360
In his attacks on the ‘childless’ left, JD Vance once hyped a plan to give parents more votes (www.msnbc.com)
submitted 4 months ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 79 points 4 months ago

How about we give parents one extra vote per child.

But they have to wait 18 years to use it.

And they can't directly use it, it's more that they get a delegate of sorts.

And this delegate

let's call them, I dunno, ~~their kid~~ "offspring voter"

isn't legally bound to vote one way or another.

And how about this person votes in a manner that in some way reflects how they were raised, and their worldy experiences

possibly voting exactly as the parents would, or possibly exactly opposite, or anywhere in between.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 59 points 4 months ago

So do we get an extra vote per child?

Is it more of the person who claims the child on their taxes gets the extra vote?

Does custody play into this? In other words, I get to claim one kid on my taxes, and my ex gets the other kid…

…or because she’s a woman, she shouldn’t be voting in the first place, so I get both kids’ and her votes?

Either way, I wouldn’t mind legally voting for Kamala two or four times in November. 😁

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

If historical precedent is any guide, they’ll count each child as an extra 3/5 of a vote.

[-] Pronell@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I couldn't resist. This is from the video game episode of Community, where a legal contract being presented on the fly is actually the text of the 3/5ths compromise.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago

How low can Vance creep Trump's poll numbers?

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 18 points 4 months ago

Lower

[-] worldwidewave@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago

He’s the new Sarah Palin. Normally VP picks don’t move the needle, but when you get it wrong, it can spoil the whole thing.

That being said, vote! vote! VOTE! This election is going to come down to the wire in a few states.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Agreed! Vote as if people you care about could be deported or lose their lives. Because they might.

VOTE!!!!!

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 4 months ago

Please.

[-] frunch@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

🎵 How low can you go? 🎶 How low can you go? 🎵 How low can you go? 🎶

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 37 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

In order to vote, I think American voters should have to pass the same history test that immigrants need to in order to gain citizenship.

edit: This sits at +11 because Americans don't know their history. We already did it to African Americans and it went extremely poorly. That's the point: Pick up a book.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago
[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Give that test to everyone. It's just basic reading comprehension with a simple logic question and a simple math question. Even just that would disenfranchise the vast majority of American voters.

My point wasn't that a test is a good thing. It's an incredibly horrible idea.

My point is that the vast majority of Americans know less of their history than their immigrants. And, the vast majority of Americans are now in favor of repeating one mistake or the other because they don't know their history.

My evidence is that my suggestion above is predominantly upvoted.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

They gave the test to everyone then too. They just decided who passed and who didn't. Why do you think it will be different this time?

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

automated objective scoring

You didn't read my post. You're strawmanning. Not your style.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Automated by whom? Objective according to whom?

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

You're still bashing that straw man you made.

Look up. You made a mistake. And, if it wasn't you I'd simply block.

[-] kboy101222@sh.itjust.works 12 points 4 months ago

Bud, that isn't what a straw man is. Like, at all.

And "objective computer analysis" can still be wrong and biased. Look at all the image classifiers that called black people monkeys cause they were trained almost exclusively on images of white people.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You could answer my questions or you could keep trolling up to you.

Also, please do explain how asking you how this test would be automated and objective is a straw man. Do you not understand what a straw man argument is?

Also, stop making this about me. If you want to block me, fine, but I don't care about your expectations of me or what you think is a mistake or poor argument on my part.

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Why would I involuntarily defend a position I do not hold because some idiot can't be bothered to use the reading comprehension and social skills I know they have?

please do explain how asking you how this test would be automated and objective is a straw man

Because I don't believe in a test. I've told you twice. But, you're uncharacteristically being a jackass, now even after you've slept on it.

I'll make it about you because you're a valuable member of the community whom I respect, and who's seemingly not meeting their own standards of behavior (based on the past). If you don't like it, block. I'm pretty close.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Actually, I went back and you told me once, which I did miss. The other one was an edit which you somehow expected me to see after I replied to you. And then, even though I missed your claim that it shouldn't happen, you kept arguing for how the test could be implemented.

So I don't think you know what you are arguing for.

And I still don't care about what you think of me or of my value to anyone. First of all because I don't have any value to anyone and secondly because your opinion of me won't change that.

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I made no argument for a test. I answered your direct question as to how it could be done fairly.

Reading and comprehension is prerequisite to a good faith response. You skipped half a post then needed to be told twice to read it. It's not my responsibility to coddle you into good faith. I delivered content well within your capacity to understand.

I accept no responsibility for your error. The input was far better than what you usually receive. You just wanted to fight with someone and I was next in line. You're a public figure. We all know your MO.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I made no argument for a test.

Your words in your initial post before you made your edit:

In order to vote, I think American voters should have to pass the same history test that immigrants need to in order to gain citizenship

So now you're just lying.

And also, I'm just going to stop reading your posts at the point you start to make them personal. You really aren't getting that I don't give a shit what you think of me.

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

That's not an argument. It's a statement. Is your bar really that low or are you still just trying to fight?

I won't fight with you. I know too much about you. We've spoken personally on three accounts.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Now you're gaslighting. Statements can be arguments and "I think" statements are arguments because you are giving an opinion. Which I am sure you know, so I'm not sure why you're trying this tack.

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 16 points 4 months ago

I've taken and passed practice tests before. A lot of Americans who may be down-voting may remember things like Jim Crow laws and how tests were widely used to disenfranchise voters, particularly non-white or otherwise "the wrong kind of" voters, in the past and it still leaves a bad taste.

[-] half_fiction@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It isn't about having a bad taste from the past. Policy like this would further disenfranchise vulnerable populations present day. A barrier for entry like this is going to disproportionately impact lower income folks. Hard to study for a test like this when you're busting your ass at 3 part time jobs trying to make ends meet. That's not even to mention the inequality that exists within the education system between higher and lower income areas to begin with. "Our system failed you, so now you're not qualified to vote. Cheers!"

Three guesses as to who this policy would affect more: white people or people of color?

[-] tiredofsametab@kbin.run 4 points 4 months ago

I 100% agree with this.

Some of those same reasons are the reasons voter ID laws as often implemented (i.e. without anyway to ensure that everyone is actually able to get an ID given that it takes documents, time, and money that not everyone can spare) can negatively impact the same portions of the population as well.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 months ago

I think candidates for office should have to pass those tests.

Tests administered publicly with no lifelines available.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 7 points 4 months ago

Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV.

Ok, nailed it, gimme the nuclear codes

[-] SirDerpy@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Now, there's a good idea. But, I think you'd be surprised at the results. They're not stupid. They're evil.

[-] RicoBerto 1 points 4 months ago

In some states you can't graduate without passing that test, I know that was the case in Missouri. That shit was hard.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 31 points 4 months ago

And on the opposite end, his running mate would prefer to see some children just die off.

[-] leisesprecher@feddit.org 6 points 4 months ago

Yeah, but their parents can't or won't vote anyway. So they're worthless to him.

[-] Bye@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago

I think you should get more votes if you DONT have children. And the government should give out free sterilizations, and if you can prove you’re sterilized you get to take paternity leave twice.

[-] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 10 points 4 months ago

Not sure if you're trying for eugenics, but it certainly sounds like you are.

Incentivizing sterilization probably means that marginalized groups will preferentially take advantage of it (well-off people can already take long vacations, etc.). So now we have a disproportionately sterile lower class, while the upper class can have kids as they see fit.

Don't get me wrong, overpopulation is a real thing. But e.g. Japan's declining birth rate doesn't seem particularly happy, and I'm not sure government sponsored sterilization bribery is great either...

[-] Bye@lemmy.world 15 points 4 months ago

By that argument, the lower rate of reproduction is western countries is eugenics, since it’s a consequence of policy (education).

Actually one of the best things that poor folks can do to escape generational poverty, is to have fewer kids. That way, kids inherit a larger share of their grandparents assets, and more can be passed down. Generational land ownership, for example, is extremely powerful. Fewer children per family also lowers the financial burden of education, enabling better education for comparatively fewer people. That’s not eugenics, it’s smart family planning.

[-] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 2 points 4 months ago

Antinatalism is the way :)

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 27 points 4 months ago

Kids can have a vote when they start paying taxes. No representation without taxation!

[-] Duke_Nukem_1990@feddit.org 4 points 4 months ago

Cool so as soon as they spend their money on any goods and service they can vote? 😲

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago

There'd have to be some kind of threshold. Maybe when they get a job.

[-] RIPandTERROR@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

The children crave the mines

[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 24 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Same-Sex and Refugee/Immigrant-Adopting and Single parents also get more votes.

Vance: "No, not like that!"

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Statistically, parents already have more votes: inasmuch as children contribute to the apportionment of congressional districts and presidential electors, voters in districts with a disproportionately high ratio of children to adults have correspondingly greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. (Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, but it should be taken into consideration.)

[-] ALoafOfBread@lemmy.ml 18 points 4 months ago

But wait, Republicans, what about all the welfare queens with like 10 Democrat party welfare sponsored kids? Are they now the most powerful voting block? Or did they never exist?

[-] kandoh@reddthat.com 5 points 4 months ago

Only the father gets the extra votes so if you throw them in prison for marijuana possession than problem solved

[-] WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 months ago

As a parent and voting socialist this may backfire on this dude.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
360 points (100.0% liked)

News

23376 readers
2729 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world