Oh, I see. Parents vote on behalf of the children, just like the minors in Kentucky who can get married to adults if their parents permit it. Is that what you mean, Ross?
4
This seems like a foolish idea on its face. Let's see, if I have eight kids, I should get extra votes. If I'm a gun nut, then I could vote my ignorance for my eight kids? Or anti climate science? Or pro creation myth? Anti women's rights? Pick you poison, I'd not want families with fact denying ideologically driven positions to have extra votes. How about some real civics education, so that when kids do reach voting age they actually know how to think and analyze, not just ape their parents?
55
Demeny voting has my support.
Why not facilitate the "one person, one vote" idea and actually encourage voting by establishing a national day off for election day? While we're at it, why not do away with the outdated electoral college system since voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania shouldn't have more power in electing a president than voters in California and vice versa.
But of course we know why we can't have nice things. The mood of the people keeps swinging to the left -- and the only thing keeping conservatives in power on the national level is voter suppression, gerrymandering and, oh yea, interference from a foreign government.
36
Here's a much more straightforward solution that does not involve ripping up the foundational concept of "one person, one vote". How about we just, you know, get everyone who is entitled to vote to ACTUALLY VOTE. You want all our communities and ages to be reflected in government? Watch how fast that happens when everyone actually votes.
25
Great idea!
And since we now have evidence that some 48% of the population do not consider competency a factor in their voting preferences; we SHOULD open the flood gates to an election process TOTALLY dominated by subjectivity and ignorance.
Voting on facebook and twitter and snapchat allowed of course!
4
Sounds like a good idea, for some day, maybe. After America finally figures how to insure one tamper proof hand-counted paper ballot for every voter.
5
I vehemently oppose this suggestion.
It would institutionalize paternalism in our electoral system and impose parents' choices on young people who we should instead be encouraging to become informed politically and think for themselves, to start taking on the duties of citizenship necessary in our democractic republic, and to take responsibility for their own choices.
17
Why not give an extra vote for each adopted child? People who care as much about the "born" as the un-born, and have actually done something about it by adopting, would receive an extra vote.
4
Utter idiocy. At 12 my Kids could argue coherently about politics. You would actually disenfranchise them with this stupid idea.
5
Ross is a father who thinks that earns him more votes? Ew, ew, ew.
17
The author is making a case for the Quiverfull Movement to sway elections by using massive evangelical families to pad the vote count. Imagine Mr. and Mrs. Duggar, of the TV show "19 Kids and Counting," having all those votes to cast.
Nice try. No thanks. There will be no theocracy in America, despite Pence.
37
I hope this is just a poor attempt at satire.
35
I'm an "aging Baby Boomer," and I'm really having a problem with the idea that older people don't have any concern about the future of the nation. Some commenters are even suggesting that we take the vote away from elderly voters because "why would they care?" First of all, older people often have multiple descendants - not just children but also grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Second, even without that direct personal incentive, some of us actually DO care about the continuity of life on earth - we care about things like the long-term effects of climate change, and species extinction, and the preservation of national parks. We hope that future generations will be able to see great art and go to concerts and plays. It matters to us that the ideals on which America was founded are preserved. The assumption that old people are self-interested monsters sucking up resources and shafting young people is pretty depressing.
37
As a 74 y/o member of the gerontological Class i would to take a moment to say “give us break!” We all are not aging right wingers grumpily voting for a return to the ‘50s. I am Woke bcuz children can and should keep us fresh and forward.
13
The Turpins will be super voters!
Reasonable points. It would bear considering because the fearful, Hannity obsessed get-off-my-lawners are not doing the country a lot of good.
But to pick up on one of Douthat's points, let's fix some of the problems with the franchise as it exists. As in, Republicans need to knock it off with the voter suppression. It is patently obvious what they are doing, and it is plain wrong. If Republican ideas are so great, let them win in a fair contest.
That's not going to happen, so we're going to need a big, beautiful blue wave.
8
Interesting that in the same section of the Times in which my oped arguing for lowering the voting age to 16 was published, Douthat's column, arguing for allowing parents to cast an extra vote for each child, appears a few pages later. But whereas my suggestion encourages democracy and voter participation, Douthat's undermines it. As a 16 year old in 1968, I was disgusted by my father's support for Richard Nixon. Imagine how I would have felt if Nixon received an extra vote in my name. After my column ran online, a couple of Times readers commented that it was the stupidest thing they had ever read in the paper. They might reconsider.
13
You likely objected to a number of things that you parents did on your behalf. Undoubtedly they had your best interests at heart. By voting on your behalf they would have exercised representation for yourself and for the most part your interests. Children have different needs than adults. They need advocates that have the full force of representation. Sorry but the average generosity of those outside the world of parents is all too apparent with regards to healthcare, early childhood support, investment in education. In my state I pay no income taxes on my pension, not because I cannot afford it but because it is a special class of income directed to seniors regardless of wealth. When I was younger raising children was when I needed a real break.
1
That is a terrible idea. And please, please, do stop using the word woke. Its like a middle age man trying to get street cred with a younger generation.
13
Even as a fantasy, the very idea that Ross with his misogynistic agenda could use his daughters votes against them is very spooky.
33
Unfortunately, those today who are having the most amount of children and have the largest families is not for all of the right reasons.
Problem is that the brightest and best financially equipped are having the least amount of babies.
Truth is that ignorance has a tendency to breed ignorance.
7
How about we: A) Make sure to count minors in the census, B) Give them a 3/4 vote, then C) Allow their legal guardian to cast that vote as best they see fit. Oh wait. We tried that before. It was called slavery.
15
When it comes to federal representation, we already inflate the voting power of eligible voters, so as to encompass the ineligible. It only serves as an incentive for the government to find ways to disenfranchise as many voters as possible.
2
This is a very funny column. You are right up there with Gail, Ross.
Another alternative could be to stop the gerrymandering and get rid of the Electoral College. If we start here progress is possible.
It is not that I am against children voting. In fact, children have a much more understanding of fairness.
It is just that adults are supposed to live up to their responsibilities. And I agree with those who have noticed that a lot of the adults in the Country have abdicated these responsibilities.
Perhaps those teenagers in Florida
Should be emulated by the rest of us.
8
This will never happen, because if it did, Mr. Douthat's party would never win another election, except for Alabama. We already, due to gerrymandering, have the minority ruling majority (Wisconsin). And, we have no gun control, courtesy of the 5 million members of the NRA (Population of US: 323.1 million). GOP are ruthless and nasty and in control.
6
This would skew in favor of larger families and divorce as differing parents would be in endless conflict on how the kids should vote. I say let the 16 year olds vote. Not many would do so anyway and the few who were involved would burn out into ennui that much sooner
1
More of Douthat's unusual ideas which will almost certainly never be implemented. I'm not complaining, he really is trying to think outside the box.
1
Families already represent a far greater franchise than single people, whether it's the GOP's emphasis on Family Values or the Dem's policies designed for the Working Families.
Neither party ever campaigns on addressing the needs of single people, a demographic which is now more than half the US population.
3
Let's lower the age for everything and at birth everyone should be given:
The right to drink
The right to tote an AR-14
The right to drive
The right to smoke
The right to vote
Just the act of being born gives a person all the qualifications necessary for everything. Yes? No?
Shame on you Douthat. You pander to the lowest common denominator, always!
3
Hmmm. Is this an attempt to leverage the gun tragedies? I agree that the students are calling for reasonable gun laws.
I think until Trump, Pence, McConnell and Ryan are out of office that nothing sensible is likely to become law. The obvious things that McConnell has done (or not done) should at least be enough to impeach if not indict him. The lack of concern of the GOP about the Russian involvement in our elections is appalling.
I support Ross's right to publish the article but I strongly disagree with the proposal.
So I guess you’re suggesting “one person, one vote” shouldn’t apply when you have teenagers.
2
The Republicans suppress voting by millions of adults. Lets get them to the polls before we start giving other voters extra weight.
7
All the why should we privilege the stupid breeders comments makes me much more sympathetic to Douthat's argument than anything else. The idea that creating and raising the next generation is a useless, unworthy or unimportant act is exactly the problem with society today.
Sure overpopulation is a consideration but not nearly as much as no population. People need to be born. They need to be raised and they need resources for both to happen in a healthy manner. The people who choose to volunteer for this should not be treated with scorn, particularly if you do not choose to do it.
You benefited from generations that understood the necessity of investing in the future. Any argument to stop that investment is just plain stupid, because even if you advocate for small families, those children still need things.
6
As someone who has never lived in a district with a competitive Congressional election, I have an alternative suggestion: let's try democracy first.
Contrary to popular belief and a century of propaganda, we don't have much democracy here. American "democracy" is something of a joke to the Europeans. We only have two political parties, with no proportional representation. We vote on Tuesdays, and employers aren't required to allow people to vote. And do we need to cover the Electoral College again?
Our government is broken because a plurality of those eligible don't bother to vote. Expanding the franchise misses the critical problem: our system was designed to balance rural power against urban power at a time when those populations were much more equal. Now that urban constituencies vastly outnumber rural ones, the old rules are chafing. What was meant to protect a minority from tyranny has turned in to tyranny by minority.
And those same rules make it impossible to fix the system.
35
I am a liberal Democrat.
When my son was in high school he had strong political views that were libertarian/Republican. He would not have been happy if I had an extra vote because of him. I don't know what I would have done with that extra vote, but I would have been very reluctant to cast a vote for a candidate I considered dangerous, and I imagine that many parents would give those extra votes to their favored candidates, irregardless of the desires of their kids.
7
All government is flawed, but better than the alternative of all against all. Democracy is least bad, but has its problems.
One of the great virtues of democracy despite weaknesses in operation is that it is more influenced by the needs and interests of all its people than more autocratic systems. At some level it happens enough of the time to make democracy work better than a police state that monitors dissent to head off too much disregard of its people.
The kids are people, with needs and interests.
The parents are people with needs and interests beyond their own, as concern for dependents; that sacrifice is seen often, and deserves respect.
The proposal in this column would help democracy better reflect the interests and needs that best shape society for the benefit of all.
The benefit of all is also the foundation of legitimacy, meaning the acceptance of government by the people governed. From things like traffic laws and tax laws, on to everything else really, the government relies on the voluntary compliance of the governed. They can't be forced. Maybe they can be coerced by some governments, but that has its own problems. Government works best when people just do it because they accept it.
Today we slide toward oligarchy, as money of donors replaces voters as the interest really served by politicians. We could use a strong kick back toward serving voter interests.
However, limiting the role of money would do much more. That is a higher priority.
3
Ross, you can't be serious. What's next, one fetus, one vote? Perhaps, if the goal is to strengthen the concept of representative democracy, we could address some of the other impediments to our sclerotic system. Namely, why is Election Day on a Tuesday? Why not on a Saturday, when more people are not working, and could more easily get to the polls. Tuesday voting favors the retirees who don't have to somehow squeeze a 45-minute wait in line into their workday. Electronic voting, which would also empower younger people, should also be considered. Clearly, there are better alternatives already available than your particular little scheme.
19
Ross: whatever you're smoking, it should be illegal.
You just advocated for anyone who's bred, whether responsibly or negligently, to have twice the political impact of any single person -- who may be the police protecting their neighborhoods.
You just advocated for those who have not yet yet finished their cognitive development to have equal weight with those who have.
And you've just advocated for a policy that would wrongly motivate people to have more children than they (or the nation) can support, for all the wrong reasons.
If you really want to know what they think (which I seriously doubt), then organize a proxy mock election for schoolchildren, as was done for research purposes during the Ford-Carter election. But for goodness sake, please talk to your editor BEFORE you use the Times as a national distribution point for madness.
29
maybe we can just have children count a 3/5ths a person too. Or maybe we can just take away a woman’s right to vote because their husbands know what is right.
I’m sorry. A choice to reproduce does not make you pater familias for the nation. This is grotesque and wrong. Parents do not represent the free consciousness of their children and voting is not shared to be bought by family size.
One could make a claim, debatable, that 16 year olds should be old enough to vote . But Mr Douthat’s proposal is not one person, one vote. Voting should be inalienable from the individual.
This is a gross claim of power. Mr Douthat has no understanding of democracy.
112
Thanks Ross for the early morning laugh. Oh wait, this wasn't supposed to be funny?
In that case, why not just twinkle your nose and put leprechauns in charge of the government?
7
Noooo! Because all of the people who have a gazillion children would have that many more votes!!!!
The right wing would take away any rights that women have to choose their own reproductive destiny and set up more "religious institutions" just to farm more votes. More than, say, what already exist in so many far right religious zealot tribes, so-called Christian and non.
6
Mr. Douthat writes a jokey dismissal of the idea that young people themselves should influence our national politics. He should read, in the same issue, the description of the terrible destruction caused by semi-automatic weapons. High school students are now leading the march to ban these weapons. Seems like a common-sense idea, but it's taking the kids to push it.
2
Before 1865, didn't southern states have extra representatives in congress based on 2/3 vote for each slave?
Does this suggestion equate children with slaves?
So, people who are short-sighted or selfish enough to have many children (who tend to be more conservative) get more votes as they damage the planet more by increasing the world population exponentially. How convenient for religious conservatives like Ross Douthat.
9
People with more than one child should have their vote taken away.
6
voting should begin with emancipation. Ready to take on the world, pay your way via productive work, have at it; welcome to citizenship.
Want a vote, be ready to pull the wagon.
1
While lowering the voting age to 16 may very well be worthy of discussion, in light of the fact that George W. Bush was reelected and Trump was elected, giving voters additional votes is just a dumb idea.
1
Or perhaps we could figure out a way to encourage people to care about the sustainable well-being of society even when they’re young or old.
2
Even as a teenager in the 70's, I would have disagreed with the proposal of letting sixteen year olds vote because even then I thought they were idiots and I should know, I was one of them - but, one of the defining qualities of today's culture is that it has regressed to the level of a sixteen year old, with parents seeking to emulate the behavior, tastes and sophistication of their progeny rather than the way it's been for the previous 250,000 years. So, given everyone has settled at the the same level of ignorance, there is absolutely no reason why the voting age should not also be reduced.
Becaue religious fundamentalists--who are already producing children by the dozens, explicitly as a future 'army' to vote their version of God into our laws--need more votes?
4
what's wrong with one person one vote?
3
Don't forget corporations are people, too.
GOTV - for those that are qualified to vote, not on belaf of those that are not qualified to vote, like the children of the Demeny believers.
Let’s get serious.
When African American citizens, and others, legally and qualified to vote, had to pass tests that were totally unfair, we’re lynched, murdered, beaten, to just be able to go to an election poll and cast a vote, don’t mention the Demeny theory.
Away with that in a split second!
1
In other words, you want disproportionate political power as a reward for procreating in an overpopulated world in a country which uses and wastes a excess of the world's resources. Scarcely socially responsible, but greedy and self serving.
8
Ridiculous. How convenient, the Uber fertile and prolific breeders get extra votes, thus power. If anything, it should be the opposite. Planet Destroyers, of the sanctimonious variety. How predictable.
8
I read this piece and came away thinking it was all tongue-in-cheek. Obviously I am in the minority so far. Perhaps Ross got a little payback and a smile this morning.
2
Grant more power to Gen X! What a shocker! In this deeply polarized Boomer v. Millennial world, this is surely the first and probably the last time such a thought has ever been suggested. Never going to happen, because Boomers and Millennials rule the world, but thanks for the hat tip, Mr. Douthat!
How about doing stuff that's achievable like:
Voting on paper.
Voting on a Saturday
Ensuring there are enough voting locations and booths to limit voting waits to just 10 minutes.
No other advanced nation on the planet countenances voting wait times longer than 15 minutes. What is wrong with you people?
3
We have a dog and at least five squirrels living on the property, I want some votes for them too!
4
I'm pretty sure this is how the movie "Idiocracy" begins.
3
There should be a single age to:
1, Enter into contracts
2. Join the military
3. Purchase alcohol and, where legal, cannabis
4. Purchase a firearm
5, Get married
6. Vote
It's either 18 or 21. There's no need to complicate, or distort, matters to please some group or to check "done" when writing a column.
4
The biases, overt and covert, in this column are astounding. Any presumption that Ross supports democracy is laid to rest in this column. Why bother to even vote in Ross' world? The whole idea is to figure out a way to make the folks who disagree with him... not count at all.
I am chronologically in the realm of voters that he would like to disenfranchise. I am only grumpy when I read columns like this, or watch the sordid variations on non-government on display in Washington. In my regular life, I read, take classes, learn new skills, travel and continue to work. Your presumption of a decrepit, self centered and selfish senior is a hallucination that you should consider treating. That describes no one in my circle of friends, family or acquaintances. But even if staying current were not my priority, I am still entitled to be represented.
But disenfranchising the aged and childless is only superficially your premise. What you are actually proposing to to challenge the concept of "all (wo)men are created equal" regardless of age, infirmity, parenthood, color, creed or any other classification. What you cannot abide is the notion of majority rule, unless you are the majority. I expect to exercise my franchise to vote and to maintain active citizenship until my last breath, in a fervent hope that the exceptionally stupid "ideas" intended to undermine our system of government are tossed on the dustbin of history.
7
Actually no. Right now seniors are over represented power wise. They get far more of society's resources than the young despite the fact that in order to be good citizens the young need the resources to develop well.
To say that you learn, travel, take classes and still work etc. does not argue against your being self-centered and selfish. Those are all benefits to yourself not to society at large. If you said that you and your compatriots regularly voted to raise taxes for schools, for healthcare for the young etc. etc. that would be the counter argument.
Nor is Douthat suggesting you cease to get representation, but a large cohort of people on this planet do not get representation of their interests, those under 18. None. And it shows in our democracy. We pay less for their needs than we once did when more people were at least parents of these people. (When you were young and benefited I would add). Now that seniors reaped the benefits they don't want to pay back to the future.
Because it might interfere with their travel, their classes, their work etc. Forgetting that there are others behind them who need to grow and learn and thrive. That's selfish.
1
Ross, you have stirred an old memory.
When I was in the Peace Corps in the mid-'70's in the Marshall Islands, there was an iconoclastic reporter for the weekly English language newspaper.I do not recall his name, but I recall that he was murdered and the crime was never solved. They thought the islanders probably did it, because he ridiculed them in his column, lamenting their lack of ambition and willingness to live off the U.S. trust payments indefinitely. Half the population of the islands were under 12 years of age, he noted. "Semen, not coconuts, is the only national resource," he wrote in his last article.
1
Ross:
A bit hard to follow the morass of minor premises that take us to your frightful conclusion. But it's your minivan, not ours.
My only caution as you pass the ignition keys on to the youthful drivers is to recall what happened back in the '60's when the VW Bus took all the unwashed, unclothed, unsober and unkempt to Woodstock. Or was that a good thing? Ask them....now that they're grandparents.
1
This idea is as ridiculous as they come, nothing more need be said.
3
More children you have, the more votes you get, eh Ross. Sure beats trying to persuade people that you have good ideas: instead just have more kids. And they don’t cast their votes - you do. So no need to raise kids that think like you.
C’mon Ross. Really?? Maybe it would be better if your kids cast YOUR vote?
4
FYI: by the way, not all of us near-retired grey heads are Hannity lovers. The generalization of seniors as selfish, right wing, stubborn fools is starting to get on my nerves. Yes, I've been working my whole life, took 'mommy track' jobs so my kids could be my priority, was a single mom for awhile, and will collect less SSI than every male I know. Yet I would gladly pay MORE in taxes for a Medicare for all system, a real infrastructure plan, housing for homeless, care for the mentally ill I see screaming in rags on the street. It's not just old right-wingers who don't want to share their resources to help make our country function. Look to Washington, DC and follow the money.
78
If you are a U.S. citizen who pays any form of taxes, you should be allowed to vote despite your age. Furthermore, high school students tend to be more informed about political, social, class, and environmental issues than are most adults. I find them to be well informed, articulate, brave, and determined.
1
Made it the end of 2cd paragraph.
Turned to 'comments' for 'affirmation.'
Was not disappointed.
1
Sometimes there's almost no point to reading the actual column - the comments tell you what you need to know.
Oh, ok, it's humor. I get it
"...there’s no reason that red states rich in Republican-voting families (hello, Utah) couldn’t consider experiments with Demeny voting." Great! Then the Mormon Republicans could control 100% of the legislature instead of having to struggle with only 80%.
2
How about enforcing "do-you-know-all-the-candidates-policy-positions" rather than a "can-you-breed" test?
1
Doesn't it make sense to wait until their brains have finished growing.
Gee, Mr. Douthat, why not? After all--and skipping lightly past the disenfranchisement of dolks who don't have kids--this sort of three-fifthisme worked great for slaves.
But heck, go for it. However, I want an extra vote on behalf of the local environment and wildlife, which is currently getting hosed by the thoughtless, the greedy, and the criminal.
6
I support voting rights for 16 year olds, and see no reason why parents should vote on behalf of their kids. I canvassed to get out the vote for Nixon in 68, when I was 12. I wasn't motivated by particularly youthful concerns, but the issues of the day. I was a little naive, and I liked RFK and MLK, but projected my parents' and my "moderate" beliefs to Nixon. We weren't entirely wrong, based on public information, but not right either. We would've been happy voting for Geo. Romney, a "liberal" on civil rights.
Did participating in the election help make me an active citizen, or was I always going to be interested in politics? Well, it didn't hurt to have a taste of politics, and research shows that engaging in politics when young develops lifelong habits of engagement; surely it's more likely to help than hurt. Was I qualified? Yes, in a democracy, desire to participate is sufficient qualification. Was I informed about the issues? At least as much as the median voter.
Did my parents influence me? Of course; their values were mine, and in many ways I feel like they haven't changed, though our values made us Democrats in the Reagan era and ever since.
Indeed, research shows that most kids would vote like their parents, so why not let the kids vote directly? If they vote with their parents, it's de facto Demeny; if they have opposing views, they should be able to make those views heard at the ballot box.
So since they can vote, they can also own guns and buy beer.
On the other hand, my fellow retired boomers are just a demographic blip (albeit a large one) that will merely be an echo within 20 years when over half of us will have passed away. The real issue is getting the young to vote, vote informed and vote responsibly. Most of us are old enough to remember when the voting age was lowered to 18 and 50% voted and has not reached that level since then. The apathy is real. Why would lowering the voting age do any better?
2
Let's talk after November.
This is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard of, even by the low standards of liberal philosophy. The depredations visited on our society in the name of “the children are already bad enough without surrendering political control to their largely clueless parents. I am a 65 year old who has paid taxes for well over 50 years without ever using any of the resources (primarily schools and other child-centric expenditures) I have so generously paid for. Should I get some extra votes in recognition of that selfless support? Why not; better that than rewarding fertility with political power.
8
First of all, Ross Douthat is a conservative Catholic, not a liberal. Secondly, you honestly believe that you've never received any benefits from the taxes you paid for 50 years? Did you not go to public school yourself? Ever visit a post office? Happy that the FDA inspects your food? Ever drive on a public road, bridge or highway? Ever visit a national park? It boggles my mind that there are so many people like yourself who truly seem to believe that you've done all of us a great big favor paying into a tax system we all benefit from one way or another.
5
Liberal philosophy? Take it from me, a liberal. There is *nothing* of liberal philosophy in this.
Voting is a duty; an obligation. Drilled into my head from first grade on (not just in socials studies / civics classes). Have voted in every election since I reached 21 even when I had to drive 2 hours to vote in a primary. The age is low enough at 18. Get the 18-30 year-olds out to vote. One person / One vote. Not magically converted to multiple votes per person due to fecundity. That is lack of judgement in and of itself at times.
8
This reads like a plea to make childless people less relevant. There is no way to insure that parents' votes will actually represent their childrens' choices or just add more votes to the parents' choices.
7
Yes, let's give the vote to 16 year olds.
Then we can settle such critical issues as:
"Boxers or briefs?"
3
I'm not sure I understand the reason for a half measure of giving kids a partial vote vested in their parents. Why not simply lower the voting age to 16? Adults of all ages have made both good and bad decisions at the polling booth throughout the history of voting. Adding 16 and 17 year olds wouldn't change that.
1
People who have happened to procreate somehow think they're entitled to more than everybody else just because of the happenstance of procreation.
4
Let me get this straight.
We are currently talking (in some cases acting) to prohibit 18 - 20 year olds from purchasing firearms for hunting, sport shooting, or self-defense, yet we allow them to vote for the man or woman who can launch a thermonuclear strike. And you are talking about further lowering the voting age.
What's wrong with this picture?
1
Well, they wouldn't cast a majority of the votes, so their immaturity would be heavily diluted (if you believe that most American adults are mature). But if they has an AK-47 in their hot little hands...
1
We also have laws against teenagers drinking. One thing has little to do with the other.
Ross, I doubt conservatives who are hellbent on redrawing districts to their advantage would be eager to allow parents of large families of minority descent to gain an advantage thanks to this "Demeny" concept (although there would probably be some attempt to thwart that effect through absurd voter ID requirements and other gross schemes to throw up major obstacles to voting).
They would be shooting themselves into extinction.
This highlights the only hope of the Democratic Party - immigrants maintaining a dependency class on behalf of socialism. When I was young, Dems actually had ideas about building up the workers and their families.
The collapse of the Democratic Party since those days is the biggest such change in American history. Dems once represented slavery and slave-holders, but they got OVER that one. Then they fell into the eugenics racism idea, but they got past that one, too.
Progressivism destroys all go walk into it, and it is the American Dems' turn.
1
Overall immigrants work harder than native-born Americans. Why you think they constitute "a dependency class" is an interesting question. I'm afraid the only answer I can think of is rank prejudice.
When folks from Verona first showed up here as immigrants there were many who vilified them as unsuitable to be Americans. We know that those folks were just prejudiced.
After all, the US ran so much better when slave owners essentially had extra weight given to their votes by counting their slaves, who were considered unable to assume responsibility for themselves and therefore must be cared for by their owners as children must be by parents.
The areas where parents with large families live already have more weight to their votes based on the census count. They really don't need this further amplified by Demeny.
8
That's a really good point: kids are counted for determining how many members of the House each state gets which then determine how many electoral college votes they get. Good one!
Power to the people always makes me think, "Which people?". There are some pretty bad people out there and I'd rather they didn't vote but I'm surer there are folks who'd rather I didn't vote. As far as power to the parents goes I ask, "Which parents?". There are some pretty bad parents out there. And people without children are left out entirely. The system we are currently under is far from perfect with at least one party trying to prevent voters likely to vote for the opposition from voting but let's try and fix the system we have rather than try your ridiculous idea.
4
People without children get the same vote they always got. Their own. The people who are left out are the children as they are now.
Forget the rationale for this intellectualized nonsense. Where is the enforcement mechanism ensuring that when the child's preferences run counter to the voting-aged parent's commands, the child's voting will is enforced? What if the child chooses not to vote (ugh, Mom, a choice between Hillary and Trump, aah, whatever) or the child's choice counters the parents. The parent still votes his kid's ballot, but only the way he wants. As is true in so much that I read in this writer's column, the proposal is silly and reminds of the sort of genius ideas I come up with in my sleep.
1
Better yet, how about a nation where only citizens above the age of 45 could serve in the military.
10
Drop the age to 35, invoke the draft and draft the Trump
boys.
3
This piece shows that facing increasingly successful court action to stop the real voter fraud - gerrymandering - this GOP mouthpiece is now advocating in loco liberi voting. Good try Ross, but we're not biting on this one.
2
Namely, I think my wife and I should be able to cast extra votes on behalf of our three small children, until they’re old enough to choose for themselves between the presidential candidacies of Hope Hicks and Chelsea Clinton in 2032
Why does this not surprise me, parents get to vote for their children, in effect negating the votes of people who do not have children. Quick question, Ross? Do Gay parents get to vote on behalf of their children. How about adoptive parents, gay or straight. I may be being snarky here, but I suspect you would reserve this right only for biological parents, and only Christian parents if you could get away with it.
Do I even have to say this? RIDICULOUS IDEA!
8
Give the adolescent a vote but keep it out of daddy’s proprietary hands.
1
Will the non-citizen parents of American citizen children (in conservative speak 'anchor babies') get to vote on their children's behalf?
1
Not anchor babies - DACA
No way should a parent be able to vote for his children. This is a ridiculous and loathsome idea. Merely producing offspring does not give one more wisdom or more rights. In fact, producing a bunch of kids with no ability to provide adequate emotional or financial support demonstrates a lack of sense and responsibility. All we need it to let folks like the Duggars vote multiple times. The kids can vote when it’s their turn. And their parents can each cast one vote. They’re entitled to no more b
4
Being a parent may not give one "greater wisdom" but it does however give one a greater interest in the welfare of those children.However, in matter of understanding the needs of children, being a parent over not being a parent, yes I'd say they have greater wisdom, barring people whose professions are working with children. And most parents are not idiots, its idiotic to suggest they are. We give people the vote even though some are stupid on the theory that most are not. Same here.
I too believe that we have a responsibility to provide for the education and nurturing of the young. I am a parent myself. I still believe it’s a wrongheaded idea to give anyone more voting power than any other voter.
Unfortunately, many people only care about their own children to the exclusion of all others. That, I believe, is the situation we find ourselves in America today--many parents trying to maintain all the advantages or their children no matter what happens to other children. Then they call themselves selfless too--which it is not. This is at the core of familism which is a feature of both libertarianism and conservatism (in both, children are seen to be 'owned' by their parents).
1
These kids are really smart, but smart is not necessarily judicious. The voting age should continue to be 18, but the age for drinking and buying guns should be at least 21.
While it is your right--in the U.S.A--to cast your vote at the age of 18, so too is it your DUTY to be informed when doing so. If you don't read, if you don't inform yourself about the issues, if you don't understand at least a little world and U.S history, then you do NOT deserve to vote. If you formulate your opinions exclusively by watching your favorite echo-chamber TV station, you're not informed and thus do NOT deserve to cast a ballot.
Furthermore, if you can't answer a few basic civics questions (# of supreme court judges?, How long is the term of a U.S rep and senator?, Who's third in line to the presidency? Who was our 16th president?) then you should't be allow to vote because you're not fulfilling your DUTY to be an informed citizen!
The problem isn't that we need more votes to be cast for minor children by their parents, rather, it's that, by-and-large, the votes that are being cast are carried-out by of-age, uninformed and intellectually lazy citizens.
47
Just to be clear then, you think it’s ok to dilute/lessen the value of votes cast by people without children? People shouldn’t be given more votes/political power just because they have children. The votes, issues and concerns of childless people are just as important as those without children. Seems you’re just trying to provide an incentive for people to behave as “good christians” and have lots of kids.
33
Yep. It's the love of George Gilder, who handed us this charming notion that decent white folks is gittin' out read by Them, and dare not speak its name.
Perhaps to be fairer, what Douthat's arguing is that effectively we've skewed our democracy into a gerontocracy, but it sure seems like you are correct.
I assume this is satire, not idiocy? Another three-fifths compromise giving some group extra representation because they theoretically represent other people who have no voice of their own is definitely not where we want to go. But if we're really concerned with old people dominating our politics, we could put a cap on voting age—people have the right to vote from 18 to 67, for instance. After 67 they get Social Security and free healthcare as compensation. Better yet, let's get the actuaries to use their mortality tables to determine each person's odds of dying in the year and adjust their vote accordingly. The greater your current life expectancy, the more your vote counts. Anybody else got a crazy idea to top that one?
11
Let people with pets have more votes? I want to vote on behalf of my cat.
3
I'd support that . . . but, sorry, only for people who own dogs :-)
Turnout among eligible voters is pretty dismal in the U.S. Maybe we should focus on getting the people who already have the right cast a vote to do so before we get all hot and bothered about expanding the pool of eligible voters and/or votes.
8
Sixteen year olds are just like their 20 something brethren. The are too weak in civil duty to find the importance of their vote.
2
Let children grow up without the insult of political awareness and hate inform their youngster years.
Maybe fix the electoral college first, then we can talk about something like this.
12
Here I disagree with Mr. Douthat on several points.
In the 20th and 21st centuries, voting for the Democrats became the expression of discontent or opposition to the current political regime. I accept this as an ordinary human behavior in life that is eternal struggle between Good and Evil.
The minimum voting age, such as 16, is questionable. Does it coincide with age of sexual maturity? -- If yes, then it should be lower. Otherwise, it is difficult to think of many 16-year-old as intellectually mature in a society that promotes the upbringing of spoiled, pampered, TV-addicted, and endlessly texting younger generation.
1
I guess I'm in the "elderly" demographic, and I don't know anyone who can stomach listening to Hannity or Limbaugh...they are cartoon characters just like Trump. But I do know several former Republicans who have switched sides...not saying they all voted for Hillary, but they didn't vote for Trump and sure as heck won't in the future.
2
So... Parents should have more political clout than non-parents, and Mormons, Catholics and other religious mass-procreators should have the most clout of all. Sounds dangerous. And proud parents like RD get to look down their noses even more at the humble non-parents, who have selfishly chosen to leave a bit of breathing space in the crowded world for the offspring of others. As someone who falls into the latter category, I'm willing to agree with RD's discriminatory and illogical proposition on one condition:
Non-parents (and adoptive parents) have automatic priority over baby makers in EVERY LINE IN EVERY SITUATION, and a special lane in conjested traffic. Deal?
6
Trump just took away parents's personal exemptions for their kids and this guy thinks he would agree to give them more VOTES for their kids?
I'd like to know why the MSM did not spend more time asking the Florida students who are 18 if they are registered to vote.
1
Trump is the best thing that ever happened to America!
As an old guy who votes, I assure you my votes aren't with any Hannity-obsessed group. Just the opposite in fact. My vote is not only to insure my own well-being or shield me from change, but rather to see that my children and grandchildren are protected from the kinds of cretins who now control the government.
"Demeny" voting will never be workable. Let's start real change with abolishing the electoral college.
7
The low number of comments highlights the vapid nature of this piece. I do agree with those who believe that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote, since mainly the self-educated teens would even show up at the polls. I would have voted for Kennedy in 1960 had I been able to vote at 16, though there has been a dearth of moderate Democrats since that time. I could have volunteered for military service at that age in 1960 with parental consent.
The definition of "adult" has, in recent times, been altered to include uninformed, oft-bigoted, people tall enough to ride the Ferris Wheel but less mature than one would wish a "voter" to be. Rewarding such people who happen to procreate (as is often the case) with abandon is not good democracy.
2
How about just dealing with the electoral college system? A relic and travesty of the cruel and demeaning "3/5ths decision."Actually both ideas have little chance of ever happening prior to the next civil war/revolution. We have learned very little in 240 years.
5
In November 1968 I was 20 years old and could not vote in the election for President. Yet, had I dropped out of college, I could have been drafted for Vietnam duty. Just one of the things that radicalized me. I think age 18 for voting rights is good; 16 is pushing it. More important: how do we get young people to the polls?
2
So, when the author was 16, he thought that he should get a vote. But now, when he has a child, he doesn't want his child to get the vote, but to get an extra vote for himself. What selflessness.
8
No. Choosing to have children should not confer any special rights upon parents. Especially extra votes. We already subsidize your children through tax exemptions, that's enough.
I'm all for 18 year-olds voting. I think it might be the only thing that saves us. But I'm not willing to give you extra votes simply because of your breeding choices.
11
"In the U.S., higher fertility rates track with support for Republicans"
Interesting, globally, high fertility rates are associated with ignorance. The best way to lower a nation's birth rate is to educate women.
3
Perhaps we should work harder at establishing the rule of one person, one vote. Lets make it simpler for voters to vote. How about tying in our Social Security cards to a voter ID card? The government has figured out a way to identify us in order to force us to pay taxes...why not use that system to get us to vote?
Besides. Dont you all remember the film ‘Wild in the Streets?’ Fourteen or fight? Let us remember how younger voting worked out for them.
2
What's next? Awarding a medal to prolific mothers, as in totalitarian states? Douthat's obsession with reproduction betrays the ultimate ambition of every authoritarian: to control what we do in our bedrooms and with our bodies.
5
All other considerations aside, this would certainly give Republicans even more pro-life zeal. More babies = more votes.
Why stop there? I think it's ridiculous pets are not represented. All pet owners should get an extra quarter of a vote. On second thought, dog owners get an extra 0.3 vote and 0.2 for cat owners. What? You say one party has more pet owners than the other? Well, that's beside the point and not the purpose of this.
To cut to the chase, we already have gerrymandering where politicians choose their voters. Now you want to open Pandora's Box and let them decide how many votes each get too?
84
All modern firearms are based on designs once developed for the military. That is true for lever action rifles, bolt action rifles, revolvers, and semi automatic pistols. In that context, the AR-15 does not deviate from the history of civilian firearms being derived from designs first developed for military use.
Within the past year I attended a political rally held in a local church where a 29 year old mother of ten demanded expanded school bussing because she had to quit her job in order to walk her young children to school through the dangerous neighborhood in which they lived. How she could work outside the home with so many children is a question I wanted to ask, but didn't. I discerned that my question might be misinterpreted and generally not be well-received in that particular venue. In any event, under the Demeny system Douthat proposes, that mother of ten would get ten or so votes and I would get one. And my one vote would be my reward for not having children because it was pounded into my head, literally, that women who can't raise or support their own children shouldn't have any. I fit a unique demographic: a working class woman who went to college at night for 14 years, who, before she was out of the sixth grade, had been "taken advantage of" and then, according to her Catholic pastor, had to suffer "like Christ" for the good of another and part of that was losing her only child to a non-condemned family. (They'd get my child's vote, I suppose.) Ross writes, "By the time the competing experiments are running and the debate is fully joined, I will have probably aged out of my current pro-parental biases and into a grouchy near-retirement." The personal is political. The hands that steers some minivans have often ruled the world. One vote per voter.
3
One argument against women's suffrage was that husbands were already representing their wives' positions so the women didn't need a separate ballot. If Douthat thinks 16/17-year-olds should be represented politically, then extend the suffrage to them as we did to women.
10
Yes, yes, and yes. In the 1990's at a teacher conference addressed by the late Senator Paul Simon of Illinois bemoaning the lack of resources for schools and early childhood support I said to him that it boiled down to the fact that "seniors vote and children don't." Kindhearted human that he was he dismissed this notion of self interest applied to seniors. However, retired now myself my assessment hasn't changed. Other than felons children are the only non-represented class of citizens. As pointed out by Mr. Douthat this skews the beneficiaries of the body politic. How else do we end up in a situation where healthcare is socialized for the senior nonworking population yet a scramble for the dependent children who will eventually support us in our old age. This is but one obvious negative consequence for our most under-represented class.
8
I ci could just imagine the politicians gaming this.
Maybe by paying couples in the their Party to procreate or by taking matters into their own hands by siring children. The Handmaid’sTale is coming to your town.
1
The Handmaid's Tale has been here already. It occurred during the Baby Scoop Era of 1950-1970 when 1.5 million unmarried mothers, mostly white, were coerced into handing over their infants to a religious and social service controlled adoption business to help form families for childless couples...something Mike Pence espoused in the 2016 VP election debate. There are pro-adoption reality TV shows out there now which depict commercial adoption agencies assisting financial vulnerable young mothers in "making adoption plans."
1
I have another idea. Rather than introduce a new way to pose young interests against old interests, what if we really tried to achieve what was best for the nation, both its present and its future?
What if we implored candidates to seek the truth? That would mean we speak openly to all the issues, bringing both present tensions and future consequences to the discussion, but only when we have incontrovertible data about causation rather than our political leanings about potential effects?
What if we spoke openly about children born to single parents? What if we discussed the data on divorce and returned it to being an outcome to be shunned? What if we discussed infidelity? How about we stopped talking about the myriad subjects we might teach in schools and held public schools accountable on basic skills of non-partisan quantitative and verbal reasoning? What if we stopped trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment and starting addressing the truly unusual effects of its currently limitless protection of firearm ownership? What if we said you can have abortions without treating aborted fetuses like detritus in lab experiments? What if we spoke openly to seniors about the impact their property taxes have both on the education of their town's children and their property values?
What if we stopped trying to divide the world into opposing groups of Black and White, gay and straight, male and female? What if, instead, we asked whether policy was objectively beneficial to the nation?
13
I am a very liberal person, but when my teen children told me Bernie Sanders would be the next president I actually laughed at how cute and idealistic they were. The day after the election I promised them that I would vote for whoever they think is best in the next election. They saw something I am too jaded to see. And they were right. If we had listened to younger people, what a different country we would be living in today. A Bernie revolution would have been far more positive than this cult we live with now.
5
Better to get rid of the Electoral college so that every vote is EQUAL. When Trump won the Electoral College and lost the popular vote by 3 million we were alerted to the consequences of such a corrupt system. Just as the most populace states are also the wealthiest most educated states that pay far more in taxes but get far less back than the least populated, educated, and least prosperous states which receive subsidies that exceed their tax payments, voters from large states are valued less than voters in small states. States like Wyoming have more Electoral significance per vote than states like California or New York . Wyoming gets 1 Elector per 140,000 voters. New York gets 1 Electoral vote per 540,000 voters. This devalues a New Yorker’s vote by 75% in the Electora College. We are able to have real time popular voting today and should implement that immediately. The continued corruption of the Electoral College should end with a popular vote plebiscite.
Pro NRA Conservatives want to maintain an 18 year old right to purchase an AR-15. How then is it possible to deny these voters the right to buy alcohol or have an equal vote?
Voter fraud? That is a flat out bit of lying and deception. Republicans insist that without conclusive proof there is no climate change yet insist that there is rampant voter fraud without any evidence. Liberals in California and New York may need to end the Electoral college to prevent the voter fraud that undercuts their voters and elects Trump.
12
No. No, no, no, no, no! Those of us who have chosen to remain childfree are already seen as having no value in our society. Douthat, given his predilections, probably thinks our votes should be counted as if they came from 3/5 of a person.
And in Demeny voting, what recourse is available for the child if the child, the "domestic dissident," knows that the parent will not vote in accordance with his or her wishes? I can guarantee that my father -- a rabid racist and supporter of George Wallace -- would never have voted as I would have.
What's next on your wish list Mr. Douthat? Corporations being given proxy votes for their employees, who will also seen as 3/5 of a person?
Here are a few better ideas: leave the voting age as is and make voting mandatory. Automatic registration the moment a person turns 18. Election Day (at least every two years) should be a national holiday. At the very least we should be able to vote by mail, over a period of at least a week.
9
I like it. We already have virtual representation of large swaths of people. Areas where there are high numbers of non-citizen immigrants are allowed to count those non-citizens toward apportionment. This means that the votes of the actual voters where there are high numbers of immigrants are weighted more heavily than areas where there are fewer non-citizens. It is a clear corruption of the concept of one person one vote, but the courts have upheld it and the Democrats have acted like it is some kind of sacred cow. So why not give greater weight to the voters within families with more children? At least their children are citizens.
2
The problem with this idea is that judgement is not directly proportional to the number of children you have - it is unrelated. People with large families would have a disproportionate number of votes compared to those who have small families. Perhaps a better idea would be to allow a family with children to have a single family vote.
2
A few months after my bar mitzva, the rabbi spoke to a group of us and said,"When you become real adults...". At the time it felt like a betrayal. It still does.
2
Douthat’s suggestion sounds too much like granting credit for non-voting slaves, as with our original Constitution. As a baby step towards increasing voter participation, I suggest making voting by mail available in all states. The larger problem concerns a truly well informed electorate. I don’t like religion influencing voting preferences in our secular nation.
3
Back in the day, the south claimed that slaves should be included in population counts when determining representation. In effect, the slaves would be voting in national elections, by proxy. Their masters determining who would get the slaves' votes. The north opposed that notion vehemently: proxy voting in such an instance if worst than disfranchisement.
How many of is would have like to see our votes given by our parents to the candidates our parents supported?
This proposal also super-empowers those people who raise large numbers of children. Guess who those people tend to be, politically?
One might as well say, "Conservative, religious people should be given lots of extra votes."
I am all in favor of childless people like me subsidizing those who are raising the next generation, by giving them tax breaks, public schools for their kids, etc. People who choose to have and raise children deserve the help of everyone, for they are doing work for us all. But extra political power? Never.
6
I'm not surprised by Mr Douthat"s authoritarian slant to parenting. After all, authoritarian thinking is quite the pattern of the conservative, GOP population. It is a pattern that demands pro-lock-step, hierarchical arrangements of power, and it's all about fitting in neatly. Power is top down only.
The fact that there are far more effective and happier ways to parent would be lost on a man who writes about society and politics from a conservative viewpoint.
But trust me, Mr. Douthat, there actually are parenting methods that are superior to your ideas.
Even if it feels precarious to you, you must trust young people. They are the future, and fear should not be in control.
5
As a father with 11 kids I would have been a player for your scheme in order to raise the child credit from $600. to $5000 which would be fair. Now at 83 years only I still like it. But I think your crazy idea should be coupled with another 'not-gonna-happen' suggestion, ie., only qualified voters can vote. Say, those voters who can explain the difference between a Democrat and a Republican.
And I am sure Ross realizes that the liberal demographic with more children are mostly in cities that have less power to influence voting results in the House. This would just add more power to the rural areas.
2
Maybe to balance things out as each child reaches "voting age" their parents lose that right for the number of years they voted in that child's name. And if they voted for multiple children some sort of mechanism would be in place to even things out there also.
1
Would you amend your proposal to limit proxy voting to be for no more than two children, the biological replacement rate?
1
A simpler solution would be to hold elections on a weekend to vastly improve voter turnout.
8
Out the window with Social Security and Medicare. Cut pension benefits for retired public employees. No more subsidies for nursing homes. And then the real killer. Increase the child tax credit for every family picture posted on social media.
1
I think it should be the other way around. Only if you are eligible for Social Security should you be eligible to vote. Experience counts!
Ross goes all Jabberwocky and provides his own dismissive comments about an idea that makes perfect sense: giving 16 y.o. the right and responsibility to vote.
Could they possibly do worse at this important, indeed sacred, task than their so-called "mature" elders? Doubtful. And, to prove my point please read a new book, very, very short - this won't take 5 minutes - that will change your life and prove younger voters might well be the very thing America needs to right the leaky ship of state. I am an elementary school teacher and came upon this brilliant gem in the children's section of the library but it belongs in Philosophy and Social Science: "No Water. No Bread" by Luis Amavisca Guridi. Children, with their innate sense of fairness and innocent wisdom could well save us all. These kids in Florida prove that every time they speak.
4
How about assigning additional votes based on how many elections since the founding of the republic certain demographic groups missed. African Americans could get, say, 5 votes each and women 2 votes each. We can figure it out.
It would also stimulate interest in many politicians to solve real problems.
5
What a waste of time. Rather than spend any time discussing an idea that may be a reasonable topic or a Ph.D thesis but will never be practical, we should be talking about gerrymandering and the electoral college.
3
As a retired political scientist, I'd tell a graduate student who thought "Demeny voting" might be a worthwhile subject for a Ph.D. thesis to come up with another idea.
If you want to talk about alternative voting schemes, how about approval voting in primaries? California's top-two primary system? Getting more states to sign on to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? Automatic registration systems like Oregon? Sunday elections or making election day a national holiday? Replacing legislative control over districting with nonpartisan commissions?
There are many voting reforms that are worth serious discussion. Douthat, for some reason known only to him, picks a stupid idea that will go nowhere.
4
Humm... The people who have the most children seem to be those who are the least able to afford them. Do we really want these parents wielding more political power?
1
Too complicated. Just get rid of the electoral college or all states doing proportional assignment of electors. Red states want nothing to do with democratic elections so this is a no go. They’re more interested in making it difficult to register, suppressing the vote, permanent disenfranchisement of felons. Once again, NOT democratic.
2
Given the number of cadavers who have long been rumored to vote in places such as Cook County, Illinois, surely this proposal isn't that much of a philosophical stretch, albeit a stiff challenge to ever implement.
Conservatives would likely cry, "over my dead body," as the suggestion certainly flies in the face of their efforts to reduce, rather than increase the roster of eligible voters, diminishing the likelihood of it become reality.
One could, on a more serious note, hang a hat on the notion that not allowing sixteen year olds to vote amounts to taxation without representation, as many of them work and pay taxes, but can't cast a ballot.
Far more irresponsible than mid-teens who, it should be noted, are much better informed than earlier generations thanks to social media, are those adults who, having the right to vote, routinely fail to exercise it at all. Perhaps a system, like Australia's, where non-voters are penalized, would be a step in the right direction, and could account for significant increases in voter participation.
1
I say abolish the age limit altogether. Require all citizens to take and pass a practical test on government and voting. Then require recurring training, perhaps every third voting cycle. Make people earn the privilege, rather than be given a right.
14
@Pilot
Great idea. But there are many voters who either lack the language skills or the education to perform that responsibility. That is when mob rule of the intellectual class moves in and drives policy in their interest. That is, essentially, what the Progressive/Liberal most wants.
A nation that becomes materialist, as this would support, is a nation without a soul. We need to do a better job seeking policies that establish both the sacrifice and altruism that Atheists say is buried in our biology.
Giving the nation over to educated elites who will only vote deeper self-interest is worse than the tragedy we now call America.
1
Given the fight against checking a government issued ID in order to vote, having to pass a test would be unthinkable.
Not to mention likely illegal under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and unconstitutional under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katzenbach_v._Morgan.
People who tout tests of citizenship as a criterion for voting seem to have forgotten, or perhaps at this point never knew, how "literacy" tests were used to disenfranchise minorities. Do you really think we should politicians decide what constitutes "sufficient" civic knowledge to make one eligible to vote? Here's what Louisiana required before the Voting Rights Act: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_su...
1
This is an interesting suggestion. Ross mentions early the disenfranchised classes. Would he support similar enfranchisement by proxy for others? For example, enfranchisement for felons serving their sentences by granting additional votes to their parents, spouses, or children?
7
I disagree with your basic premise which assumes that the older we get, the more we fear and resent the future, and, therefore, the youngsters and their younger parents are more able to face the future more objectively. I'll be 75 next week. I live in a 55+ community. I strongly object to being classified as a Trump-loving oldster trying to stop the future. And that is probably true of most of the people who live where I live. I'd love to see the voting age lowered because I think the millenials need to be heard as well as we oldsters and the voting age is already too high. Have to comment that it's refreshing to see the teenagers who are running for governor in Kansas not because i think they'll win, but because they care enough to try to make a difference (and they appear to represent a broad spectrum of views). I don't see age as a defining factor. Progressives, liberals, moderates, true conservatives and Trump-Lovers are defined by many other things and age is not the major factor.
23
I agree with you Pat. The older I get the more willing I am to do thing to benefit the next generations. I'm not taking my money with me.
9
You are the exception. As a gen-xer I have watched the older generations take it all. I have paid SS and Medicare since I was 13, and have known for 25 years that I will not be getting that back. I watch the old retirees now complaining about everything and keeping themselves "active" knowing that I, much less my children, will ever get that. But there is a plus side: I won't have time to complain about the next generation. I will be too busy working.
4
What a brilliant misrepresentation idea, Father Douthat !
Perhaps we can model it after the 1787 Three-Fifths Compromise which counted blacks as 3/5 of a person and awarded the slave states over-representation in the House and in the Electoral College until the Civil War and the 13th Amendment forced the Confederacy to join human civilization and democracy.
Of course, the Old Confederacy was never very interested in civilization or democracy.
150 years after the Civil War, that Confederacy has metastasized - and now does business as 'Republistan' - and has undergone a full Jim Crow voter suppression renaissance, lives by the Congressional gerrymander, adores the misrepresentative Red State Senate, and routinely flouts the national gerrymander - the Electoral College - to Presidential misrepresentation.
This nation can barely register its adults to vote thanks to Republican regression.
Look at the top 10 states with the highest numbers and % of disenfranchised voters due to a felony scarlet voting letter stamped on their foreheads:
Florida 1,686,318 10.43%
Mississippi 218,181 9.63%
Kentucky 312,046 9.14%
Tennessee 421,227 8.26%
Virginia 508,680 7.81%
Alabama 286,266 7.62%
Wyoming 23,847 5.33%
Arizona 221,170 4.25%
Nevada 89,267 4.02%
Georgia 248,751 3.23%
It's (mostly) a right-wing Republican Shangri La of voter suppression.
Any idea that gives more weight to proper white Caucasian adult votes is heavenly music to the old tyranny of the minority Whites R Us caucus.
195
In the US context, all law-related proposals have to be categorized as either constitutional or statutory. At both the federal and the state levels, changing a constitution is a Herculean feat.
However, for instance, the easiest way to start getting rid (if necessary) of the Electoral College is to add, by statute, a census right between the ones mandated by the Constitution, i.e. each 5th year. Frequently collected data is always better than data collected infrequently.
Statutory changes at the state, county or city levels can be a doorway towards what I think would be an excellent idea (but might not be): dropping the definition of adulthood to age 16.
2
So having kids gives a voter more power, based on the view that having a large family makes an individual more valuable in society because of desirable political outcomes? If so, then I'd like to add my own wish list to how voting rights are accorded: voters who demonstrate a clear understanding of electoral politics, economic policy and scientific knowledge get more votes as well. Plus, I'd like to add that individuals who have low carbon footprints get more voting power as well. Would Mr. Douthat be okay with these additional provisions?
79
Since children can't vote, how about not letting anyone over 80 vote? Why should an 86-year-old have more say over the future of our country than a 15-year-old? Who's skin is in the game?
1
The Billster and HRC should be given equal time to argue for Chelsea HEADING that 2032 presidential ticket. After all, Chelsea is so much older than Hope Hicks.
Does ANYONE drive a “minivan” anymore, Ross? I’m 300 years older than you, and even I know that what dominate our roads are suburban assault vehicles. Humor shouldn’t be THAT nuanced – it’s likely to go over the heads of all but a few readers.
Ross, being as intelligent and sophisticated as he is, knows full well how the most politically correct among the left likely will react to his tongue-in-cheek treatment of the notion that we lower the voting age, the latest among an increasingly deranged and desperate set of responses by the left to that inexorable pull right that the entire electorate has been feeling for some time. That reaction obviously will be astounded outrage.
Like me, Ross obviously doesn’t care a fig.
3
The entire electorate has been feeling an inexorable pull right for some time? Reminds me of the immortal words of that great American philosopher, George Costanza:
"Jerry, just remember, it's not a lie if you believe it".
5
So those of us who desire respect, decency and honesty in Government are deranged and desperate? An informed electorate is what is needed, no matter what age they are allowed to vote.
5
glen:
You don't have to believe it. Undivided Republican federal government and overwhelming Republican majorities in two-thirds of our governorships and partisan statehouse chambers really don't care what you believe or don't.
An experiment with lowering the voting age is already occurring in New York City. Many city council districts are involved in the Participatory Budgeting process. Residents vote among various proposals for capital projects in their districts. Winning proposals receive additional funding. The total amount of additional funding involved is usually about $1,000,000 per district. This year's voting takes place from April 7 through April 15. The voting sites and voting times vary from district to district, but can take place in parks, libraries, schools, street corners, etc. There is also on-line voting The voting age has changed from year-to-year. This year, the voting age is 11.
6
If more young people voted Trump might not have won. But don't blame aging baby boomers for Trump's win. Trump did not win the popular vote. He won the Electoral College vote. Our founding fathers put the Electoral College in as a buffer to protect us from voting someone as unqualified as Trump into office. They failed in their duty in 2016. Real change would involve changing how we finance elections and campaigns. As a single person with no children I don't like the idea of parents voting on behalf of their children. It's one person one vote for a reason. I'm one reason and there are millions more who are single with no children who might feel the same way. In fact, in America the ones who are truly shortchanged are single adults with no kids. We're not even considered in discussions about the social safety net. It's like we don't exist except to be told that we're not eligible for anything.
There are other better ways of voting than what we have. But one way to get the vote out would be to give people the day off to vote. Make it easier to register to vote. Make sure that people don't have to wait hours to cast a vote. And limit the length of campaigns.
54
Well, Mr. Douthat, that will be creating a lot more work for Republicans who love to suppress voters from voting.
For a prime example, look at Scott Walker and the bang-up job he's done in Wisconsin, and the bang-up job he did in the 2016 presidential election:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/voter-suppression-may-have-...
Are you sure the Republicans can handle an influx of voters for them to not-get-out-the-vote?
14
Sure, let’s add another penalty on to the lives of single-people or those without children since so many systems and informal societal norms already shun us.
127
That's all we need. More reasons to overpopulate the earth. We are already stretching our resources too thin, and giving parents voting rights based on the number of their children will only encourage more births.
If we keep going the way we are, the earth will rebel, and it won't matter who can or cannot vote. Nature will cast the final vote, the only one that matters. And it won't be pretty.
60
How many 16 & 17 year olds would actually register and vote? The youth vote is the lowest percentage of voters now. Douthat's proposal is a lot of flap and doddle. A much bigger issue is motivating more adults to register and vote!
11
Here's another idea: let kids vote at 12. They may not be all that mature, but they are old enough to understand the basics of politics, think for themselves, and form their own opinions at that age. Showing them that respect, and challenging them early to step up and use their power as citizens for good, would ultimately be good for our democracy.
Also, I do think it would be an excellent idea to implement Demeny voting for school board and budget votes. There are unfortunately a lot of places where kids get shafted on education funding by large concentrations of retirees whose own grandkids live elsewhere and don't want to part with any portion of their fixed incomes to educate someone else's kids. If there's any area where giving more weight to parents' voices over those of the childless makes sense, it's education.
9
Though I vote in every primary, general and special election (and had to wait till age 21 to do so), I have never voted in a local school board election. Though we are both the products of NYC public schools (including CUNY), here in Chicago we sent our only child to secular private schools from the get-go. It was our choice. We found immoral the idea of getting to dictate how our public schools were run and how, what, and by whom other parents' kids should be taught at schools we chose not to use. Our son is grown now. We have no grandkids. We still don't vote in local school board elections.
School bond issues and property tax votes are a different story: adequately funding those public schools is essential, and affects the quality of the entire community--including all its schools, public & private.
And as aging baby boomers, we have only gotten more politically liberal over the years (as did my mom, who at 85 did not get her dying wish to see Dubya replaced by a Democrat). Don't assume that with increasing age comes conservatism. I look forward to a nation run by today's millennials and hope I get to live long enough to see at least the dawn of that phenomenon.
14
I began watching politics very closely in fourth grade during the Kennedy-Nixon election. I remember staying up all night watching, waiting for the results. I'd run home from school on Fridays to watch Kennedy's weekly(!) press conference. I watched every convention, both Republican and Democratic. So I was fully ready to vote at 16. Most of my peers, though.....not so much. I think that's different now and I'd like to see it happen. Young people are much more aware and articulate about politics. And since they're the ones being murdered in their schools.....yeah, I think they should be allowed to vote at 16.
I also like the matrilennial vote only for each child. Women need to wield more power if we are to ever find a peaceful existence on this earth so I'm all for that, too.
17
Me too, I was obsessed with Washington Post coverage at 12, had lived through all the assasinations and riots before, after; Vietnam, whole nine yards. On top of DC, watched riots from sidewalk, smelled smoke, saw flames.
No TV in parents' house, newspaper and radio. Mad could not read paper at Girl Scout camp, only for counselors--across street from Camp David at that!
Majored in Government + full major another field--still fascinated.
Some kids can handle it for sure. Perhaps opt out for older, a
or a signature on file confirming their parents' choice?
I was raised in a politically split parent family, great discussions but would want to control which one got my vote by proxy!
Wait, do I understand this correctly? Is Ross proposing that anyone who is a parent gets one-and-a-half votes, versus the one vote a non-parent gets? My god, could breeding conservatives do any more to try to grab power? Aren't the electoral college system, so-called voter ID laws, and gerrymandering enough? Now breeders get more votes than non-breeders? I mean, it's not as though, if the child disagreed with the parent, the parent would go ahead and vote with the child anyway, is it? It's just about giving more votes to people who breed more.
Ross gets wackier every column.
201
We need to get people who are already eligible to vote into voting booths before we start assigning 2.5/5 of person status to anyone else.
37
My kids are both able to vote now - they aged into the demographic just in time to discover that in American, we are more "One Acre, One Vote" than one person, one vote. How else can you explain the minority electing a president, and the imbalance in the House between party representation and voter preferences?
But I don't know if they would have appreciated me voting for them. I have seen them develop their own opinions, and while they reflect their upbringing, they don't mirror me at all. They may have grown to resent my casting their vote, just as many kids grow to repudiate their parents' political views.
How about we start with just trying to find a way to make sure that every vote counts; that voters can access polls easily; that no one loses income to take time vote; that registration is easy and removing people from the rolls is justified. How about we try for one person, one vote?
Then we can worry about whether we have represented our children's lives well.
108
"American life is increasingly polarized by age, with our politics tilted rightward by aging baby boomers voting Trump to hold off a millennial-ruled future and our cultural and commercial spheres devoted to pandering to the fashions of the adolescent."
Where do you live, Ross Douthat? Sometimes you surprise me with your stark stereotyping of "elderly baby boomers" as FOX News hounds and republicans. Maybe you should move to New England, to see how the coastals live.
Be that as it may, I like the idea of 16-year old voting, but not your suggestion parents vote for their kids. Have you ever talked to a 5 year old, an 8-year old, a brand new thirteenager?
They're actually quite smart, inquisitive, and as a general rule, far kinder than their elders.
Oh, yes, you have kids, so maybe you can tell us--are you raising them to be good or simply obedient?
Finally, I'm sure people of color would just be glad to vote period, without hassles or new rules sprung on them without much notice. If they have trouble voting for one, I can't imagine how they'd feel losing their vote + 2 or 3 kids.
Keep it simple: let 16-year olds vote. From those I know, they have better judgment than their parents, or grandparents for that matter.
51
I think you should go back to the concept of voting at age 16. Young people of that age are at least as well informed as other generations although American voters tend overall to not be very well informed.
But I think they would be sharper when it comes to the real shaper of elections: the 30 second campaign ad designed to court the ‘undecideds’ for last minute persuasion. This demographic covers maybe 20 % of the public and many of these vote according to the last infomercial from a candidate.
No, I think these sixteen and seventeen year olds are mostly better informed than their parents and giving them extra voting power because of their children could be bad decision making times 3,4, 5 and more kids.
6
Parents should vote with their children's welfare in mind, but not on behalf of minors. That only gives the adult undue influence and presupposes that they know what a minor's ballot box choices would be.
Better to let those sixteen year olds start voting. America has a serious turnout problem for eligible voters, not an abundance. Young people tend to be idealistic, so let them express their views at the polls. They can demonstrate a good civics lesson to apathetic elders. Voting becomes a lifelong habit.
Sixteen year olds generally can learn to drive. Let's give them the chance to steer our government.
25
Horrifying idea. I am not impressed with Ross Douthat's attacks on Pope Francis and support of the Republican congress in their attacks on democracy and eagerness to give tax cuts to the rich and cut social programs, or support Netanyahu over Obama.
Giving him his children's vote has broken my bank of disgust today, even though I have had a bellyful of Trump Inc.'s family and corporate evil.
I suggest a rereading of the Gospels, if you call yourself Christian.
Your children are not your slaves, and at some point they will have a right to an opinion. They may or may not share yours. But giving you their vote is truly appalling.
Meanwhile, we have a population problem and lots of regressive people, particular those who oppose birth control, could multiply in order to multiply their vote.
Shocking!
165
Inasmuch as everyone other than Mr. Douthat seems to be focused on movies this weekend how about we cite an old (1968) film called "Wild in the Streets" as a practical model for future elections? A rock star somehow becomes President and ends up restricting voting rights to those in their teens and twenties while forcing the oldsters to get zonked out on a steady diet of acid? I'm a senior myself but better that alternative than sixteen years of Trump and Pence.
46
Here's another delightful ploy by a conservative religious pundit to justify God's command that we be fruitful and multiply. Like the famous child tax credits, it ensures that having more children will turn into a political advantage, particularly for the more rural, conservative, anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-sex education crowd.
I'd rather that people who are popping out babies didn't have more control over a political system than I do, especially if it's people who tend to be more conservative. We're currently circling the drain as a result of conservatives being energized by an ignoramus. We don't need their kids following in their footsteps.
Since I'm also an old guy with Medicare and getting some income from Social Security, I'd just as soon seniors had a significant voice in how older people are treated. Youngsters resulting from the famously fecund Republicans are going to form their attitudes at their parents' knee, and old people, sick people and the unemployed will be told tales of Moochers and Takers and how they Sap Society.
Children are to be taken care of by adults, not sent out into the world to make the rules that apply to the incomprehensibly ancient 60-year-olds, or, gee wiz, even older!
If the country is aging, then we don't needs this "Demented voting" system to ensure older people don't have their needs addressed. But if all Republicans got half a vote, that would solve a lot of our problems.
234
Democrats care about old people and the young! Why should an 80-year-old, who has little interest in how our country will be in 20 years, get to vote when a 15-year-old does not?
And I know this is off topic, but we need term and age limits in the Senate. There is no reason why anyone over 80 should be running for re-election (e.g. McCain, who did, and Feinstein, who is). I am not being anti-old people. It turns out there are millions of well-qualified people to be Senators in AZ and CA, but incumbents are nearly impossible to defeat. Let's be humble and acknowledge that if you are over 80, someone else should be the elected official for your district or state. Please.
3
Re "Be fruitful and multiply": Katha Pollitt pointed out in her excellent book "Pro" that when God issued this command the population of the world was two.
The dumb idea Douthat touts in today's column is just another attempt on his part to punish women for not having excessive, life-crippling numbers of children.
Kids don't always believe what their parents do, especially if they perceive their "role models" as unhappy. My parents were socially conservative Orthodox Irish Catholics. All six of their children grew up to be flaming activist liberals.
No number of extra votes would have been worth living my mother's miserable existence.
11
This is identity politics at its worst. This is conservatives scared of the votes of single mothers and Hispanics going to a party that wants strong public education, a workable health care system, and a healthy environment. This is a dark attempt to give more power to those who would just populate the world in the interest of their religion, while disregarding the rest of us and the earth we share.
It also is a very blatant attempt to push back on the growing movement for gun control. This is an effort to silence the emerging majority that is fed up with the wanton violence and extremist position on guns in our society. These young people will be taking care of all us one day, least we can do is give them a voice and listen to them now.
87