The National Government’s decision to suspend payments to the Super Fund has put the superannuation consensus on the skids. Late baby boomers like me are uneasy about the security of our super. Gen X and Yers are grumpy about the prospect of paying taxes for baby boomers’ pensions when it is likely by the time they reach retirement the cupboard will be bare. Bernard Hickey calls it inter-generational theft. Baby boomers got free tertiary education, explosive capital gain on their houses, and will make damn sure they get their super. Gen X and Yers got student loans, were priced out of the housing market, and can’t rely on super. His advice: Get out of Dodge.
The trouble with Hickey’s advice is that baby boomer tyranny is pretty much a fixture across the rich world. Japan is an extreme example. A recent study shows approximately 24% of eligible voters in Japan are parents of children under 18, whilst those concerned about pension levels (55 years +) constitute 43% of voters. The result? Great pensions and policies for the ageing. And lousy policies for families. No wonder fertility rates are among the lowest in the world.
Rhema Vaithianathan, an economist at Auckland University’s Business School, who is a friend of mine and has done some work on the economic impact of the Government’s super city plans, was in Tokyo recently and did some research with a Japanese colleague on a possible solution to this. The idea, called Demeny voting after its originator Paul Demeny (1986), is to give parents the right to vote on behalf of their children until they are old enough to vote for themselves. (You thought reducing the voting age to 16 was radical!)
Apply the Demeny principle and the voting power of Japanese parents rises from 24 to 37%, while the over-55s decreases from 43 to 35%, giving Japanese politicians a good incentive to pay more attention to intergenerational equity.
Dr Vaithianathan argues the Demeny principle could provide the answer to New Zealand’s own problems with intergenerational equity. Our fertility rate is higher than Japan’s but it is declining fast. Over-55s are 13% of the population but this is expected to double in the next 40 years.
“Why should I, as a member of a household with two adults and no children, have more voting power than a solo parent down the road with three children?” Dr Vaithianathan says. “After all, her children inherit the future of this country, and they, via their parents initially, should have a say in what happens.”
Worth considering?
Manyard J wrote:
And that aside, all completely missing the point – it is not more than one vote per person, but a vote held in trust. If you vote on behalf of your kids, you are voting for their interests until they can do the same, thus ensuring a less distorted overall vote (the distortion being the artificial control of a voting age).
I reply:
If there’s aristocratic lesse majesty on display here, perhaps you should look in the mirror and cut the semantic silly buggers. Of course, advocates of Demeny voting want to allow more than one vote per person — if that person has the entirely spurious authority of a viable reproductive system and happens to have born children at some point in the last eighteen years. My God, this is the 21st century isn’t it? Sorry to write the reality check here, but people who either choose not to have children (like Helen Clark) or are infertile (like me) are not second-class citizens.
Top five Bloggers’ Objections (and my responses).
1. We shouldn’t let anyone cast a vote on another’s behalf.
Huh?? How about informed consent? Or religious “induction” (baptism, communion)?
All these are human rights and moral positions which parents assert on behalf of their children until the children reach the age of majority.
Why is it reasonable for a parent to decide whether to put a child on Ritalin, but not to decide whether the child should vote for National or Labour?
We trust parents to do the best for their children in a range of decisions, so why not the decision on their vote?
2. It simply increases the voting power of younger populations (Auckland/ Catholics/ Conservative Christians / Maori) and reduces the voting power of older and childless populations (Tauranga, Gay and Queer voters, Me).
Response 1: You can’t write a constitution with a calculator. You can’t decide on enfranchisement based on whose interests are served, but on who deserves to be represented. So, let’s decide this on principles first and foremost. Children are citizens; they have a right to be counted at the ballot box.
But if your taste runs to the pragmatic….
Response 2: Changing the balance of power towards the young is a good thing given the shifting demographics in New Zealand where the young (who will eventually be paying for the pensions and health care of aging baby-boomers) are going to be increasingly out-voted by a large aging retiree population. Enfranchising children offers ballast against this power-bloc, ensuring that policy is not captured to serve the interests of this large demographic group.
3. Creates an “anomaly” where parents are unfairly over-represented.
It’s not creating an anomaly, it’s correcting an existing one. Votes should send an accurate “statistical signal” about the numbers who are being helped or harmed by politicians’ decisions. When the young are denied the vote, this “signal” is biased.
4. Grandparents, parents, aunties and uncles already vote with the interests of children at heart.
On this basis, let’s have a “1 family, 1 vote” rule or “1 city 1 vote” (oops , that’s right we have that – thanks Rodney
5. Kate Sheppard would never have consented to having husbands vote on behalf of their wives, so we should reject the idea of parents voting on behalf of their children.
There is a vast difference between voting on behalf of an adult vs. a child who is at an age where they are unable to fully understand the ramifications of their vote. What that age ought to be is certainly an issue worth debating – but that is very separate from the merits of the Demeny Voting system being proposed.
Jarbury – “no taxation without representation” is quite a famous piece of world history I didn’t make it up, run along and that over-priced BA and look it up.
George D – that’s unfair. I have utter disdain for the poor who think others need to be made poorer so they can be richer. Being poor by itself with self-reliance doesn’t offend me in the slightest which is why I choose to live in Asia.
Maynard J – erghhh….when did I equate poor people to rapists and murderers? Go on…..why? I simply said I would trade the expat right to vote with the beneficiaries right to vote.
The left have emerged in recent times as their policy platform lets people vote themselves an income, whether it be money, credits or even subsidised mortgages/housing. This is unsustainable financially as America is finding.
Welfare is meant for the needy (dirt poor), but has spread like a rampant disease to the middle classes who now vote based on how much money they are going to get from the government.
That’s why we can no longer let everyone vote as everyone is not prepared to contribute.
Kate, yes it was the catch cry for the American revolution. Because those in the British colony of the USA were being taxed (and having that money go off to Britain) but didn’t have the power to vote in British elections.
I’m struggling to see the similarity here with how you’ve twisted it to meaning “take the vote away from those who aren’t net tax-payers”. There’s a difference between “no taxation without representation” and “no representation without taxation” – or didn’t you learn that in whatever over-priced degree you got?
Anyway, this blog post got directly refered to in today’s NZ Herald: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10583113
This has to be the most idiotic liberal idea imaginable. Liberal Labourite thinks: “How can I control the population to achieve my aims?” Answer: let everyone vote: criminals, the insane and…children!. More affluent parents tend to have only enough children for whom they know they can provide. Less affluent parents tend to think with their hormones rather than their brains and breed uncontrollably. We already have teenagers making the deliberate choice to leave school uneducated and unqualified and have children by whichever mindless male will oblige and lead a comfortable life living off the Govt.
I could go on but if you don’t get the point, then God Help New Zealand, the “Land of the Long White Shroud”.
Hey Michael M
How about this insane idea?
No dole to be given to anyone under the age of 21.
Perhaps that might start to allay the uncontrollable breeding occurring from 16 onwards? “Oh boy, well at least my parents will look after me and my baby till I’m 18, then I can breed more to get more”
To “damn! I can’t get a benefit till I’m 21. Guess I’ll have to work then… bugger!”
So… would such a radical idea ever float the boat of the right thinking lefties? I’m not beyond helping those who will genuinely need help, but to set an arbitrary age limit at collecting a benefit would surely set our country forward as it means more 18 – 21 year olds in work, training or education and not on a benefit? While I acknowledge that the number of 18 -21 year olds on a benefit has been declining, it is starting to trend upwards again…
It wouldn’t be too cynical to suggest that such a proposal plays into the hand of the politicians. Already we have a political system where people do not vote in the best interests of the country but in their own best interests.
If parents were able to vote on behalf of their children then the party that offers the biggest family support package (even if it is costed as being unaffordable) is going to be a shoo in.
Voters are too short-sighted (what’s in it for me today?) and too selfish and politicians are too well political.
It would be better to have one vote per $ paid in tax less any income received from the public purse (thus making incumbent MPs negative voters).
It could create quite an industry for those involved in determining paternity. It may even help keep families together (NO – not just to be able to vote once every 3 years).
I worry about giving more voting power to the younger generation – life experience counts for an awful lot as does maturity.
Even the pollies are regurgitating this rubbish. The high pensions and free tertiary education were paid for us who worked, did not get free tertiary education and paid high 60% taxes and interest rates. The intergenerational theft happened in the Muldoon era. None of us late boomers think there will be any super around for us either unless the government gets a change of heart and reverses the last 50 years of killing any non farming industry in NZ.
[abusive...another like that and you're banned for a week]
Kate, there are not many people of voting age who are currently excluded. Try and pick the most prolific bunch.
Perhaps what you are talking about is a problem but your solution is to abandon democracy. If you want to get rid of democracy, come up with something better than ‘give power back to the rich folks who know best’ thanks.
Craig R – semantics is it? Given your divorce of the idea from a semblance of practical application that is a bit pushy… One would inagine the voter-on-behalf-of would have at least guardianship of the child.
I love how you change ‘voting in the interests of your lovely child for whom you bear responsibility’ to having functional bits and having popped some sprog a while back. Charming. Bit of an abdication of responsibility, no?
Original point still stands – the electorate is distorted because a large percentage of people do not get the vote, even though they are heavily affected by government policy. If it is giving that vote to their parents that causes such angst, then come up with a better way of eliminating that distortion and ensuring all are represented. Who represents under 18 year olds if not their parents?
If you think they should NOT be represented, why is that?
P.S. you might want to tone back on the 2nd class thing – you are making Kate look a bit lunatic apartheid.
This blog is in The Herald now.
This idea was discussed on Nat Radio’s Panel this afternoon, although Red Alert not mentioned. Great idea to float, that people consider more than just themselves in casting their vote, but hope this actual system doesn’t eventuate in reality. Instead two approaches: encourage the life long learning of civics, and take the risk and lower the voting age progressively over a decade or so 16,14,12 maybe even 10 years (after all it wasn’t long ago that men thought women unworthy of enfranchisement).
I think to apply the Demeny principle would be inherently undemocratic as it artificially skews the results. I do not think that a childless member of the community (of voting age) should have less influence than another member of the community with a child. There is no guarantee that the parent will consider the full implications for the child when casting a vote for them. It would also be silly to lower the voting age – I am 21 and just missed out on voting in the 2005 election, I had more interest in politics and the outcome than many of my schoolmates who were 18 already. Even last election I found myself defending Helen Clark’s teeth to those (strange) university students who call themselves conservatives! How about a political maturity test, rather than a set age or more votes for parents?
In addition, this would have done little to avoid the issue we are faced now: National abandoning its’ responsibility to the future superannuitants of New Zealand. The Nats did not advertise their intentions for the superfund during the election campaign and as a result the same voters (whether they had 1 vote or 3) would have fallen into the same trap!
The bigger issue is surely one of ensuring voters are educated enough, engaged, and able to reason and rationally form a political opinion based on both what is good for them and their families, and New Zealand as a whole.
How bloody ridiculous is this suggestion? I wonder sometimes who thinks up such stupid suggestions.
Are you on the same planet as the rest of us.
Just more of this nanny state thinking.
For goodness sake. Kids are just that kids. Already we place to much importance in what they say. They haven’t the wisdom or experience of knowing about life and need to be treated as what they are, children with a lot of growing up to do and life experiences to participate in.
We already witness kids being dragged along to protest marches and protest ,waving their banner being spured on by adults and they wouldn’t have a clue in the world what it is all about.
Manyard J:
“Lunatic apartheid”? If you want to be abusive, could you try coming up with something that makes sense?
If you want to talk about “practical application”, I’m perfectly comfortable with the idea that there are many things minors can’t do for themselves — and I can’t do on their behalf.
Meanwhile, if you want to make a case for lowering the voting age to remedy any “distortions” you perceive, please do. But I’m rather bemused at the idea that undermining the concept of one person, ONE vote is some victory for democracy. As I said, interesting thought experiment — horrifying reality.
“Lunatic apartheid”…I suppose it is tautological by definition.
The entire post is been about the case for including younger votes to remove an electoral distortion, I could probably pick another twenty comments to further present that argument but I will just leave you to read them.
Hell, I will briefly make the point. Kate is arguing that it is not fair that those who do not financially contribute get to vote. The point here is that decisions that affect people across generations are not made with the consent of all those generations – they do not get the vote. A certain generation seems to have voted to ensure super is safe for them without it being secure for future generations. In this fashion, the youth are affected but do not get to have their say. I do not think this is a useful solution either, let me make that clear, but it is worth acknowledging the problem instead of getting deeply aggrieved by a hypothetical solution.
APOLOGIES FOR SPELLING ETC
What the hell? Democracy is already a vile debased system but to give people more power purely on the basis of how many children they have is the ultimate insult and the single most oppressive anti-individualistic step and triablistic nonsense I have ever heard disguised as a plausible idea. It really does show that Labour (particularly the person who proposed or endorses this idea) does not care for those who chose not to have children. To simply answer the question posited at the end of the article, No it it not worth considering. Let me phrase a counter question ‘Why should the single parent of three down the road be ‘democratically’ more significant than any person who does not have children? This is to say why should their opinion be given more weight solely because they have children and if we really want to make it more explicit why should they have more “rights” because they have under-age children? Also let me follow that up with another question “Will they act in a way that the children, for which they are acting as proxy, would find acceptable given the capacity to reason and freedom of thought necessary for the vote to ‘mean’ something? All of this ignores the fact that Democracy (in all of its varied forms) is one of the worst political systems there is with flaws so large that there is no way to reconcile its moral inadequacies.
To anyone who thinks that the parents would vote for the best interests of the child I can only say ‘You are not perfect example of why so many of the philosophical criticisms of democracy hold true’.
Here is a perfect solution to all the problems this is supposed to fix, bind the government to the objective code of moral action (the non-initiation of foce principle)
I agree with Max Percy, children are already having to grow up too fast – let them be children! Those children will eventually turn 18 and get their chance and will have the maturity to vote anyway. I can remember being 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 – my priorities were a lot different!
[...] Politics — danylmc @ 8:05 am Via I/S, Phil Twyford has suggested parents be given the right to vote on behalf of their children. This doesn’t look like a serious suggestion, more an attempt to make a point about [...]
So these people get 10 votes between them and Helen C and Peter D would have 2. hmmm….
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2586396/Police-claim-dad-sold-girl-at-McDonalds
A quick aside on the voting age:
For practical purposes the voting population is not those who are 18 and older. It is those who will be (a) alive, (b) in NZ and (c) 18 or older at the next election.
As for Kate’s wonderful little comment:
“No taxation without representation, and no representation unless you are a net New Zealand tax payer.”
Interesting to see Kate proposing something that by demographics that would almost certainly have given us a Labour/Green govt.
National Super is by far our biggest welfare payout system, and their net health consumption is very high, while elderly NZers tend not to pay so much tax because they have wealth rather than income. I’m now wondering how big an effect it’d have: my guess is that Kate’s proposing cutting the votes to around 60% of those over 65 in this country. That would probably see Act kicked out of parliament too…