The point here isn't to shape the electorate one way or another, but to deal with the giant problem in front of us (23% of the electorate lacking representation) rather than edge cases, and to take any other aspect of the voting system as one finds it

But if the reason is both of these at once, or some other idea that membership in the political community is a prerequisite for being heard in its councils, then there's no proper proxy for a citzen child who lacks one citizen parent. I imagine you disagree with some of these reasons, which is fine!

If the reason is that citizenship is *merely* a test for whether your interests ought to be taken into consideration, then presumably we ought to let noncitizen parents vote for their citizen children, because the latter's interests do count, and the former are capable of representing them

If the reason is that citizenship is *merely* a proxy for knowledge/alignment of interests, then presumably we ought to let citizen parents vote for their noncitizen children (rare, but possible), bc the children still have interests that matter, and the parents know enough to help them

But current law doesn't let noncitizens vote. So if the proposal takes that part of the system for granted, it would matter *why* current law doesn't let them vote

Current law lets noncitizens act as proxies in lots of situations (hospital rooms, litigation, etc.), but it also lets them act for themselves; no one is prevented from giving permission for a surgery on the grounds of citizenship, for example, and the same is largely true of suing in court

(You could imagine a version of the paper that starts off by saying "resident noncitizens and/or felons really should be allowed to vote," and then proceeds for the rest of the 76 pages in almost exactly the same way—which suggests that this is an ancillary concern for the paper, not a central one.)

Thanks for reading! This paper doesn't take any view at all on what the scope of the *adult* franchise should be; its suggestion is just that, whatever limits are appropriate on someone's casting his or her *own* vote, they translate over to that same person's casting a proxy vote for someone else

Also published: "WHAT IS VOTING FOR?," responding to insightful critiques by @profnickstephan.bsky.social and @fishkin.bsky.social

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....

Also endorsed by the U.S. Congress in 1922 — HJ Res 322, 67th Cong., 42 Stat. 1012

And here's a link to the original paper by beidelson.bsky.social and @hellmandeborah.bsky.social :

harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13...

4/

Here's the abstract on @ssrn.bsky.social :

3/

And from the introduction:

2/

And here, in the Boston Globe:

"Let the States Get the Ball Rolling on Amendments"

7/
apps.bostonglobe.com/ideas/graphi...

Prior coverage here, in the Harvard Gazette:

"Amendments Should Start With States"

6/

news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...

Some sample language for an amendment: 5/