Candidates Auckland Central | Tuariki Delamere Banks Peninsula | Ben Atkinson Bay of Plenty | Chris Jenkins Coromandel | Rob Hunter Dunedin | Ben Peters Epsom | Adriana Christie Hamilton East | Naomi Pocock Hamilton West | Hayden Cargo Hutt South | Ben Wylie-van Eerd Mount Albert | Cameron Lord Nelson | Mathew Pottinger New Plymouth | Dan Thurston-Crow North Shore | Shai Navot Northland | Helen Jeremiah Ōhāriu | Jessica Hammond Rongotai | Geoff Simmons Southland | Joel Rowlands Tauranga | Andrew Caie Te Atatū | Brendon Monk Wellington Central | Abe Gray Whangārei | Ciara Swords
- Comms & Events
"Replacement Right" - Intergenerational demographic stability
Can people build a party based on a shared interest in absolutely anything, absolutely anything? What if the interest includes something outrageous like lowering the minimum age of several things? Let's say that a certain religious group (let's call them ex-Christian for arguments' sake) is keen to start marrying kids at 14. A "Gloriavalee-ish" party is not impossible - here's how they could do it: Since the current majority will not ever vote such a change in, since they need a majority in parliament to pass it, they need additional seats. Seats are from votes, votes are from heads, where each head can give exactly one vote. Guess how you can increase a proportion of heads? By birthrate, immigration, and conversion. It is easy enough for a birth-based party to simply have more kids, if their kids will be likely to share their identity through imprinting/indoctrination/genetics. As long as it is the case that anything beyond the first two children of each mother is fully subsidised, the possibility exists for a breeding arms race, ridiculous and inhumane as that sounds. So how to allay those fears, and fears of poverty? Guarantee that kids won't be outcompeted by other kids for their basic necessities, by only fully subsidising the first two of any mother, regardless of religious affiliation, and adopt out any further children if their mental and physical needs cannot be provided. It'd require a lot of oversight to prevent abuse, but should ensure intergenerational demographic stability. If any less than two children have their necessities fully guarantees, the result would be indirect genocide of a demographic group, whereas if any more than two were fully guaranteed, there would be potentially unstable future demographics.
Do you like this suggestion?