The boundaries between who is alive/ not yet alive, able to choose/unable to choose are constantly being toyed with to aggrandize possibilities for one Party or another: Counting a fetus as an "unborn child' is another example. This idea that we should have someone speaking for the child in an election isn't so far out: Remember that slave states demanded and got the privilege to have their slaves counted as 3/5th of a white man [without, of course the ability to let them cast a ballot themselves!] [Cf: Missouri Compromise]
I'm not entirely against such a proposal, except that it would open a can of worms: In the case of a divorce, who takes the kids? and their votes? the one who pays child support? In the case of an odd number of children, in a divorce, can they be apportioned? How about adopted children? Could we envision folks who 'adopt' children, at least temporarily to inflate their Party's share of the vote? [Laugh if you want, but Reagan's "welfare Queen" dog whistle has that flavor.
That plus the fact that it probably would not change matters much: Most folks have a low number of kids anyway. I'm sure it would encourage a number of gay/ transgender folks to adopt, and I can just imagine the fracas that would follow.
Perhaps, we should start with the Constitution:
*Be a US citizen
*Be 18 years of age
*Be registered to vote by your state's voter registration deadline.
Those are the 3 sine qua non parameters for deciding who can vote, and there are no others.
States have [illegally, IMHO] added extra barriers, such as being a felon, not yet being "off papers", [meaning having paid all fines, no matter how piddly or inconsequential], waiting 2-3 or more years *after your release* and having to request your voting right in writing to be reinstated .
Considering that the United States incarcerate more people per 100,000 than any other nation on earth [yes, even more than Russia, communist China, North Korea, all Muslim countries], incarcerating people does mess with the vote, especially when you know that certain segments of the population get incarcerated in a number that is out of proportion to their population.
Note that Private Prisons, which get a subsidy from the Government if they don't fill all the beds add a very warped, pernicious, pervasive incentive to lock up people.
Additionally, the Census Bureau counts these folk where they are incarcerated rather than at their normal place of residence. Since prisons are usually situated away from large urban centers, that gives candidates in rural districts where prisons are located a big advantage:
Say you have a voting district that has 5,000 inmates but only 1,000 non-incarcerated residents, a candidate needs to get only 500 votes +one to have the majority. [ I'm just simplifying numbers for explanation purposes, but you get the gist.]
The Census is used to divide resources, so that too gives rural districts more money relative to their numbers, and dying towns get less, relative to their numbers, even though they need more.
The distinction here is between what is actually good for a child and the parent's vote for an individual who isn't likely to vote for the child's best interests when a corporate donor's desires (and money) are at stake.
The boundaries between who is alive/ not yet alive, able to choose/unable to choose are constantly being toyed with to aggrandize possibilities for one Party or another: Counting a fetus as an "unborn child' is another example. This idea that we should have someone speaking for the child in an election isn't so far out: Remember that slave states demanded and got the privilege to have their slaves counted as 3/5th of a white man [without, of course the ability to let them cast a ballot themselves!] [Cf: Missouri Compromise]
I'm not entirely against such a proposal, except that it would open a can of worms: In the case of a divorce, who takes the kids? and their votes? the one who pays child support? In the case of an odd number of children, in a divorce, can they be apportioned? How about adopted children? Could we envision folks who 'adopt' children, at least temporarily to inflate their Party's share of the vote? [Laugh if you want, but Reagan's "welfare Queen" dog whistle has that flavor.
That plus the fact that it probably would not change matters much: Most folks have a low number of kids anyway. I'm sure it would encourage a number of gay/ transgender folks to adopt, and I can just imagine the fracas that would follow.
Perhaps, we should start with the Constitution:
*Be a US citizen
*Be 18 years of age
*Be registered to vote by your state's voter registration deadline.
Those are the 3 sine qua non parameters for deciding who can vote, and there are no others.
States have [illegally, IMHO] added extra barriers, such as being a felon, not yet being "off papers", [meaning having paid all fines, no matter how piddly or inconsequential], waiting 2-3 or more years *after your release* and having to request your voting right in writing to be reinstated .
Considering that the United States incarcerate more people per 100,000 than any other nation on earth [yes, even more than Russia, communist China, North Korea, all Muslim countries], incarcerating people does mess with the vote, especially when you know that certain segments of the population get incarcerated in a number that is out of proportion to their population.
https://www.prb.org/resources/u-s-has-worlds-highest-incarceration-rate/#:~:text=Since%202002%2C%20the%20United%20States,100%20prisoners%20per%20100%2C000%20population.
Note that Private Prisons, which get a subsidy from the Government if they don't fill all the beds add a very warped, pernicious, pervasive incentive to lock up people.
Additionally, the Census Bureau counts these folk where they are incarcerated rather than at their normal place of residence. Since prisons are usually situated away from large urban centers, that gives candidates in rural districts where prisons are located a big advantage:
Say you have a voting district that has 5,000 inmates but only 1,000 non-incarcerated residents, a candidate needs to get only 500 votes +one to have the majority. [ I'm just simplifying numbers for explanation purposes, but you get the gist.]
The Census is used to divide resources, so that too gives rural districts more money relative to their numbers, and dying towns get less, relative to their numbers, even though they need more.
The distinction here is between what is actually good for a child and the parent's vote for an individual who isn't likely to vote for the child's best interests when a corporate donor's desires (and money) are at stake.