Go to the Globe and Mail homepage

Jump to main navigationJump to main content

Report on Business

Economy Lab

Delving into the forces that shape our living standards
Best Business Blog, EPPY awards, 2011 and 2012

Entry archive:

Economy Lab has moved

Only Globe Unlimited members will now have access to a wide range of insightful commentary
and analysis on the economy and markets previously offered on this page.


Globe Unlimited subscribers will be able to read these columns,
written by some of Canada’s most deeply respected economists,
such as Christopher Ragan, Sheryl King, Andrew Jackson, and Clement Gignac,
as part of our ROB INSIGHT section.


All of our readers will still be able to browse the Economy Lab archives and read our
broader coverage of economic data and news by accessing their 10 free articles a month.


Learn more about Globe Unlimited and how to subscribe.

(iStockphoto)
(iStockphoto)

Economy Lab

Why we should give children the vote Add to ...

Miles Corak is a professor of economics with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa. The full version of this post is available at milescorak.com



Children should be given the right to vote from birth. But until they reach the age of majority it should be exercised by proxy with the custodial parent or parents given an extra vote for every child under their guardianship.

More related to this story

This scheme of voting has a long history, but most recently it has become known as a "Demeny" voting, after the noted demographer Paul Demeny, who put the idea forward in a 1986 publication.

His proposal was motivated by a belief that it would increase fertility rates, declining fertility being perceived to be an important public policy issue at the time he was writing.

But a human rights perspective suggests that the idea of extending the franchise to children should be done without regard to consequences. It should be done because it is inherently appropriate: it respects the inalienable and inherent rights of children as citizens.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear that children have inherent civil and political rights. It is also clear that governments should respect the responsibilities and duties of parents and families to uphold the rights of the child "in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child".

The fact that children are not given the franchise, that families are not able to exercise the franchise on their behalf, is a failure to uphold the civil and political rights of the child.

In a 2011 radio interview, Mr. Demeny motivated his voting scheme not at all in terms of its consequences, but rather by the idea that it was a natural progression of the democratic project: just as this project was concerned with the extension of the franchise without regard to property and class during the 19th century; just as it was concerned with the extension of the franchise without regard to gender during the 20th century; so it should be concerned with the extension of the franchise during the 21st century without regard to generational status.

A "rights" framework is also valuable in the discussion of socio-economic rights that require a "positive" duty from the state: not because it emphasizes adjudication as a means to uphold these rights, but rather because it encourages engagement in determing social priorities.

The right to education, to health care, and to live free from poverty cannot really be settled through adjudication. They reflect the setting of political priorities, require government spending, and therefore the exercise of trade-offs.

But the politics of making these trade-offs is biased because children do not have political voice. A rights framework makes us more sensitive to this bias.

Just as society transfers economic resources to parents for the benefit of children, so also it should transfer political resources.

Mr. Demeny suggested that each parent should be given the right to exercise an extra half vote for each child under their guardianship.

Others will be more cautious in giving parents any extra votes at all, particularly in cases of abuse, or when the family is not concerned with the welfare of children, or when children no longer reside with their parents.

But my own view is that mothers, or when appropriate the custodial parent, should be given the entire proxy vote for each child under their guardianship.

This follows the precedent in Canada and other countries of transferring economic resources intended for the child directly to the mother, a policy that reflects empirical research documenting that household expenditures tend on average to more clearly reflect the needs of the child when the mother's bargaining power in the household is stronger.

Extending the franchise to children will increase the incentive for families to vote, but more importantly it will also increase the incentive for politicians to reflect their concerns. During election campaigns, daycare centres will be visited as often as workplaces and homes for the aged.

Only in this way will the socio-economic rights of children be fairly recognized, and only in this way is there dignity for all in both the fundamental institutions of society and the conduct of public policy.

Follow on Twitter: @milescorak

In the know

Most popular video »

Highlights

More from The Globe and Mail

Most Popular Stories