[nelsnelson]

What reason might that be?

Oh, because you think they are dumber than you?

Well they are going to have to suffer the consequences of your smarty-pants bad decisions for way longer than you, so I say, we give them a vote proportional to the statistically average remaining years they have left on this planet.

[gorwell]

Think of how stupid the average 16 year old is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

[triceratops]

That's true for every age. But the older ones vote more.

[adolph]

I didn’t know any 16 year olds could vote, let alone those born earlier in the year.

[triceratops]

That's what I said too. Older people vote more than 16 year olds.

[tstrimple]

I haven't found the average 16 year old to be significantly stupider than the average 40 year old. Is there a point here?

[sholladay]

That’s not what average means. ;)

[4rt]

Is your argument that a 1 week old baby with ~84 years of expected lifespan remaining should have a vote worth 84x that of an 83 year old?

[ethbr1]

I don't know if I'd go with a 1:1 ratio, but voting for matters that might have consequences farther in the future?

Yes, they should have a weighted vote.

It's hard to be objective when you don't have skin in the game.

[4rt]

Parents do have "skin in the game".

[ChadNauseam]

Alternatively: kin in the game

[adolph]

Aye, I think it makes sense for parents to have proxy votes for their kids.

[fwungy]

There is no reason at all for anyone but the Head of Household to vote, who's ever paying the bills and keeping it together.

Democracy becomes less stable as voting increases and individual equity falls. It becomes a race by politicians to dumb down the population and elections a race to see who can offer the public the most free stuff from "the government."

Most people live in dream worlds and do not understand cause and effect relationships, especially young people. Getting more and more uninvested people to vote is not a magic alchemical process. If so the biggest corporations would use the model to gain even more power.

But they don't. You need to own shares in companies to vote. That's how they align their decisions with their future needs.

[Timon3]

> There is no reason at all for anyone but the Head of Household to vote, who's ever paying the bills and keeping it together.

What about healthy families that share this duty between the parents?

> Democracy becomes less stable as voting increases and individual equity falls. It becomes a race by politicians to dumb down the population and elections a race to see who can offer the public the most free stuff from "the government."

You're not going to improve this situation by reducing the voter pool. This makes it even easier to "dumb down the population and elections".

> Most people live in dream worlds and do not understand cause and effect relationships, especially young people.

You're telling us you've understood that only having the "Head of Household" vote is good. Why is it good (in ways not trivially countered as above)? Show us that we really are living in dream worlds, and you are not.

> Getting more and more uninvested people to vote is not a magic alchemical process. If so the biggest corporations would use the model to gain even more power. > But they don't. You need to own shares in companies to vote. That's how they align their decisions with their future needs.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Why would "the biggest corporations [...] use the model to gain even more power"? Who is saying "the electorate can gain more power by becoming bigger" or "the votes are worth more if there are more"? This is a strange non-sequitur.