The idea of ​​the right to vote from birth sparked a debate: well-known people in society got involved

Politicians would also target the younger generation of voters

Today, the most active voters are in the 55-75 age group, and in the regions the proportion is even higher in favor of the older generation. As D. Trumpa points out, this means that most politicians focus on working for the most active voters – the older generation, so politics is less focused on the needs of the younger generations. In turn, the younger generation shows less participation because “it’s not about them.”

“The golden logic of the elections tells a simple truth through the lips of the politicians themselves: if you want to change something in Lithuania, you have to be in the Seimas to get to the Seimas, you have to please the voter when you get to the Seimas, you will continue working for those who elected. Therefore, when making decisions, you will simply try to convince those who make up the majority of your voters. Why should a politician speak to young people today if they do not elect him? It goes without saying that young people They are not interested in such a politician either, so many times they do not come to the elections, ”says D. Trumpa.

Although citizens become citizens of the Republic of Lithuania as soon as they are born, the right to vote is acquired only after the age of 18. Until then, the responsibility of representing children rests with the parents, which is why Trump suggests proposing a democracy in which parents and guardians receive an additional vote for each child, so they can vote for a better future for themselves.

According to D. Trump, such changes would allow politics to be focused on the needs of the younger generation, parents would participate more actively in elections, interest in politics among young people would increase and an example of the development of democracy would be shown to the world .

If a nation decides the law is outdated, it changes it

Rimvydas Valatka, a journalist and critic who signed the endorsement on Facebook and is a signatory to the Act of Independence, believes that the right of parents to vote for their children would allow them to look back on the future of the country.

“Giving parents the right to vote for their children will strengthen not only the family, but also the political system. Parents will inevitably have to consult with their children, explain the nuances of politics from an early age, consult on voting. Young families, including future parents, will gain a powerful influence, forcing politicians not to look at their feet, to the current period, but to think strategically, because children need kindergartens, then good schools and facilities. sports, and then good universities. And that’s how minimum twenty years, ”says R. Valatka.

He points out that by implementing the idea, lawyers may first notice the problem, but emphasizes that the law is created by the nation first: “if the nation decides that the law is obsolete, it changes it.”

“Politicians, all kinds of pseudo-Christian politicians can try to keep this idea quiet. Giving the majority the right to vote would break the foundations of their political demagoguery.
The idea is great. Lithuania was one of the first to grant women the right to vote. Lithuania may be the first to go a step further. It is a way of shifting the center of gravity of politics from the past to the future, ”says R. Valatka.

The change would strengthen families and interest in politics sooner.

The idea was also of interest to former CEC member attorney Jonas Udris, who said the idea deserved a “more serious discussion.”

“Even more serious is the reflection on reducing the age of candidates and voting from 16 years old, but I don’t see many arguments to explain why there cannot be such a model. Only for a time: until the citizen turns 18 (or 16), their parents will exercise their right to vote. Older teens might argue in the kitchen why to vote, maybe even go to the polling station with their parents and secretly fill out the ballot themselves with permission. from their parents. Mental exercises are definitely worth it, “reacted J. Udris to the announced idea.

According to the architect, singer and one of the initiators of the Lithuanian Sąjūdis Algirdas Kaušpėdas, the implementation of this idea would bring positive changes to Lithuania.

“While our Constitution gives us the right to vote from the age of 18, a certain moral vote and a commitment to represent our children certainly have value. On the one hand, it would strengthen families and parental responsibility for children; on the other hand, it might even encourage having children to strengthen the family. I think this can make a certain social incision, it would be like an experiment. Of course, such a change would bring positive things, ”says A. Kaušpėdas.

The interpreter and creator of the advertisement Dovilė Filmanavičiūtė was also interested in the idea expressed by D. Trumpa. “Anyway, without deviating from the pearls of the debate, I would totally agree that our family would have 3, not 2, votes and would give them to sober candidates,” she announced on Facebook.

D. Filmanavičiūtė emphasizes that it seems especially important for her family to develop civil society, starting with her and her son.

“The heart breaks when we see examples of friends, when children burn the bonfires on January 13, they know the history of the country, they know who is in charge of our State. I like the idea of ​​Dalius precisely because our children can learn to be responsible with their country and in this way, knowing that they have been deciding since they existed, not as adults, ”he says.

There are also challenges in implementing the idea

In response to the idea, some netizens pointed out that improving the electoral process should start with other changes.

“A really innovative idea! But before that, electronic voting should also be established. It is simply indecent to put the ballots in five envelopes, send them to the mail or move in the districts when voting by mail, and more now, “said photographer Arvydas Rupeika.

At the time, attorney Tomas Jurgelionis commented that the idea was in conflict with the Constitution, so it would be difficult to implement.

“The constitutional principle of the secret ballot requires creating such conditions so that the will of the elector expresses during the vote that no one can control him, influence his election or otherwise impede the free and unrestricted expression of his will. The constitutional principle of the right to vote directly means that when regulating electoral relations, the legislator may not establish such legal regulation that creates preconditions for another person to vote for an elector, unless the elector can exercise this constitutional right due to his condition. health ”, he commented.