In his attacks on the ‘childless’ left, JD Vance once hyped a plan to give parents more votes

How about we give parents one extra vote per child.

But they have to wait 18 years to use it.

And they can't directly use it, it's more that they get a delegate of sorts.

And this delegate --- let's call them, I dunno, their kid "offspring voter" --- isn't legally bound to vote one way or another.

And how about this person votes in a manner that in some way reflects how they were raised, and their worldy experiences --- possibly voting exactly as the parents would, or possibly exactly opposite, or anywhere in between.

So do we get an extra vote per child?

Is it more of the person who claims the child on their taxes gets the extra vote?

Does custody play into this? In other words, I get to claim one kid on my taxes, and my ex gets the other kid…

…or because she’s a woman, she shouldn’t be voting in the first place, so I get both kids’ and her votes?

Either way, I wouldn’t mind legally voting for Kamala two or four times in November. 😁

How low can Vance creep Trump's poll numbers?

And on the opposite end, his running mate would prefer to see some children just die off.

In order to vote, I think American voters should have to pass the same history test that immigrants need to in order to gain citizenship.

edit: This sits at +11 because Americans don't know their history. We already did it to African Americans and it went extremely poorly. That's the point: Pick up a book.

Same-Sex and Refugee/Immigrant-Adopting and Single parents also get more votes.

Vance: "No, not like that!"

Kids can have a vote when they start paying taxes. No representation without taxation!

I think you should get more votes if you DONT have children. And the government should give out free sterilizations, and if you can prove you’re sterilized you get to take paternity leave twice.

Statistically, parents already have more votes: inasmuch as children contribute to the apportionment of congressional districts and presidential electors, voters in districts with a disproportionately high ratio of children to adults have correspondingly greater representation in the House and the Electoral College. (Not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that, but it should be taken into consideration.)

But wait, Republicans, what about all the welfare queens with like 10 Democrat party welfare sponsored kids? Are they now the most powerful voting block? Or did they never exist?

As a parent and voting socialist this may backfire on this dude.

On the one hand, I think that it's a stupid idea being pushed for ideological reasons meant to favor the Religious Right. On the other hand though, as a parent, it does make a certain amount of sense to me that parents should potentially get more votes than non-parents. Not because we're better or more deserving than non-parents or anything, but because we have more "skin in the game", we've got more at stake, we've got our children's future lives to consider. Parents deal with school funding issues that might be decided by a bunch of voters who decide, "I don't have any kids, why should my tax dollars go towards school funding?" Being responsible for the livelihood of other people maybe should give you additional votes for people who can't vote themselves.

Still though, it does go against the idea of one person, one vote and opens the door for all sorts of other multipliers to muddy the voting process. Will veterans then get extra votes because they've done more for the country? Do other groups stand to gain extra votes for whatever reason? It has all sorts of potential for getting abused if any exception is made for anyone, so ultimately probably shouldn't be a thing.

I hate Vance and want Trump & him to crash and burn hard this election, BUT... I'm not sure I totally hate this idea.

I can actually see the logic here, you're more likely invested in the future if you have children.

It's not undemocratic for people to be uneven, it already happens (we don't allow children to vote, some places don't allow criminals to vote)

I don't think we should do it, but it's not necessarily a bad idea.