Parents are charged with responsibility for their children, and therefore, parents must be the advocates for their childrens' interests, while exercising adult-level discretion.
This is essentially the same reason that women didn't have the vote in the past. They didn't need it. Because the man of the house was the representative of the entire family: husband, wife, children, servants, other relatives living on the land. A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family. Western consumerism and individualism, killing off the concept of the family, has caused everyone to decide they need to individually represent themselves and their own selfish interests, rather than their family, neighborhood, community, employer, etc.
You compared parents' responsibility for their children to the past voting system where only the man of the house voted, representing the whole family. However, this comparison is flawed. Just because a man voted for the entire family in the past doesn't mean it was fair or right. Each person has unique needs and opinions, and it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests.
For example, imagine a family where the children have different hobbies and preferences from their parents. The parents might not always make choices that reflect what's best for each child individually. Similarly, a man voting for his entire family in the past wouldn't necessarily know or consider the unique needs of his wife, children, or servants. Individual voices matter, and while parents have a vital role in supporting their children, comparing this to historical voting practices doesn't make sense.
> it's not logical to assume one person can represent everyone's interests.
Actually that is the fundamental proposal of representative Democracy, so I have to lol at this proposition that your Senator or MP or MEP can't represent your interests. (No, not everyone's, but must represent constituents fairly throughout the district.)
See, you're speaking from a modern perspective of individualism, and that's exactly why "one family, one vote" won't work anymore. I have no particular interest in going back to that situation, because the whole world has changed around it, and it doesn't make any sense anymore. But I am just telling y'all why it made sense before, because of the remaining collectivism that united families under the same/similar/allied ideals and values.
Of course, as individualism deconstructs the family and splits us into one-man (one-woman) (Gnome Ann) islands, with our own ideals and values and votes, then the issues change. In the past, the issues may have been focused on legislation that affects the family as a unit, something that affects landowners in a certain favorable way, something that, say, encouraged procreation and childbearing. Or it encouraged farmers to grow a certain crop, or something. Or labor reforms improved the situation for a working man who was feeding a substantial family.
But nowadays, issues focus on indivuality, and what we can get for ourselves. The less relevant a family unit is to government, the more relevant is the individual, and the more likely that individuals fight for individual freedoms and individual rights, because the individual vote gives them that sovereign rule over their own household of one. So there's no going back, no. Feline suffrage is on the table.
I'm sorry, you're saying that in the same way children shouldn't need to vote, women shouldn't need to, vote? Or are you arguing that children should be involved like this and more, but just doing it obtusely?
They can't be trusted. They are like children. God put the man over his household. The list goes on. This stuff is ingrained in a lot of people. Maybe progressivism is the fad.
This is essentially the same reason that women didn't have the vote in the past. They didn't need it. Because the man of the house was the representative of the entire family: husband, wife, children, servants, other relatives living on the land. A landowner could have a large family, and his vote represented the collective interests of the entire family. Western consumerism and individualism, killing off the concept of the family, has caused everyone to decide they need to individually represent themselves and their own selfish interests, rather than their family, neighborhood, community, employer, etc.