Hard too say. I think the public’s opinion about it is about the same as the general opinion here - that’s the most idiotic idea in a while. But there’s a multipartisan initiative backing the proposal; actually, there are politicians from all five parties represented in Parliament supporting the initiative, with the speaker of Parliament itself among them. There’s a former Federal President and Supreme Court judge supporting it. OTOH, there are politicians from the same parties who disapprove of it. Apparently, the major parties haven’t come to an official party line yet, and regretfully many members of parliament don’t form their own opinion about a bill but simply vote the way their party “suggests.” Altogether, though, I’d say chances of actually passing this bill are slim. You’d have to amend the constitution, which requires a two-third majority in both chambers of parliament (one of which is dominated by one of the two bigf parties, the other one by the other), and there are other, more important issues government and opposition are quarreling about (unemployment, social security, immigration). It certainly doesn’t rtank at the very top of the priority list. The only thing the initiative has managed to do so far is getting 40 members of parliament to sign the proposal, which forces parliament to debate the issue after summer break.
To answer the OP’s question: prepubescent kids ARE too heavily influenced by their parents to make giving them a vote a right that will give them more freedom. First we would need to give them more actual freedom, then we can think about giving them the vote.
Oh, I absolutely agree. I was just disagreeing with slipster’s analysis on what’s driving this bill. If a bill is a good idea (meaning I support it) then it should be passed regardless of who it helps.
I don’t think this particular bill is a good idea, but things like women’s suffrage, lowering the voting age, etc. were good ideas and I’m glad they passed.
well, this is somewhat similiar to what is going on in maryland. if you turn 16 by a certain deadline (i believe it is by the upcoming primary election) you are allowed to vote in the primary and 2004 mayoral elections in maryland. being 17 i have already registered to vote and will, and cannot be swayed by my parents opinions. i share very different opinions from my parents and besides i think it’s a good idea to give those who are 16 or 17 voting rights. it prepares them and makes them more interested in voting as an adult. but that’s just my opinion.
Judeluv3, I know some of the prominent NYRA (National Youth Rights Association) members are from Maryland. Do you know if NYRA was involved in getting the vote for 16-17 year olds?
Despite the babble, the idea simply reeks. I realize of course that this is taking place in Germany, but that fact alone does not keep the idea from being a foolish one.
From an American perspective, this is the silliest idea I’ve heard.
I don’t think I can say it loud enough, or long enough. It’s just plain damn stupid.
However…
I think the drinking age, the selective service age and the driving age, should ALL be 19. Everywhere. The double, and sometimes triple standards that exist are completely moronic. You’re old enough to pick up a rifle and shoot another person for your government, but you don’t have the right to have a drink to forget what you’ve had to do. It just seems so bloody hypocritical.
Well, since no one else did, I have this to say: seeing as how the democratic process is treated in the U.S. by many adults, I don’t see how kids would be any less reasonable in their voting.
Thing is, 18 is really just an arbitrary number. Is a 17 or 19-year-old any different? There are 40-year-olds that simply vote Democratic or Republican in every election, without even bothering to understand the issues. There are also 14-year-olds that actually take an interest in politics and I would think that a 14-year-old who has been following the news for a year is better suited for the decision than the average American adult. This does not mean that the right to vote should be taken away from anyone; rather, that suffrage should be granted to any child who desires it.
And as for Presidents Spears and Timberlake, I’d like to point that JFK’s good looks played a fairly important role in the 1960 election–and that was when no one would even consider allowing children to vote.
Actually I find the idea of giving parents extra votes for each child quite interesting and it does make a certain amount of sense. Children should count for something when it comes to government policy so it makes sense that a household of four with two kids should have a greater say than a household of two adults. Since children are generally not mature enough to vote giving their parents extra votes seems like a decent alternative.
You don’t necessarily need a half-vote solution for families with one child. An alternative is some random procedure which assigns the vote to one or the other parent for a given election.
I am not really suggesting this proposal should be adopted but I don’t see anything much wrong with it and it does make some sense.
I agree with your first statement, but not your second.
The way I see it, a family with two kids deserves a greater say than a couple with no kids because the kids are subject to the law, and since government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed (remember “no taxation without representation”), people who are subject to the law deserve to have some input on the law.
Now, you could argue that parents are subject to the law even more than childless adults, since some things kids do can have legal repercussions for the parents. However, kids are still held accountable for their own crimes in most cases (the purpose of the juvenile justice system), and IMO that means that if a family with two kids gets four votes, the extra two should go to the kids, not the parents.
There are democratically passed laws that have the effect of limiting minors’ rights, such as curfews and restricted driver’s licenses. Most of them can be viewed as protecting kids, so parents would vote for them, but since they limit minors’ rights, minors wouldn’t vote for them if given the chance. Allowing parents to vote in their kids’ names on these issues–even though their kids would most likely vote the opposite way themselves–lends a false air of popular support to those laws, and the politicians who sponsor them.
True, kids would probably be influenced by their parents, but the argument that they wouldn’t be able to make a truly informed decision isn’t exactly a great point.
The average American is only, IMHO, about as able to make an informed political decision as a child.
The media helps a great deal in this. Right now in California a movie star is going to be Gov. just because of a name.
That was my interpretation as well. According to this page, Germany has the 5th lowest birthrate in the world, and 17% of the population is over 65 (10th highest in the world). This article uses Germany as an example of negative population growth.
I think the idea is to give politicians more incentive to support families. It should, in theory, result in more tax breaks and other measures that make it easier to have kids. Though it does seem like a roundabout way of achieving the goal…
I’m pretty sure you’re joking, but this does touch on a reason people scoff at the idea of letting kids vote- they’d simply elect someone “popular.” But as cute a dismissal as that is, it forgets something: the president has to be at least 35-years-old. What 12-year-old is going to vote for someone that old “just because”? Unless Johnny Depp runs for office, there probably wouldn’t be much danger of the weight of children’s votes causing an election to go to some bozo (I mean a politically inexperienced bozo, as opposed to the ones normally elected, that is). 