorate.
So, what should be the criteria for voting eligibility?
If you are old enough to pay tax – and many children are – then you are old enough to vote. It is that simple, really.
By example, I understand that 70% of the electorate in the US is in net receipt of government benefits ie. receive more than they pay in. A large proportion of that 70% pay no tax at all. Which all means they have little or no interest in voting for reducing taxes, or indeed any other form of entitlement reform. Itās not quite that bad in the UK yet but we are heading that way, hence the reaction to the (not) cuts from the electorate
Well this country is (allegedly) run for the benefit for all its people. If the majority take a sceptical attitude to the necessity of cuts then they have as much right to influence politics as those who want to reduce taxes and a reduced state. And if they outnumber ‘small state’ types, so be it.
So, what should be the criteria for voting eligibility?
So you want to return us to a property qualification for the right to vote? I can’t say I am surprised as libertarianism is pretty hostile to the principle of democracy and the old Liberal Party was much slower than the Tories in seeing the necessity for widening the franchise. Curiously enough, in 1914, 40% of the adult male population were prevented from having any say in how their country was run because they did not have enough property. The state however still had expectations that they lay down their lives for it – first as a moral obligation and then as a legal one, when conscription came in in 1916.
Iām increasingly of the opinion that the franchise should only be extended to those who can pass a voter comprehension test>
And such tests are expressly prohibited under the US Constitution because of the ways that they were used to deny black poeple their right to vote.
Say a simple paragraph and ten related questions, in English (Or the host language of your country), to be completed when you turn up to vote. You pass, your vote counts. You donāt, it doesnāt. Simple
And of of course the ulterior motive of such a test couldn’t be to deny some immigrants their right to vote? Whether people are stupid, illiterate or have limited fluency in the ‘official’ language of the country where their reside, they have the equal right to political representation if they are citizens of that country. The applicability of any law does not depend on one’s fluency in English and neither should one’s political representation.
I would suggest that the age of majority is the right point for voting – whether that is currently set at the right age is moot. As mentioned, you can be earning at sixteen.
What I am railing about here is the idea of proxy votes for parents – that is, some people get an extra vote.
“If the majority take a sceptical attitude to the necessity of cuts then they have as much right to influence politics as those who want to reduce taxes and a reduced state. And if they outnumber āsmall stateā types, so be it.”
Absolutely, as long as they are willing to pay for not having the cuts, but that was the point being made, people who leech off others are unlikely to vote for a reduction in their unearnt income. If you cannot have taxation without representation, should you have representation without taxation? Being a citizen is neither here nor there. I’m a British citizen but I don’t vote because I don’t live there or pay UK taxes.
At some point, those who are being leeched will say “screw you” and take their ill-gotten gains elsewhere.
I’m not convinced that those who don’t contribute to the pie should have a say in how it is cut, they should just be bloody grateful to get a slice.
“Iām increasingly of the opinion that the franchise should only be extended to those who can pass a voter comprehension test. Say a simple paragraph and ten related questions, in English (Or the host language of your country), to be completed when you turn up to vote. You pass, your vote counts. You donāt, it doesnāt. Simple.”
So some smart arse on the dole gets to vote while someone who is not so smart but pays squillions in taxes gets turned away, what a dumb idea.
You need to pass an English test to become British anyway, unless you are from the EU. And since last year you also need to pass an English test to get a resident visa (except for students coming to learn English, but they shouldn’t be allowed to vote anyway! Or allowed to work, so they wouldn’t be paying taxes either.)
Absolutely, as long as they are willing to pay for not having the cuts, but that was the point being made, people who leech off others are unlikely to vote for a reduction in their unearnt income
Who are these people who “leech off” others? If you receive benefits in lieu of employment then you have paid taxes (or will in the future pay taxes) to fund those benefits. It is no more ‘unearnt’ than an insurance pay out is unearned.
“If you cannot have taxation without representation, should you have representation without taxation?”
Every one is liable for taxation. Even those who are paid benefits are liable to tax on those benefits.
“Being a citizen is neither here nor there”
I think you’ll find that it is very much the point. Even the poorest and most ignorant person has the right to have a say in how he is governed.
“Iām a British citizen but I donāt vote because I donāt live there or pay UK taxes”
Which is your choice.
So some smart arse on the dole gets to vote while someone who is not so smart but pays squillions in taxes gets turned away, what a dumb idea
It is an utterly absurd idea in any case. In the US voter qualification tests are outlawed thanks to the Voting Rights Act (1965) and if such a test were attempted in the UK it would be in direct violation of the HRA and ECHR. The principle is simple. The meanest person has the right to have say in his or her government. Jeez, 200 years ago, even the most aristocratic of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, understood and accepted that basic principle. I get the impression that some people are actually regressing politically. What next? Libertarians for the divine right of billionaires?
“Who are these people who āleech offā others?”
If you don’t know any you obviously didn’t grow up in a working class neighbourhood. A classic case would be one of my brothers-in-law. He’s 52 and I doubt he has done 4 years of work in his life, and all of that over 20 or more years ago. He is quite clear that it is his right not to work and that he is entitled to receive taxpayer handouts. He’ll sit down the pub drinking his taxpayer funded lager spouting off about workers’ rights and the evils of capitalism. Not surprisingly he votes for the party that believes in taking from the hardworking and giving to the indolent. I for one, but at least a couple of his brothers agree, consider that it is difficult to see why someone who will never pay for the benefits he receives and is quite open about the fact that it is his choice, should get to choose, through voting, how other people’s hardearned taxes are spent.
If you donāt know any you obviously didnāt grow up in a working class neighbourhood. A classic case would be one of my brothers-in-law. Heās 52 and I doubt he has done 4 years of work in his life, and all of that over 20 or more years ago
So if he is claiming benefits fraudently, why do you not report him? I have read a thousand such apocryphal stories and they don’t add to a hill of beans, frankly. Knowing as I know the actual law on benefits and how those laws are enforced, I treat such stories with the same scepticism I would treat a drunken fisherman who regaled me with accounts of those that got away.
He is quite clear that it is his right not to work and that he is entitled to receive taxpayer handouts. Heāll sit down the pub drinking his taxpayer funded lager spouting off about workersā rights and the evils of capitalism
Frankly if I knew such an arse I would not be inclined to spend time with him. Yet you spend such time with him that you know intimate details of his social life. You story smells like last week’s haddock.
Not surprisingly he votes for the party that believes in taking from the hardworking and giving to the indolent
Which party would that be then? It could scarcely be the Labour Party that is taking benefits away from disabled people.
I for one, but at least a couple of his brothers agree, consider that it is difficult to see why someone who will never pay for the benefits he receives and is quite open about the fact that it is his choice, should get to choose, through voting, how other peopleās hardearned taxes are spent
So how does he manage to continue to receive benefits when he is not actively searching for work?
“Frankly if I knew such an arse I would not be inclined to spend time with him. Yet you spend such time with him that you know intimate details of his social life. You story smells like last weekās haddock.”
Did you miss the bit where I said he was a brother-in-law, i.e. my wife’s brother? I might despise his lifestyle but he is family and lives in the same ex-mining village as most of the rest of the family. Nobody knows more about benefits than him, even I have advised other family members to talk to him to find out what their entitlements are.
“Which party would that be then? It could scarcely be the Labour Party that is taking benefits away from disabled people.”
Last time I checked, Labour weren’t in power.
Did you miss the bit where I said he was a brother-in-law, i.e. my wifeās brother?
You still haven’t said how he manages to claim benefits without actively searching for work. I have known people in receipt of out of work benefits. If they don’t get a job under their own steam in six months and they subsequently turn down a job offered to them, they lose all benefits. So how does your bother-in-law manage to evade that reality?
Last time I checked, Labour werenāt in power
But when they were still in power, they handed over medical reviews of the disabled to ATOS and replaced a proper medical examination with a checklist. The net result of which was that tens of thousands of disabled people unable to work have been found ‘fit to work’. Over a third of those decisions have been overturned on appeal, when subjected to honest medical examination. More died waiting for the decision to be reversed and more still didn’t have the energy to appeal and turned to charity instesad.
“You still havenāt said how he manages to claim benefits without actively searching for work.”
I don’t know how he does it. I know he doesn’t work and hasn’t done so for many years and the state gives him taxpayers money. I don’t even know what benefits he gets, how much he gets or what he has to do to receive them.
“Over a third of those decisions have been overturned on appeal, when subjected to honest medical examination. More died waiting for the decision to be reversed and more still didnāt have the energy to appeal and turned to charity instesad.”
So we can conclude that a significant number were leeching off the taxpayer.
I meant to comment on your: “What next? Libertarians for the divine right of billionaires?” I don’t know about divine right, but I’ve always thought there should be a cap on the amount of tax anyone individual should pay. Seems to me wrong that someone who earns a billion a year should have to cough up 500 million in tax. If there was a cap of say 10 million rich people would flock to the UK instead of leaving it.
I donāt know how he does it. I know he doesnāt work and hasnāt done so for many years and the state gives him taxpayers money. I donāt even know what benefits he gets, how much he gets or what he has to do to receive them
I see, so you are happy to pontificate about benefits claimants without understanding the first thing about it. I should have thought that anyone who takes such a close interest in the matter would have had the minimal intellectual curiosity to enquire how this chap ‘gets away’ with it.
So we can conclude that a significant number were leeching off the taxpayer
No, I don’t think you can conclude that at all. Thousands of innocent and needy disabled people have been stripped of their livelihood and that is the best you can offer? And by a political party that by your lazy and shallow political analysis is taking from the hardworking and giving to the indolent’, where in fact Labour was taking it from the needy to appease selfish and stupid people. Not that it would do it any good, for nothing but a return to the social conditions of the early nineteenth century would satisfy a libertarian.