I honestly don't think this is a good idea. I do not understand how a mother can be given the power to vote on behalf of her child, who obviously has no idea what is going on. By doing this, women have simply been given the chance to vote twice. Most elections are disputed because of double-voting, however by doing this, it is basically being encouraged. This is not just unethical but outrageous. I can definitely see something like a post-election crisis, whereby the losing side uses this argument and accuses the incumbent of creating such a law to win. Its like a legal way of breaking the law.

I think this is a very bad idea. There is a reason why a portion of the population is 'disenfranchised' and this is for the greater good of the nation as a whole. The idea is pretty ridiculous because like Martey said this is just giving mothers the opportunity to vote twice.What does a 2 month old baby really know about who is best to run Hungary? I can however understand where they are coming from in trying to give everyone equal opportunities but unlike the barring of women and blacks from voting they are trying to compare the decision too, children are not directly involved in a nation's running and even if they are they have no idea what is going on unlike women who were directly involved and were directly affected by whatever decisions the governments chosen did. most importantly, these women and 'blacks people' were aware of what was happening in their countries because they were old enough to. A child's brain is simply not developed enough to understand. Their mothers should not be given the right to vote on their behalf.

I am very surprised at how such a ludicrous idea like this is being considered. First of all, I honestly believe that parents voting on behalf of their kids does not change anything at all because these parents will certainly vote for the side their supporting. As such, this idea, if brought to fruition will only give people a double vote.

I also believe that the reference to the legalisation of blacks and women voting is not valid.Women and blacks were to have a say because they could also think like the men and the other races. Children however are not as advanced in their thinking as adults. Voting for the President is, needless to say a very crucial process for the nation. The country is a car. The President is the driver. It takes a lot of qualification to drive a car or else the car will crash.

If indeed they believe that children are the future leaders, then they must vote for their leaders in future and let today's leaders steer the wheel because they have more experience.

Legalising this system will only waste the voting facilities.

What next, Hungarians? Children representing the country at the UN?

Efua, I think children representing Hungary at the UN is an even better idea than allowing them to go. Having a child's input on issues affecting children all over the world is not that bad an idea. We do have child members of parliament don't we?

No Tembi, I disagree. i'm talking about children between the ages of 6 and 12; pre-adolescence. Children can be involved in isues concerning them but not at the UN level. Let's remember that not all adults are even qualified to be decision makers in the UN, how much more children? Tembi, just take a look the type of resolutions produced at serious MUN gatherings. Most of them are not feasible not because the delegates are not serious or have not done their research, but because the problems are too complicated. delegate and deep for children to comprehend.

To a little extent, I agree with the idea of Hungarian mothers having one extra vote for their children. It is indeed a great idea and opportunity for children to have a say in political matters as decisions taken by political leaders and other members of the government may one way or the other affect the children. Thus, the children can tell their mothers what they want and is their responsibility to analyze and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of their children’s suggestions suiting the children and vote on their behalf.
However, it is evident that this is extremely unreasonable. In fact this is a very brainless idea. As far as my political knowledge is concerned it has always been "one man one vote." Besides, what does a child really know about political on goings in his country other than what he is been told by his parents. Also, how convince are we that the mothers will actually take into consideration, what their children really wanted?
therefore, I think that if the children's participation is really needed in the Hungarian political matters, a children's representative should be set up and the children should be allowed to vote or make decisions for themselves no matter how foolish or unreasonable their ideas might be because making the mother vote on their behalf is just giving the Hungarian mothers an opportunity to vote for their own personal objectives believing that they are voting for what’s best for their children, which may not always be the case as it might not always be what the children might vote for if they are given the opportunity to vote themselves.

I don't think that children are always too immature to make smart decisions. I think our society has just been very fond of looking down on the opinions of children in decision making. They are not always right, but they are not always wrong either.

However, the issue here is, should someone be allowed to to make a decision for someone else because of their Age? I think the problem is in the possibility that a child may see things from a very different perspective if they were to understand the issues. A simple example is the case where emotions of an adult may influence the adults decisions. A child however would have an innocent outlook to the matter in making their decision.

Would a mother be in a good position to know these opinions of their children.

The motive behind this prospective law is laudable: it’s a fine idea for children to contribute to the running of their country. But Hungarian mothers voting for their children? There are a number of flaws with this idea.

Most important of all, like Tembi said, do these children really know that much about government and politics to make an informed choice of a President? There was no specified age range in the article, but judging from the picture and the article’s description of the children as “small children”, I ’m sure they mean children of 1 – 14 years, very few of whom even care about their Presidents. But supposing I’m wrong, there are other flaws with the proposal:

First, why are mothers allowed the extra vote, and not fathers? You could argue that mothers are closer to their children, etc. etc, but isn’t this a hasty generalization? Does this mean in the case of single parent families run by divorced men and widowers, the fathers cannot vote for their children? Also, I think that it would be quite difficult to ensure that the mothers vote for the candidate of their children’s’ choice, and not their own choice candidate, i.e, "double vote" (to quote Martey).

Also, according to Szájer , a Fidesz official in favour of this idea, every mother has an extra vote for maximum one child so that Roma families with many children do not have an undue advantage. This is understandable, but essentially means that in the long run only a select few of the 20 % Hungarian children’s views will be represented, which defeats the purpose of the proposal.

This is very intersting!!!

Hungary Mothers may get extra votes for their children during elections.

I would like to pint out the fact that in most countries, people are allowed to vote only when they are 18 and above. This is not because they are old are are privelaged but because they are expected a certain kind of maturity when it comes to decision making. First of all, i honestly do not think that it will be in the interest of a 5 year old girl to vote for who should run the country, because she does not really know much about her country at age 5 let alone care about who is running her country

It is therefore not right for mothers to be given an extra vote because it is just an avenue for mothers to "double vote" for who they prefer or support. This is highly unfair, and will definately mess up the election process.

Children are not mature enough and therefore their votes will not matter. Mothers therefore do not have to vote for them. It does not make sense and is highly unethical!
I agree with adjoa that the whole purpose will eventually be defeated anyway so why bother?

I am sorry. I made quite a number of spelling mistakes. I hope you still understand what I am trying to say.

Firstly, Yaw it is not about chidren making smart decisions and should therefore be allowed to vote. As Efua said, not all adults are even qualified to make certain decisions at national and international levels.

That is why in the case of voting many countries have agreed on a cerain age limit to allow its citizens to partake in the voting process and chose the people they thik are suitable to lead the country. This is because they believe the children are now matured to make decisions pertaining their lives and the nation as a whole.

With this, I therefore disagree with the situation of the Hungarian mothers voting on behalf of their children. This is because this process will definately not change the fact that the mothers will vote for the candidate they prefer. It is evident that the children will have no say in the candidate they wish to elect, thus this making the process of "double voting" irrelevant and abviously unnecessary.

Let's face facts. For some of you who think children should vote, children are immature! What do children under the ages of 6-12 know about voting. Considering a typical Ghanaian society many children claim that they belong to this political party or the other just because they realize their parents support that political party.

Indeed, it is highly unethical, theat Hungarian mothers vote on behalf of their children.

I don’t think this is that bad an idea!

Children being allowed to influence a decision that would affect their lives in one way or the other, whether they care about it or not.
Wow! I think it’s very brilliant.

A very valid argument from the opponent could be that mothers can vote twice, as Martey called it “Double Vote”. But guys come on, seriously even if some of the mothers were to vote for their own candidates, not every single mother would do that. It is impossible in a situation like this to achieve the set goal. However, at least some children’s opinions would be represented even if it’s just a few.
And I don’t think linking this to the barring of blacks and women from political decisions is that bad.

A century ago, women were insignificant people in society. I mean the males were the breadwinners and all the women had to do was baby making and domestic chores. They didn’t have a say. Moreover, they had come to accept it and I believe some of them did not even care about the running of the nation except the few educated ones. Likewise, the children we are talking about here have been brought up academically and “domestically” to be oblivious of who runs their country, therefore it is not surprising that we assume they cannot make an informed decision about their president.
And I also have a problem with the vote not being cast by the fathers but rather the mothers. Who decides who can make a more informed decision about a president?

“A century ago, women were insignificant people in society. I mean the males were the breadwinners and all the women had to do was baby making and domestic chores. They didn’t have a say”


Mr mawupemor, i will not take it lightly with you if you remind me about the days when my great grandmother and her grandmother did not have a say ...lol….


Anyways, as much as this may a bit sensible in the sense that children’s voices are heard through their mothers. As Adjoa clearly states, what will happen to the voices of those who do not have mother but fathers or uncles? Are their voices not as significant as those with mothers? I mean… wont it be reasonable for the children to have a representative body in political decisions in which every child, sensible enough or capable of voting can do so whether motherless or not so that their voices (votes) would be heard directly from them which would be a more efficient way of finding out the children’s opinion.

Ok yeah. Fine I agree that a part of the population is “disenfranchised and this is for the greater good of the nation as a whole” as Tembi says. But lets look at the ethics of it. I am kid who will grow up and live in the kind of decisions people who even made them might not even live to bear its consequences but of which I will. And yes it is the choice of mothers to make them may be because mother will have the issues of their children at heart rather than fathers. But I think the whole point is to be fair about the people who make the choices and those who bear them all though these choices may be made indirectly through mothers of which I am really not in favor of. But at least these people will grow to face the decisions that was made “in favor of them”or on their behalf and can at least hold someone responsible for what they will face in the future. But I think children at least between certain age limits should be allowed to vote. As Yaw said children are sometimes looked down on. We should be able to attest to this from our MUN simulations and the kind of brilliant arguments and ideas “children” bring up. But what I consider the ethics of it is the rightfulness of someone facing consequences as a result of the decision they opt for or at least having someone who can be held responsible for, for these consequences they will face.

Efua I do agree with you to some extent but then at the same time, as you said, not even all adults can be trusted with making very important decisions. So why not give a few exceptional children the chance to do so. Maybe not in this case but in influencing other decisions made by the government. I do understand that these baby geniuses or whatever you would like to call them are hard to come by but it is always worth the try no? If their suggestions are not good enough the government is under no obligation to put them in place.

Nicely put Tembi...

I de agree that exceptional children with a mind mature enough to make smart decisions be given the right to vote. However the problem comes up: "should adults who are not considered smart under the same criteria used to judge for smart children have their right to vote revoked?"

I think the big problem with this though is: is voting for someone you are supposed to know really well ethical? Should twins who have lived together all their lives, twins who know each other almost perfectly be allowed to vote for one another?

I think they should. but the problem here is determining firstly, how well they know each other and secondly how truthful they are going to be. Since these two measures are difficult to make, I think a decision such as this is very risky.

"I am kid who will grow up and live in the kind of decisions people who even made them might not even live to bear its consequences but of which I will."

Benluck1 or whatever you call yourself(Reuben)!
lets be realistic. I mean we vote after every four years!! how long will the child have to endure a decision made by his mother, which was supposed to be in his favour but not. seriously,in just four years time, he would be able to change things. Please do not make it seem like its a lifelong decision.

I also agree with the argument that this is an outrageous idea, allowing mothers to vote for their children. However, we must consider the fact that this piece of information we have received is from the media. We all know how biased the media can be once something does not properly suit them.

Hungary imposed some media laws last year, which received a lot of criticism, both domestically and internationally. This may be a reason why this new law has been portrayed the way it has been. Also the Fidesz government has received a lot of backlash because of the laws it has chosen to implement and its present structure of government. These previous criticisms, I believe, have influenced people's views on the laws that this government may try to implement. No wonder they openly condemn anything that is presented by the Fidesz government. This, again, is a hasty generalization; that the Fidesz government is incapable of coming up with proper laws.

Let us consider the intentions of the Hungarian government in coming up with this law and let us not shape our views based on what the media is presenting us with, which is mostly biased.

i think that he idea has merit in that the children are going to have to live with the consequences of whatever choices their parents make and so if they are able to understand the politics of the time and make an informed choice they should have the right to represent their interests.
on the other hand reaching the statuary voting age in one's respective country is by no means a reliable indicator of a persons intelligence,maturity or otherwise ability to make a rational and sensible choice. it's also quite possible that if each child eeny meany'd they would by majority vote in the best candidate while rational parents may make less successful choices.
i think therefore that allowing mothers to vote for their children is most likely to result in repeat votes besides which, even if she should attempt to comply with the spirit of thelaw child's preference would most likely have been influenced by his or her parents and if not is likely to turn into a matter of potluck.
along the same vein the propaganda aimed at"impressionable children" is bound to have serious negative effects on their audience and are unlikely to treat the children with the respect that yaw feels they are often deprived of.
i know that in some countries minors who believe they are mature enough to fend for themselves apply to courts to be considered adults and become responsible for their own basic needs income etc.. they basically support themselves.
i figure some variation on that which allows children who believe they are capable of making political decisions which affect their country and can demonstrate an understanding of their politcal system and the positions of the various candidates should be allowed to hold a vote. the system may be somewhat cumbersome but it does ensure that those voting know what thier doing with thier power. in fact i think the system should be adopted for anybody who wishes the right to vote.
of course that does rate the question of the rights of those who do not pass the criteria and whether that means they should be forced to live the conditions created by others without thier input.

of course it does add the dimension of choice. if u don't have a real opinion and are just voting because u can u at least u will be required to know the choice u are making, and the added bureaucracy would discourage disinterested random decisions.

I honestly think that this is actually a very ridiculous idea. Why should a woman have to decide on the candidate she thinks her child may be interested in voting for. This will only lead to a chance for women to add an extra vote of theirs to the candidate they favour. This will spark a lot of disputes as the losing party will definitely use this point of women having to vote for their children as a door for unfairness and double-voting.

I agree with Osca in saying that a person reaching the legal voting age of a country does not mean he or she is actually in the right stage to make a very matured choice for a candidate. I seriously think that the government of Hungary should reconsider this idea to ensure that all citizens of Hungary experience fair voting so as not to start any political unrest in the country.

But then something interesting came to mind, what about the fathers? Why can't the fathers vote for their children. Is this a form of gender discrimination? Really what makes the women better choice-makers for their children than men?

Aside the fact that I believe it is not right to let mothers vote for their children because they will simple vote for who they prefer "again" and the whole purpose will be defeated, I also find kweku's question very intersting.
What really does making women better decision-makers for their children?? What then happens to a child who has no mother and lives with their father alone? Will the father then be allowed to vote?

Now that I think about it, setting the age at eighteen for being able to in most countries may not necessarily mean that is the age that ou are finally mature to make decisions. There are people out there who are twenty five and are still not mature enough to make their own decisions. Likewise there are children out there who are way younger than eighteen and are also incredibly mature and smart for their age to make very sensible decisions, hence vote for the right person. However, this group of "young mature people are of the minority" while the rest of the young population are not even interested at all let alone mature and sensible enough to vote. Majority then carries the vote. The age is set at a reasonable age when MOST people are mature enough. What then, again I say, is the purpose of the second vote for the mother reprresenting her child, if the vote is not of the child preference but of the mother's . I still think this is unfair.

What Kweiba said about maturity just got me thinking about how one can be determined as mature. What exactly are the signs or traits that show that a person is mature, and in this case, mature to vote? Definitely there are very young people who seem to be more mature than people older than them, but does that really make it viable for the age 18 years to be the stage at which maturity is fully developed or enhanced?

I think that there can never be a right 'voting' age because there are still certain people well over forty years who know nothing about the politics of their own country. They can decide to vote based on the candidate who seems to be popular in the eyes of many people. They can also be swayed by the numerous promises they hear on the radio waves, among others. Are we going to say that such people should not be allowed to vote, because then they are similar to little children who would do anything for a bar of chocolate in their hands.

Its interesting that the legal age to vote and do other things which carry a lot of responsibility vary among countries.In the U.S, you can drive at the age of sixteen, but then you can have your learner's permit even earlier than that. Why can't a country like Ghana just shift the driving age to 16 as well? What exactly is influencing the chosen age 18?

I think that we should try and explore the factors which authorities consider when settling on legal ages to certain rights. But then it still holds for me that the idea of Hungarian mothers having to vote for their children is still not a good idea.

In my opinion I think it is quite ethical based on the fact that the children form the better part of the country's population and better still, that the decisions made today are bound to have a greater impact on them tomorrow and so them being represented by their mothers makes sense to me. But the fact that we are human and our preferences differ and so in the case where the mother and the child prefer different candidates, is the mother really going to meet the wishes of her child knowing very well that it may jeopardize the chances of having her preferred candidate in office?
To me that is the question which makes the proposal semi-efficient.

This must be very good news to the mothers in the community. They already have the right to vote and in addition they can vote on someone else's behalf. Terrific!

What is happening here is basically just an appeal to the self-interested nature of human beings. An added privilege; one whose supposed aim is itself in doubt.

I think making provision for extra votes does not entirely solve the problems but makes room for others; one of which has already come up, about Roma women getting many votes. One would attest to the fact that it is in our nature to be sometimes jealous especially considering other minority groups.

Also, we know that there is know guarantee that voting for the same person twice will necessarily prove a good solution. It is not an adequate cover up for another human being's vote; a human who will have a different state of mind, grow under different conditions, behave in a unique way. All these factors make it really hard to stomach the proposal they have put forward.

But the main thing that really spoils their argument is their track record. They are 'cracking down' on media and still expect people to accept their proposition? Even horses recognize bad masters.

I can see a COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS...

BENEFIT-(i) the ethical issue of everyone getting an equal chance to vote is met.
(ii)This will help also help in finding the total population of the country more accurately- Population census.

COST- if children are allowed to vote - more probablity that the parents may vote on behalf of them which can reduce the chances of someone else wining .
For example : Family A has a child-they vote for president A and Family B has no child - they vote for president B.(Family made up of one mother and one father.)

Total Votes for President A- 3votes(the 3rd vote is the child's vote who does not even care!)
Total Votes for President B- 2 votes
Hence reduces the chance of President B to win who deserves equal opportunity to be voted.

Imagine what about the muslim hungarians where by a single man has two or more wives so does that mean that each mother will get an extra vote for their children??

BUT on the whole, I think in order not to miss the point that is to select a PRESIDENT who can drive the car eligibly without crashing the budget of the country which can only be done by making an appropriate, informed and good choice. This also requires critical thinking which are prone to the adults... (i cannot expect a 5 year old to do that.)

Nutshell...this kind of law is just going to cause a chaos and the effect will be the underdevelopment of the country (if a wrong president gets choosen)..