So you would argue that when the constitution was written, everyone was thinking that they were setting up a system to either:
A) Represent all of the people in the nation as rationally as possible?
B) To encourage mass population growth?
I’d personally venture to guess that it was option A. Nobody was thinking in terms that they were setting up a race among the most proliferate breeders to see who could take over the nation. The fact that that possibility is open is because nobody considered it. It’s a bug in the system, AKA a loophole.
Point in fact, I can prove very easily that the framers were quite scared of ideas like the “tyranny of the majority”. They viewed that sort of thing as irrational.
Would you say that if a bomber left a bomb on the White House’s doorstep that the prosecution needs to prove that the bomb could actually have exploded?
Say that it’s the world’s worst bomb maker and in fact the bomb couldn’t go off because the craftsmanship and chemistry and everything were just dead awful. But the bomber did indeed intend, fully, to blow up the entire White House and kill the president and everyone else in it.
Should he be considered to be completely free of any guilt because his faith in his own plan was excessive?
Of course not. This is common sense. I’m doing nothing more than taking what we do in every other case and extending it to this one. Why shouldn’t I do that, is what I’ve asked. As yet, no one has responded to that, which is why I’ve continued to ask.
Nope, that doesn’t work either. The specific concern is that they’ll use their votes in a way their parents want. This means they have to be at least 18, and therefore no longer minors. They can’t, by definition, be children under the control of their parents. They can be adults who were exposed to unusual childhoods, but by the time the voting thing comes into play they’re adults with their own rights to their democratic voting power.
Want to make an argument that strong indoctrination during childhood constitutes abuse? You’ll get further with that. There are lots of people who believe parental authority isn’t absolute with regards to what they can and can’t teach their children. I can think of several people on this board who would jump into that argument with both feet.
On this topic though, the argument is essentially that an unusual upbringing produces people who should not be allowed to exercise their franchise because it should be assumed they are not voting from a position of informed self-interest. Instead of addressing the unusual upbringing, and it’s possible implications, the proffered solution is to limit the fundamental human right of reproductive self determination. The justification relies on the assumption that people of such an upbringing are disenfranchising people with a more mainstream upbringing by exercising their franchise as they see fit. Children born into Quiverfull families are illegitimate extensions of their parent’s minds and rights and when they reach the age of majority and vote, it’s like letting their parents vote instead.
You know, you are really, really bad at making analogies.
And I can prove very easily that the founding fathers took population disparities into account when crafting the government so as to insure that smaller populations would still receive representation. It’s called “the Senate.”