Should parents get more than one vote?

Parents should be given extra votes to cast on behalf of their children in order to make politics more "family friendly".

This is one of the reforms proposed in the report by left-of-centre think-tank Demos. It recommends that the voting age be lowered from 18 to 14.

It also suggests that the parents of children below the age of 14 given an extra vote they would cast after discussing it with their children.

If applied, reforms proposed in the report, entitled Other People's Children, would create about three million new voters and 10 million "baby ballots" cast by parents or guardians.

Should parents have extra votes on account of their children? Could it work? Would it lead to unfair elections? Tell us your view.

Thank you for your e-mails. This debate is now closed. A selection of your comments is published below.

---

Why should parents get two votes?

David Hazel, UK

I believe that a vote should be informed and based on mature consideration of the issues involved. Since the age of 18 is when most people are deemed to have sufficient maturity for full adulthood, this seems to me to be the most reasonable age at which people should be allowed to vote. Pushing the age limit down to 14 would effectively "dumb-down" democracy itself. And why should parents get two votes? What is wrong with them taking their children into consideration when placing their existing single vote?
David Hazel, UK

What rubbish is this? As a thirteen-year-old myself, I can safely say that the government of the UK would destroy itself if it allowed fourteen-year-olds to vote. British and American kids alike generally have no interest in politics or know anything about them. What do you want, Chad Kroeger for PM?
Kathryn, USA

Are we forgetting that only a few months ago a survey of teenagers declared that David Beckham should be the Prime Minister? When I was 14 all I knew was what I saw on TV. The only famous people I had heard of were the pop and football stars. Why would the youths of today be any more mature than I was back then?
Matt, UK

My mother-in-law used to vote Tory when Thatcher was leader because she shopped at Marks and Spencer

John, England

We do young people a huge disservice by assuming they would cast their vote based on trivia. My mother-in-law used to vote Tory when Thatcher was leader because she shopped at Marks and Spencer. My wife votes Labour to this day because she once met Neil Kinnock and "he was a lovely man". My 15 year old niece, on the other hand, is interested in environmental and social issues, and would cast her vote (if she had one) far more wisely than do her more "mature" relatives!
John, England

Until the system was reformed, many people in this country used to have two votes. If you were at Oxford or Cambridge, for example, you had a vote in your home town and in your university town. This was abolished as being unfair and undemocratic (in so far as our present voting system is both). So we are now paying some group with nothing better to do, to come up with an almost identical scheme, only this time I suppose under the "family-friendly" banner. It's about time these think-tanks were abolished.
Ann Keith, UK

What utter nonsense. Do the people in these groups live in cloud cuckoo land? The 14 year olds will not have to pay the taxes, or interest rates, or other charges brought in by a government for which the majority of older, experienced, maturer people may not have voted. And who's to say that the parents would not use the votes for themselves, without telling the children? Typical "think tank" nonsense.
Chris, United Kingdom

The reason that young people don't vote is because none of the policies are directed at them. All of the policies commonly talked about only really affect families and pensioners.
Stew, Bristol, UK

Not a good idea at all. A much better and simpler solution would be to lower the age to 16 and leave it at that. After all you can work and leave school and have sex at 16 so why not vote. Plus voting should be compulsory for everyone, with a fine for those who don't vote. You can choose to abstain but you must vote.
Sam, UK

Society is already youth-obsessed

Ricky, UK

Voting is part of the package of being an adult, which involves responsibilities as well as rights, and has consequences when responsibilities are ignored. Children don't have the right to vote but they don't have to take full consequences for their actions either, or, thank heaven, judge the actions of others. Society is already youth-obsessed, to its clear detriment, and flattering adolescents that they are responsible enough to vote would do immeasurable harm.
Ricky, UK

What rubbish to both ideas. I'm a parent, but wouldn't dare to predict my six year-old's political leanings. As for 14 year olds having the vote, well I couldn't decide who I fancied more out of Wham! let alone what political party I felt an allegiance to at that age.
Tig, England

What utter nonsense. Parents already get enough out of the Government, with Child Benefit and Tax Credits being two examples. This is all paid for by the taxpayer including single people like myself who get absolutely zilch. Now some wag is suggesting that our vote is to be diluted by giving parents an extra vote. It's time parents took the responsibility for bringing children into the world instead of relying on people like me to pay for nannying them until they reach 18.
Brian McCaig, Scotland

Recent statistics have shown total apathy in the young voters, with less than 12% bothering to vote in local elections. Why would lowering the age rate improve this? Perhaps the voting age should be increased to 21?
CJ, UK

I've got a better idea introduce IQ testing before being allowed the vote. It would have saved us from Thatcher and might even have avoided two terms of Blair.
Kevin, UK

Although it may be a good idea to lower to voting age to 16 (given that at that age there are responsibilities that are assumed), it cannot be argued that parents may have the right to vote on behalf of their children. There is no means by which the proxy vote could be legitimised; it would simply cause an imbalance in the numbers of votes cast without any justification of the distribution of the "baby ballots". Does Demos actually get paid for ideas like this?
Stu, United Kingdom

What rot - once again everyone has to bend over backwards for parents - time of work, tax breaks etc. This is one suggestion too far!
Eamonn May, England

I wonder how much it cost the Tax payer to come up with such a silly idea?
Doug, London, UK

Isn't this effectively giving the head of the household two votes? Compromising the "one person one vote" basis of our democracy is a step too far. It's an absurd idea that, thankfully, would never happen anyway.
Max Wurr, UK

You can do no better than read of the multiple vote system advocated by Neville Shute in his novel "In the Wet". Everyone got a vote. Parents had another. People with a certain level of education another. Those with a business another, and so on to seven votes in total. The idea was that, the greater your stake in the country, the more say you had at the ballot box.
Arthur Morley, Jersey CI

Given that some families are already claiming each other's children to defraud the Benefits Agency, how long before these same unscrupulous people start "selling" their children in marginal constituencies? We have an age of majority for a purpose - a person aged 17yrs 11mths on Election Day will have their own ideas on how they would vote, and there is little guarantee that their parents would vote accordingly. I know my parents would have ignored my feelings when I was a similar age at the 1992 election. This is probably the most ludicrous idea I have ever heard, so why are we even discussing it?!
ST, UK

Giving extra votes to all parents would lead this country into chaos

Michelle, England

How stupid. It doesn't take much to become a parent, but it takes a great deal to become a responsible one. Giving extra votes to all parents would lead this country into chaos.
Michelle, England

The resources potentially spent implementing this blatantly unfair policy would be far better spent addressing the issue of woefully low voter turnout in the UK and the general disenchantment of the average person with politics.
Tim Bishop, England

Why stop at 14? Why not give children the vote the moment they are born? Just picture it, Tweedledum for Prime Minister, Tweedledee for Chancellor, Laa Laa for Home Secretary, Po for Foreign Secretary, Humpty Dumpty for Deputy PM and Little Weed for Leader of the Commons. Hang on, did I miss something? Sorry, I forgot, we've got a worse parliament than this already.
Dave Tankard, UK

I think it is a good idea. At the moment the 'grey' lobby has too much power. If we keep things as they are we will find all the money goes into pensions and none goes to education!
Tom, UK

The childless would become a marginalised section of society

Gina, UK

There may be an argument for lowering the voting age (I'd say 16 rather than 14), but giving parents an extra vote??? This effectively gives parents, already a powerful group, an anti-demographic edge. The childless would become a marginalised section of society.
Gina, UK

I think that this is a ridiculous suggestion. Children are already forced to grow up to quickly and this is forcing them to grow up even sooner. Next they will want them to have their own parliament! Let children be children for goodness sake. In today's world we live roughly 80-90 years only 18 of those spent as children. At the end of the day its not the children that should grow up but the people who put forward these stupid ideas.
Lisa Luxon, England

Why not introduce a system whereby 14-17 year olds are given an opportunity to vote - without the vote actually counting towards the outcome of an election (although the results of the vote should be made public). The benefits of this would be twofold; firstly, it would instil the 'voting ethic' into young people, and secondly it would provide food for thought for politicians, as this section of the population will be eligible to vote for real at the next election
Tom, England

What utter rubbish! The people who dreamed this one up need to get out more. Voting is restricted to adults for good reason. Having reached a level of maturity we are assumed to have developed the mental aptitude to think logically and make decisions rationally. Pubescent children are not noted for either and are renowned for not listening to their parents. The saddest thing about this think-tanks report is that somebody paid them to produce this rubbish.
Johno, UK

Adult voter turnout is already very low because people don't feel represented by the main parties anymore, so won't children feel the same if not more so?

Pete, UK

A very strange idea. Adult voter turnout is already very low because people don't feel represented by the main parties anymore, so won't children feel the same if not more so? Isn't this just handing an extra vote to anyone who happens to be a parent?
Pete, UK

Sixteen is a logical voting age because it is the age that many people start paying tax. It's only fair for the taxed to be represented. I would be interested to know whether Demos would allow parents with ten children to give ten extra votes to their candidates. It is a nice idea to allow children to vote through their parents, but how do you know the parents will listen?
Michael, Scotland

Don't be silly ...We would literally end up with Will Young (Pop Idol) or David Sneddon (Fame Academy) as Prime Minister, Kate Lawler (Big Brother 2002) as home secretary and with Darius (everything) as Chancellor¿ come to think of it, not such a bad idea!
Graeme, UK

Should parents get more than one vote? No. It would be more responsible if voters were required to attain a certain level of education before being allowed to vote. This would exclude unqualified children and unqualified adults whatever their age.
Mr J T (Tim) Rollinson, UK

16 yes. 14 no. Most younger children have no knowledge or understanding (or interest) of politics and would probably just vote the same as their parents, if at all. Those who did have their own opinion would probably waste their vote by voting Green Party... If a Blue Peter election we had at school is anything to go by!
Emma, England

The age of 18 has actually been chosen for biological reasons. Our brains are not fully mature until our late teens anyway, so it's not a good idea to give the vote to all and sundry, whether by proxy or in full. To answer Emma; why is a Green Party vote a wasted vote? The more votes they are given, the better, in my view. I'm nearly 40 and I think that the children are showing a much smarter view than most adults today.
Simon D, England

This is an absolutely ridiculous idea. Not only does it penalise childless people by awarding extra votes to parents but it also proposes that a child of 14 is mature enough to make informed and independent political choices. I can't believe anyone has even suggested such a flawed and undemocratic idea.
Richard Evans, UK

I think the suggestion of parents getting extra votes is daft. If both parents disagree, which should get the child's vote, and why? And do we really want to lower the voting age to 14? I am not sure, there are some good points to this, but there is also a downside. If we do it will mean all parties (including the BNP) trying to influence children - how will it make ethnic minority children feel with leaflets being handed out etc?
Chris Q, England

No, definitely not. One of the basic principles of democracy is one person one vote. Also what reasons are there for a parent being more qualified than a childless person for having the extra vote?
Ali, UK