In his attacks on the ‘childless’ left, JD Vance once hyped a plan to give parents more votes
2 years ago by Flying Squid to c/news
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. 😁
If historical precedent is any guide, they’ll count each child as an extra 3/5 of a vote.
He’s the new Sarah Palin. Normally VP picks don’t move the needle, but when you get it wrong, it can spoil the whole thing.
That being said, vote! vote! VOTE! This election is going to come down to the wire in a few states.
Yeah, but their parents can't or won't vote anyway. So they're worthless to him.
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.
Give that test to everyone. It's just basic reading comprehension with a simple logic question and a simple math question. Even just that would disenfranchise the vast majority of American voters.
My point wasn't that a test is a good thing. It's an incredibly horrible idea.
My point is that the vast majority of Americans know less of their history than their immigrants. And, the vast majority of Americans are now in favor of repeating one mistake or the other because they don't know their history.
My evidence is that my suggestion above is predominantly upvoted.
They gave the test to everyone then too. They just decided who passed and who didn't. Why do you think it will be different this time?
I've taken and passed practice tests before. A lot of Americans who may be down-voting may remember things like Jim Crow laws and how tests were widely used to disenfranchise voters, particularly non-white or otherwise "the wrong kind of" voters, in the past and it still leaves a bad taste.
It isn't about having a bad taste from the past. Policy like this would further disenfranchise vulnerable populations present day. A barrier for entry like this is going to disproportionately impact lower income folks. Hard to study for a test like this when you're busting your ass at 3 part time jobs trying to make ends meet. That's not even to mention the inequality that exists within the education system between higher and lower income areas to begin with. "Our system failed you, so now you're not qualified to vote. Cheers!"
Three guesses as to who this policy would affect more: white people or people of color?
I 100% agree with this.
Some of those same reasons are the reasons voter ID laws as often implemented (i.e. without anyway to ensure that everyone is actually able to get an ID given that it takes documents, time, and money that not everyone can spare) can negatively impact the same portions of the population as well.
Same-Sex and Refugee/Immigrant-Adopting and Single parents also get more votes.
Vance: "No, not like that!"
Cool so as soon as they spend their money on any goods and service they can vote? 😲
The children crave the mines
Not sure if you're trying for eugenics, but it certainly sounds like you are.
Incentivizing sterilization probably means that marginalized groups will preferentially take advantage of it (well-off people can already take long vacations, etc.). So now we have a disproportionately sterile lower class, while the upper class can have kids as they see fit.
Don't get me wrong, overpopulation is a real thing. But e.g. Japan's declining birth rate doesn't seem particularly happy, and I'm not sure government sponsored sterilization bribery is great either...
By that argument, the lower rate of reproduction is western countries is eugenics, since it’s a consequence of policy (education).
Actually one of the best things that poor folks can do to escape generational poverty, is to have fewer kids. That way, kids inherit a larger share of their grandparents assets, and more can be passed down. Generational land ownership, for example, is extremely powerful. Fewer children per family also lowers the financial burden of education, enabling better education for comparatively fewer people. That’s not eugenics, it’s smart family planning.
Education is not analogous to eugenics.
Antinatalism is the way :)
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?
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.
That's nonsense. And I say that as a parent. Just because someone doesn't have kids of their own doesn't mean they don't have children in their lives they care about and want to thrive, or just want the species to improve itself.
And plenty of parents couldn't give less of a shit about their kids.
I don’t have kids or children in my life and I’m heavily invested in the concept of an easier future for the younger generations, I’ve never understood this.
I've often had the unpleasant niggling thought that maybe many people don't actually understand altruistic behavior. The idea that people would strive to make the world a better place even if there's no earthly or eternal reward really seems foreign to some people.
Yeah, but are they paying any of their own money to take care of those kids for two decades? As a parent, I'm involved in my kids' lives on a daily basis and I've been given an additional set of legal responsibilities & obligations. Society expects more from me in order to raise my kids (though I did willingly take that on by becoming a parent). You raise a good point though that further muddies the idea, what about legal guardians or adults who help out kids, who decides who gets that extra voting power? And then with delinquent parents, why should they be entitled to more voting power? It also further disenfranchises the LGBTQ+ community as well, so yeah, it's just fraught with way too many issues.
:: cough :: Might I point out, now more than ever, there are those who didn’t choose to become a parent?
Fuck yeah they should get something for it. Whether it’s votes, ice cream, or some sort of UBI… they deserve something.
As you said, you took on the responsibility and obligations of parenthood when you chose to have children. Part of that is considering their interests when exercising your vote. While I don't have children, I don't agree that you have more skin in the game as you put it, than I do. I, as a human being and citizen of this country, want to see it succeed and flourish not only now, but long after I am gone, for generations to come. My family, friends and loved ones are all considerations when voting, as well as what I think will be best for society as a whole. It's why when local votes come up for school funding, I always vote in favor of increases, despite having no children of my own benefitting from it.
Every adult makes life choices, and has various considerations for how they think the world should be, and what will improve it. The personal decisions you make and how you live your life should not afford you more or less votes than anyone else.
What difference does the money make? Does you paying to feed your kids mean you love them more than their grandparents and want them to be successful more than their grandparents?
Yeah, but are they paying any of their own money to take care of those kids for two decades?
Yes. Taxes. People without kids still pay taxes for things like education, meal programs, etc. People with kids get a tax break to compensate for the cost of raising kids. You're asking for something already built into how we support parents and children in America.
You also appear to be under the misconception that parents will automatically vote in the best interests of their children. Some may, but not all. It also pressures people to produce children needlessly in order to have more personal electoral power, which will result in a baby boom the likes of which hasn't been seen since the end of WW2 - and back then, the US had a dominant economic position where there were more resources available to support these children.
I feel that you might be trying to argue your position in good faith. However, giving parents more rights to vote because they have children is a terrible idea. It will be exploited mercilessly by bad faith actors. Hell, the USA should be rewarding parents who choose to have fewer(2 or less) children, or those who choose not to have kids. This planet is already too overcrowded.
Yeah, but are they paying any of their own money to take care of those kids for two decades?
Yes. It's called taxes. I pay property tax specifically to fund public education. The entire idea is called the "Forced Rider Problem". That is, I have to pay for services that I (or my hypothetical children) will never use. Not that I'm opposed- I benefit from a well educated society.
"yeah but-" I'm also contributing taxes to fund social wellfare programs, in addition to near-weekly donations of fresh and healthy fruits and veggies. Doesn't make me a hero or even a decent person. And you taking care of kids doesn't make you a fucking hero either.
As a parent, I’m involved in my kids’ lives on a daily basis and I’ve been given an additional set of legal responsibilities & obligations.
Congratulations? You want a medal? getting laid and dealing with the responsibilities because the law says you have to does not make you anything other than a person who got laid.
Society expects more from me in order to raise my kids (though I did willingly take that on by becoming a parent).
you actually think you get a medal, don't you? You actually think you're special and awesome and a decent guy because you took responsibility for your actions (that of bringing a child into this world).
The only way this idea makes any sense is to allow the children to vote for themselves not to give a parent extra votes. You might argue that children are uninformed and won't vote 'correctly', but that same argument can be applied to the parents as being informed isn't a requirement to vote.
You could as easily make the opposite claim—that those with children will be motivated to neglect the common good in order to promote the future welfare of their own offspring over those of others.
Dr. Mark Hall is the only scientist authorized to disarm the automatic self-destruct mechanism; he is an unmarried, childless male and thus presumed to make the most dispassionate decisions during a crisis.
From The Andromeda Strain
I forget the name of the theory that's based on, but I believe it is real. Whether it's been debunked since that novel was written, I'm less clear on.
Right? I mean in a sense you do get more votes... Each child will grow up and have voting power. So if you have 7 children, congratulations! Your family will get rewarded with 7 additional votes... They get a equal stake, that stake isn't just magically given to you for some reason.
Since I’m considered less invested in the community if I don’t have children, I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes, since that money is used to fund public schools. And whatever federal portion of the budget that goes toward public education should be given back to me as well.
Also, does a parent’s extra vote go away when the children reach voting age?
Edit: The more I think about this, the more I like it. I think you’re on the right track, but we need to take this further. You have a greater stake, therefore you should have a larger tax burden as well. You and your family will use more resources than a single person. Roads wear out faster from more driving and increased weight of vehicle. Larger families require larger police and fire departments. Etc., etc. Good idea.
I don't have children yet in any poll made by my city council I vote for more schools and kindergartens instead of parking lots. And always vote for funding education and stop the man-made climate disaster, because that's what will keep our species on track. I don't really care about parents, they made their own choice, just like I did. You chose the responsibility, because it also comes with happiness and a sense of fullfilment. I do care about the children and their future though, and wish future generations have a life at least as happy as I have, because, you know, being alive is awesome. I want humankind to thrive in the future, even if I don't have any skin in the game, because that's what an intelligent human being should think like. You were given a chance of life, just give it back. What a skewed, utterly ridiculous point of view you have. If you have that opinion of people without kids, I don't want to know how you treat actual minorities.
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 don’t believe you.
First of you absolutely do not have any more skin in the game. All you’ve demonstrated is you can get laid. That’s it.
You are not special or entitled because you got some. Being a parent doesn’t take skill.
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 land owner, it does make a certain amount of sense to me that land owners should potentially get more votes than non-land owners. Not because we're better or more deserving than non-land owners or anything, but because we have more "skin in the game", we've got more at stake, we've got our estate's future to consider. Land owners deal with issues that might be decided by a bunch of voters who decide, "I don't have any land, why should my tax dollars go towards drainage management?" Being responsible for the well-being of the land we live on maybe should give you additional votes for acerage that can't manage itself.
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 parents then get extra votes because they've got more people in their house? 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.
On the one hand, I think that it's a stupid idea being pushed for ideological reasons meant to favor the rich. On the other hand though, as a billionaire, it does make a certain amount of sense to me that the wealthy should potentially get more votes than the poors. Not because we're better or more deserving than the poors or anything, but because we have more "skin in the game", we've got more at stake, we've got our vast fortunes to consider. The wealthy deal with funding issues that might be decided by a bunch of voters who decide, "I don't have any money, why shouldn't your tax dollars go towards public works?" Being responsible for the livelihood of the economy maybe should give you additional votes for businesses 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 doctors 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.
Everyone, as a class, has some burden that some other grouping of people doesn't. That doesn't give you more of a say in the direction of the country.
With parenthood, your ability to raise and model your children is the privilege you get for having more skin in the game. Same with being a landowner, rich, healthy or anything else.
If anyone should get extra votes, which they shouldn't, it's the people who have fallen through the cracks in the system. Let the politicians bend over backwards pandering to the homeless vote, the drug addict bloc, or the chronically medically disabled demographic. They've all got even more on the line than parents, and the system has pretty clearly written them off and ignored them pretty hard already.
I don't have kids, but I still want to have an educated populace who can have the fundamental reading, writing and calculation skills and can critically and logically think, which requires a well-funded education system with a curriculum that teaches kids the basic skills and how to critically think.
And besides if the general population can think critically, they would very quickly realize that more than just parents have a vested interest in the education of the next generation. Businesses and government are still going to need engineers, designers, researchers and a whole host of other jobs that require education and critical thinking. And last I checked people only live so long, so if all the old guard dies before we pass on that institutional knowledge to the next generations we're shooting ourselves in the foot economically and societally.
And yet, this move is specifically meant to increase the voting power of republicans with large families that predominantly vote against all the things you just said are good.
Tell me again how parents have some undefined quality that makes them more responsible voters?
My immediate gut reaction to this is pretty viscerally against it. I guess as a foster parent, I'm used to society being up my ass about my parenting decisions and I'm fine with that.
I get it that it can be painful when you are told you are doing something wrong with raining a kid you love, but also, that's the whole point of a society. I think this policy would point society in the direction of making parenting become even more individualized than it already is in the US. "It takes a village" has lost all meaning in this country and we need to work towards making society feel invested in everyone's children
I don't know what policies could lead to people without kids feeling more of a stake in how children are raised. Can't think of anything realistic. It's going to have to be a societal shift back. People don't want to be around other people's kids when they aren't allowed to have any say in how those kids are parented.
People talk about other countries where it's not impossible for someone in the town to discipline someone else's kid. It's inconveniencable in the US because we treat parents as an unquestionable authority and kids are treated like property. Whatever we do, we need to figure out how to move away from hyperindividualism, greed, and selfishness being rewarded/encouraged.
People being property and thus giving their owners an extra vote is a very republican policy now that I think about it...
I have to agree with the majority of commenters. Jokes aside, we as parents at mostly chose to be parents. There are exceptions to this of course, but for the sake of argument let’s go with consensual parenting.
Which parent gets the extra votes? What about if you use the votes given to you by the existence of your child end up defying the beliefs of your child as they get older? Would you still argue that your extra vote(s) were for the betterment of the child? Can the child later sue you for that decision, because you should’ve known better?
As of the political/religious ideology and how it negatively impacts children isn’t bad enough, now we’re literally making life altering decisions not only for our kids, but other people via our kids?
Nah. I get where you’re trying to come from. We parents do make a lot of sacrifices for our children. And that’s okay to feel that way. But if you’re looking for some sort of prize, you may need to reassess why you became a parent in the first place. And hopefully it wasn’t for some award.
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.
Lol, I've met many parents who give absolutely zero shits about their children's future.
Do you also want to to skip to the front of lines cause 'I have kids and am tired and places to be?'
Everyone gets 1 vote. To say anything else is against democracy
In don't agree with people downvoting you for sharing your honest thought.
What I would say is this: more and more countries are looking to lower the voting age to 16.
I think that's a nice step to give the youth a little more say.
And for the rest, people don't seem to realize that all their investments will be worth nothing without workers to keep the economy chugging when they retire...
You either have kids, or you will depend on someone else's kids. Both are fine, but don't complain about picking up some of the burden to raise them.
you will depend on someone else’s kids
don’t complain about picking up some of the burden to raise them
I don't think the latter follows from the former. There are going to be plenty of people here in the future even if childless Americans don't subsidize Americans with children. That's the great thing about America - we can just let in the best among the many millions of people who want to come here from other countries. Accepting a young adult who is already educated and ready to do productive work seems like a pretty good deal compared to investing money into a child who won't be productive for twenty years.
(Both the "accept no immigrants" and the "accept all immigrants" sides are wasting such a valuable opportunity!)
A ridiculous opinion. All the survivors of abusive, narcissistic parents can tell you that the only "skin" they have in the game is "what do I get out of it?" Also, childless people have nieces, nephews, children of cousins, friends with kids, etc. They might love and care about those kids as much as any child they might have had themselves. So they do have skin in the game.
I think you underestimate the number of narcissistic, abusive parents who don't care about their children except for how those children will do something to benefit them.
You definitely underestimate the narcissism of parents. My dad votes for policies that hurt this country and his children. He votes for Republicans that are against women's rights and trans rights and want to defund support for struggling children in schools. He does not deserve more votes than I do. I'm a socially isolated person with no children and I really don't care to be around children, but I still vote for their future. Parents do not deserve more votes.
Why would his opinion not be subject to critique from the hundreds of people who use this site? Don't post if you don't want your opinions to be scrutinized by the forum you're posting in.
Anyone is welcome to publicly share their opinion, don't be surprised when people, who are also welcome to share their opinions, respond to it and poke holes in the logic.
Same. They offered a fair opinion, gave a reason, stated conflicts with their opinion and expressed an openness to other perspectives. The Internet: How dare you think you get more votes! I love it.
First, I make popcorn.
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.
Remember: citizenship requires service!
Join the Helldivers Mobile Infantry today!
There have been many suggestions around such things.
We already have a system that disenfranchises people, based on where they live, the entire federal Senate for example, each state gets 2 senators regardless of it's population. Puerto Rico gets zero, and yet they're US citizens who have to pay federal taxes.
How is this suggestion worse than those?
It’s not undemocratic for people to be uneven
Spoken like a true American!
Democracy does not require equality...
You realize that right? Go look up the definition, there's nothing about "everyone is equal" in there.
"for the future"
There is no future that matters to me if it doesn't contain humans.
We definitely need to leave the environment a better place for them too.
These things aren't mutually exclusive.
Bull-fucking-shit.
First off let’s talk about that hot take of yours that people with kids are more invested in the future.
One of the reasons that I don't have kids is because of the future. I don’t deserve a medal for it, it’s just where I stand. But, talk with parents about why they had kids. It’s never about how great that child’s life is gonna be- climate change will make their life fucking hell.
It’s a patently stupid reason to disenfranchise voters because people with kids are slightly more likely to be conservative than people without… and people with lots of kids are significantly more likely to be conservative.
Further, it’s the kind of ignorant argument that those with lots of kids will accept as a reason to vote against their own best interests.
Second off, the idea that parents are voting for their kids requires a patently false assumption that parents will always be voting for that child’s interests. Kind of like how it was assumed slaveowners had the best interest of their slaves…
Which, given the republican push for child labor…just how dystopian do you want to get?
The suggestion wasn't to remove the vote from people who don't have children.
So your entire argument is predicated on a faulty base.
The suggestion wasn’t to remove the vote from people who don’t have children.
No. the suggestion was to give people who already have a vote increased voting power. next you'll say it's okay because kids only count as 3/5's a person.
The state of Wyoming has 2 US Federal Senators, for 576,000 citizens. The state of California has 2 US Federal Senators, for 39,000,000 citizens.
We already have systems that change voting power of an individual based on arbitrary things.
Why is this one worse?
I don't get how you're not understanding this. A parent is responsible for more than 1 person, because in order to become a parent you have to have children. You disenfranchise those children by default for 18 years to increase YOUR voting power. This suggestion is just a form of voting by proxy for people who should be represented but currently are not.
Invested in the future of your children, not in the country for everyone else. I’d say you should get fewer votes because you’d be biased.
There is no country without everyone's children. There is no future worth worrying about either...
One vote. One person.
Although, maybe minorities should get 3 votes each.
Wyoming, 2 senators, 576k people
California, 2 senators, 39 million people
No. No you are not. That's nonsense and I already told someone else why. Because people have children that are not theirs that they love and want to thrive.
And yet, if nobody had children, there wouldn't be any "children that are not theirs" either.
Parents are fucking tired from dealing with their kids so they should get no vote because good parents don't have the energy to inform themselves.
It's not undemocratic for people to be uneven. There's already precedent for taking away votes from certain groups.
I don't think we should do it, but it's not a bad idea.
Okay, I don't really have a problem with you having this opinion.
I have a problem with your opinion because there's some high profile eyeliner with something vaguely resembling a human behind it advocating for it.
We all know the next step is to take away the votes of anyone they don't like. "We showed parents have skin in the game. But not adoptive parents because that's not their natural born child." "Since the gays can't have children they don't get a vote." "Hispanic people are just having more children so they get more votes, we need to level the playing field."
Just because I didn't shoot children out of my dick or however they're born doesn't mean I have less skin in the game. To say otherwise is self serving garbage. I have nephews and nieces that I'm very involved with.
You want an extra vote? Go to the school board. Your vote there counts for thousands because there's no one going. That's how these far right folks with a censorship agenda get their shit done.
Hello not-a-parent.
Parent of 3, own two businesses, coach kids sport, second job and university student studying global defense challenges and organizational sustainability.
How are you keeping yourself informed with all that not-a-parent energy?
You must be an awful parent if you're keeping yourself informed because you wouldn't have the energy if you were a good parent. Do we really want bad parents voting? These people can't even prioritize their households, much less their nation!!!
If you couldn't tell, both the comment you replied to and this one is over the top garbage. Of course I don't think parents shouldn't vote. That's fucking stupid. Things are happening that affect them and their family. But to say that they should get extra votes because they have kids is also fucking stupid. Things are happening that affect me and my family just the same.
Just because I'm adopted and my nieces and nephews don't share my DNA doesn't mean I don't want a better world for them. Just because some meth heads shat me out doesn't mean they should get to vote more.
The logic is sound when viewed in isolation - in theory parents care more about the future as their kids live in it, I can see that. And that's about where the logic ends.
what about those who chose not to have kids to provide for a better future?
those who have kids to get more votes, undermining the whole premise
those who are actually making a better future as non parents.
the basics founding block of democracy of one person, one vote?
"the basics founding block of democracy of one person, one vote"
No it isn't. Democracy as an electoral system does not have any such requirement in it's definition.
It was still a democracy when black people and women couldn't vote. People just eventually agreed that it should be more equal. We still don't let certain people vote though (kids have no voice, and neither do some criminals)
As for those other people, they still have a vote, it's just a smaller amount than people who would have kids.
Again, I don't actually think this is a good idea, I just see that there is potentially good outcomes from it.
Not the ones who downvited you, your points are valid.
My argument back is that at these times black people wernt people, and women were property therefore no vote. Hell, you wernt a man if you didn't have land (hence the landowner vote).
I don't think its a good idea either, but society progresses when we can bring things into the open to discuss pros and cons - just so happens this holds considerable cons... and ironically came from a con.
"More likely"
"examples"
You don't understand the difference between data and anecdotes
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
go to feed...
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.
save