So why do you think that limiting the voting right to the people that have kids wouldn't bring about more positive impact?

Because it pushes others from contributing their thoughts, it delegitimises the govt to those who can no longer contribute and leads to a disconnect in the political class from facts on the ground

It may also have a perverse incentive in that it would incentivise those who can currently vote and so have kids to make it more difficult for others to do so and so ensure they retain an inflated share of the franchise and political power

I would suggest this is not what you had in mind

One of the problems of modern democracies is a debt spiral and becomes even more serious with falling birthrates. It is a sad fact that the debts of those who live will be paid off by those who will be born in the future... but why would those who live care? Well I make an argument that those who have children are on average more incentivised to care and at the same time it would incentivise people to have more kids.

Also I don't think that the vision that you proposed would happen because the power would still be distrbuted to the point that would make a power grab in the way you described preety much pointless.

Also one of the sad truth of democracies such as they are is that they are followed by a large political apathy.... large groups of society are already disconnected from it and don't care.

So maybe a right that you have to earn will be more valued.

and to be honest... some it is better when some people just don't contribute...

just no

Why do you have the exact same profile photo

Like what the fuck

That is how I look. I am a bot you see.

Right

That’s cringe

shhhh

I see a double-spacement

I’ll accept a problem democracies face is the propensity for short term governance but this isn’t exclusive to democracy and the children incentivising long term financial wisdom seems to be questioned when you see how boomers talk about the pension. This only follows where people see their interests as the same as their child’s which is frequently not the case.
Power would still be distributed but within a core bloc which it’s unlikely to expect a defection on this issue from the mass as each individual is incentivised to gatekeep the franchise.
It is both historically and presently untrue that democracy carries a burden of political apathy and while currently there is a crisis of connection and legitimacy (not engagement or investment) this would seem to be exacerbated by excluding huge swathes of society including and especially the youth.

Fine ignore my memes

So rude

<:rip:521380737765867521>

Ad. "Short Term Governance" - I would argue that on average they would care more because paternal instincst. Would say that even the american boomers care on average more then their childless compatriots... and finally it is still an improvement from what we have today even if it won't solve the isse totally. Ad. Gatekeeping - When the gain in neglectable there is no source for this incentive. Tbh.. I don't think you explained how it is supposed to work. Ad. Apathy Seems to me like it universally leads to the said apathy in every country so...

Also people get more conservative with age so that alone makes me think that lowering the voting age is not a good idea.

@Zabriskie E

What

Is this convo about government related to the daily question?

NVM I asked

Nope

Yeet

I mean I don't know the daily question so yeah....

@ImATomato I spoke once about it

Get kinda confused when I see daily question request to answer in chat but it gets drowned but unrelated things

Then we went into race and government

shit spiraled

I think there should be a separation of Chat for asnwering dailies and general

your memes r funni

It is ok... when it triggers the libs then it is ok.

Makes it easier for both admins and members to learn something

I'll answer it soon