• BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      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.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        4 months ago

        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?

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          4 months ago

          Are you really arguing that because we have an unequal voting system, we should make it more unequal?

          • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            4 months ago

            I’m saying that it’s already unequal, and nobody is planning on changing that.

            So why shit on other ideas like you aren’t already doing that.

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Because the idea being shit on is awful and would make the problem objectively worse.

              You’re actively arguing to disenfranchise who-the-fuck-knows how many Americans based solely on the fact that they choose to not have kids. And your argument is “parents are special” which is bullshit and then “but it already sucks”.

              Yes. So why make it worse? Parents aren’t special or better. Many parents are too stupid to use birth control and wind up with “Ooops babies”. There is no objective moral superiority to being a parent, nor any objective insight or wisdom that non parents lack.

              So your justification is patently absurd. And you come back with “but why not?”- because it would make things worse.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              4 months ago

              Because your ideas are horrible. You’re not just building a bad system hundreds of years ago that’s over time sorted into a partisan warp on policy that we can’t easily get rid of, you’re proposing, in the modern age, selecting for the type of person you want to influence the government. That’s very much worse.

              • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                Why? We select the type of person we want to influence the government all the time, they’re called party conventions. The parties get together and figure out what their platform will be, and only the people who are in that party get to vote, and the people with money get to influence the result.

                • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  What are you even arguing for against at this point? Just take the L and stop trying to get the last word in, because every new reply you make is more intellectually bankrupt than the last.

                  You aren’t going to win this argument, because the core of this argument you are making is that this Neo-Nazi / Christofacist ghoul that Trump has selected as a running mate is somehow “right” about his plan to disenfranchise people.

                  If this is what you actually support, you are a fascist, full stop. If you are on J.D. Vance’s side, you are a fucking Nazi.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  This is entirely nonsense. A delegate is not a type of person, nor is a voluntary and open party member, and political corruption is not codified electoral preference towards a better class of citizen. You’ve started this whole storm of comment arguing an immoral and poorly thought through philosophy of ‘parents are just better political deciders’ and with every whatabout and excuse for discriminatory systems have demonstrated conclusively that no, you are not.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      I don’t get how you’re not understanding this. There’s no functional difference between giving more voting power to parents, or taking voting power away from the childless.

      If one person is granted more voting power than the other, someone is getting their voting power diminished.