Should Parents Vote on Behalf of Their Kids? J.D. Vance Isn’t the Only One Who Thinks So

[Michie]

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

Sen. J.D. Vance has been under fire this week after the GOP vice-presidential nominee’s three-year-old comments about the “childless left” and promoting family formation resurfaced in the media.

Among the most controversial? The claim that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their underage kids.

“Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children,” said Vance in a 2021 talk hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids.”

At the time, Vance described his proposal as an attempt to overcome a “structural democratic disadvantage” to pursuing pro-family policies in America.

But media reactions have framed the proposal as an attempt to disenfranchise childless people. Some have criticized Vance for saying that those without kids are relatively less committed to the country’s future.

“This is such a heinous notion that it’s hard to believe a politician would even think this to himself, let alone say it out loud,” said BuzzFeed’s Morgan Sloss, who describes herself as “intentionally childfree.”


Continued below.

Should Parents Vote on Behalf of Their Kids? JD Vance Isn’t the Only One Who Thinks So

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

www.ncregister.com

 

[Offline4Better.]

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

Sen. J.D. Vance has been under fire this week after the GOP vice-presidential nominee’s three-year-old comments about the “childless left” and promoting family formation resurfaced in the media.

Among the most controversial? The claim that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their underage kids.

“Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children,” said Vance in a 2021 talk hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids.”

At the time, Vance described his proposal as an attempt to overcome a “structural democratic disadvantage” to pursuing pro-family policies in America.

But media reactions have framed the proposal as an attempt to disenfranchise childless people. Some have criticized Vance for saying that those without kids are relatively less committed to the country’s future.

“This is such a heinous notion that it’s hard to believe a politician would even think this to himself, let alone say it out loud,” said BuzzFeed’s Morgan Sloss, who describes herself as “intentionally childfree.”


Continued below.

Should Parents Vote on Behalf of Their Kids? JD Vance Isn’t the Only One Who Thinks So

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

www.ncregister.com

There is a reason why the voting age is 18. Kids may not have all the faculties to choose a candidate. Now, one could argue to lower the voting age to 16 (same age as US driving age), but I would not want to let a 9-year-old vote for president.

26th Amendment info:

Ask Civics 101: Why Is Our Voting Age 18?

We take it for granted that the voting age is 18 in the United States, but it hasn’t always been this way. We lowered that age from 21 in the seventies —…

www.nhpr.org

Voting at 16 - Pros & Cons:

Voting at 16: Turnout and the quality of vote choice

Critics of giving citizens under 18 the right to vote argue that such teenagers lack the ability and motivation to participate effectively in elections. If this argument is true, lowering the voting age would have negative consequences for the quality ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[dzheremi]

No, people who have children should not have "more power" in the voting booth than those who do not have kids. That idea is inherently undemocratic. The concept we are supposed to operate by is "one man, one vote", not "your vote counts more if you're a parent than if you aren't."

I don't like this J.D. Vance character. He seems to have a real problem with childless people, and his assumption that being childless is some kind of left-wing lifestyle choice for everyone who is in that state, rather than the result of many different circumstances. His idea that childless people are somehow "less invested" in the future of this country than those who have children is just flat out wrong and based in nothing. As one of the commenters on the linked YouTube video points out, George Washington had no children of his own. Does that mean that George Washington, of all people, was somehow less invested in the future of the country? Or at least less invested than his wife, she since had children from a previous marriage? The reasoning is ridiculous on its face.

 

[Offline4Better.]

No, people who have children should not have "more power" in the voting booth than those who do not have kids. That idea is inherently undemocratic. The concept we are supposed to operate by is "one man, one vote", not "your vote counts more if you're a parent than if you aren't."

I don't like this J.D. Vance character. He seems to have a real problem with childless people, and his assumption that being childless is some kind of left-wing lifestyle choice for everyone who is in that state, rather than the result of many different circumstances. His idea that childless people are somehow "less invested" in the future of this country than those who have children is just flat out wrong and based in nothing. As one of the commenters on the linked YouTube video points out, George Washington had no children of his own. Does that mean that George Washington, of all people, was somehow less invested in the future of the country? Or at least less invested than his wife, she since had children from a previous marriage? The reasoning is ridiculous on its face.

Amen, brother. I choose to not have children, and it would be unfair for one without children to have less voting power compared to folks with more children.

One person, one vote.

 

[seashale76]

No, people who have children should not have "more power" in the voting booth than those who do not have kids. That idea is inherently undemocratic. The concept we are supposed to operate by is "one man, one vote", not "your vote counts more if you're a parent than if you aren't."

I don't like this J.D. Vance character. He seems to have a real problem with childless people, and his assumption that being childless is some kind of left-wing lifestyle choice for everyone who is in that state, rather than the result of many different circumstances. His idea that childless people are somehow "less invested" in the future of this country than those who have children is just flat out wrong and based in nothing. As one of the commenters on the linked YouTube video points out, George Washington had no children of his own. Does that mean that George Washington, of all people, was somehow less invested in the future of the country? Or at least less invested than his wife, she since had children from a previous marriage? The reasoning is ridiculous on its face.

Agreed. It is also a very dangerous and undemocratic sentiment. The very fact that he wants people who don't have kids or agree with him to not have a say on anything is very telling.

 

[Michie]

Agreed. It is also a very dangerous and undemocratic sentiment. The very fact that he wants people who don't have kids or agree with him to not have a say on anything is very telling.

I never liked him. The more he speaks, the less I like him. He is going to be a thorn in Trump’s side and a great gift to the Democrats.

 

[Richard T]

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

Sen. J.D. Vance has been under fire this week after the GOP vice-presidential nominee’s three-year-old comments about the “childless left” and promoting family formation resurfaced in the media.

Among the most controversial? The claim that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their underage kids.

“Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children,” said Vance in a 2021 talk hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids.”

At the time, Vance described his proposal as an attempt to overcome a “structural democratic disadvantage” to pursuing pro-family policies in America.

But media reactions have framed the proposal as an attempt to disenfranchise childless people. Some have criticized Vance for saying that those without kids are relatively less committed to the country’s future.

“This is such a heinous notion that it’s hard to believe a politician would even think this to himself, let alone say it out loud,” said BuzzFeed’s Morgan Sloss, who describes herself as “intentionally childfree.”


Continued below.

Should Parents Vote on Behalf of Their Kids? JD Vance Isn’t the Only One Who Thinks So

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

www.ncregister.com

I am glad he supports the family but it is not families versus singles and he is going out of his way allowing media to bring this wedge to voters. The kids will vote soon enough.

 

[eleos1954]

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

Sen. J.D. Vance has been under fire this week after the GOP vice-presidential nominee’s three-year-old comments about the “childless left” and promoting family formation resurfaced in the media.

Among the most controversial? The claim that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their underage kids.

“Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children,” said Vance in a 2021 talk hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids.”

At the time, Vance described his proposal as an attempt to overcome a “structural democratic disadvantage” to pursuing pro-family policies in America.

But media reactions have framed the proposal as an attempt to disenfranchise childless people. Some have criticized Vance for saying that those without kids are relatively less committed to the country’s future.

“This is such a heinous notion that it’s hard to believe a politician would even think this to himself, let alone say it out loud,” said BuzzFeed’s Morgan Sloss, who describes herself as “intentionally childfree.”


Continued below.

Should Parents Vote on Behalf of Their Kids? JD Vance Isn’t the Only One Who Thinks So

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

www.ncregister.com

It is true ... people with children have a different outlook about the future than those who do not ... that don't mean anyone is for maligning people that do not have children ... it's your choice to have children ... or not.

Before children, many of us are focused on issues and goals that relate to our own fulfillment and satisfaction. It puts one in position to think about somebody else's welfare (their children's) rather than themselves.

 

[eleos1954]

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

Sen. J.D. Vance has been under fire this week after the GOP vice-presidential nominee’s three-year-old comments about the “childless left” and promoting family formation resurfaced in the media.

Among the most controversial? The claim that parents should be able to vote on behalf of their underage kids.

“Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children,” said Vance in a 2021 talk hosted by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. “When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power. You should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic than people who don’t have kids.”

At the time, Vance described his proposal as an attempt to overcome a “structural democratic disadvantage” to pursuing pro-family policies in America.

But media reactions have framed the proposal as an attempt to disenfranchise childless people. Some have criticized Vance for saying that those without kids are relatively less committed to the country’s future.

“This is such a heinous notion that it’s hard to believe a politician would even think this to himself, let alone say it out loud,” said BuzzFeed’s Morgan Sloss, who describes herself as “intentionally childfree.”


Continued below.

Should Parents Vote on Behalf of Their Kids? JD Vance Isn’t the Only One Who Thinks So

The Republican vice-presidential candidate has come under fire for his views on ‘parental voting,’ but the idea isn’t new and isn’t necessarily partisan.

www.ncregister.com

It is true people who have kids have a different view about the future .... they have somebody to think about other than themselves. It is the nature of the family unit. It is a choice to have a family or not .... that is not "bad mouthing" people that choose to not have children .... but on the other hand can't dismiss that it does change how one looks at the future.

 

[seashale76]

It is true ... people with children have a different outlook about the future than those who do not ... that don't mean anyone is for maligning people that do not have children ... it's your choice to have children ... or not.

Before children, many of us are focused on issues and goals that relate to our own fulfillment and satisfaction. It puts one in position to think about somebody else's welfare (their children's) rather than themselves.

Hard disagree. I actually take offense when anyone words things like this. I made a choice to have children...and I still don't have any. Some of you have absolutely NO idea.

 

[dzheremi]

I really don't need the electoral college explained to me, @Malleeboy. I live in the most populous state in the country, where my vote is essentially worthless. As such, I would have no problem getting rid of the EC, as it too is inherently undemocratic. The difference between it and what J.D. Vance is saying should be obvious, though: It was devised at a time when it could have at least been said to make a little more sense than it does now (e.g., having electors rather than direct elections at a time when there were many more physical barriers to getting to centralized polling places). There is no time or context in which J.D. Vance's anti-childless-people ranting makes sense at all.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

You might not like some of the "extremes" that come with JD Vance, but when the alternative is transgenderism, rampant homosexuality, indoctrination and mutilation of children and young adults, satanism, societal and moral decay, baby murder, assault on the Christian faith, election interference, open borders and on and on, I'll take the guy who pondered on giving children some say and who makes fun of purple haired feminist cat ladies. Oh no, he's so bad.

 

[dzheremi]

You might not like some of the "extremes" that come with JD Vance, but when the alternative is transgenderism, rampant homosexuality, indoctrination and mutilation of children and young adults, satanism, societal and moral decay, baby murder, assault on the Christian faith, election interference, open borders and on and on

I forgot that all of these things magically stopped when Trump was in office. I guess all the power fantasies that both sides have of ushering in a utopia if they can just get a man or woman with the right letter after their name are true, and not at all a sign of brain rot caused by the partisan mind virus that passes for U.S. politics. My mistake.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

 

[The Barbarian]

I never liked him. The more he speaks, the less I like him. He is going to be a thorn in Trump’s side and a great gift to the Democrats.

He was picked back when it looked like the election might be a cakewalk for Trump. If Biden had backed out earlier, I suspect they would have gone with a more likeable choice.

 

[RileyG]

You might not like some of the "extremes" that come with JD Vance, but when the alternative is transgenderism, rampant homosexuality, indoctrination and mutilation of children and young adults, satanism, societal and moral decay, baby murder, assault on the Christian faith, election interference, open borders and on and on, I'll take the guy who pondered on giving children some say and who makes fun of purple haired feminist cat ladies. Oh no, he's so bad.

You aren't wrong.