As the presidential election is fast approaching, we have seen comments such as "My family and I have decided who to vote for", "My household will vote for" and so on.

Do you think the husband should dictate who his wife and/or children should cast their votes for? Can this lead to disunity/fight in a home in a case where the wife decides not to agree with the husband?
I feel individuals should be entitled to decide who to choose as candidate.
Please share your opinion.

Seun please do the needful

.

pickabeau1:
.

Oga, no space booking, share your opinion...

lolaxavier:


Oga, no space booking, share your opinion...

That is my opinion
This should not be an issue

As with any issue with differences, tolerance and mutual respect

Voting should be based on individual and personal conviction. Mummy can be APC while Daddy supports PDP. Even children can decide not to vote all together.
It's personal choice..

chipmunkey:
Voting should be based on individual and personal conviction. Mummy can be APC while Daddy supports PDP. Even children can decide not to vote all together.
It's personal choice..

Exactly my point of view but there have been instances where families have disagreed on this same issue. I created the post because of an experience I witnessed last week.

So what will the tail of the house determine


after all if there's head of the house there should also be tail of the house



rada rada

SAMBARRY:
So what will the tail of the house determine


after all if there's head of the house there should also be tail of the house



rada rada

lolaxavier:

What apoon?

My mum loves GEJ because she knows that all the killings and Boko haram wahala is a northern (awusa) plan to unseat GEJ.

My elder brother hates GEJ because of the devaluation of our Currency and now scarcity of dollars. So you see my mum is head but can't tell any one of us whom to vote in the elections.

Good part is that my brother doesn't have a PVC whereas my mum and sisters have a PVC and will vote GEJ

3cycle:
My mum loves GEJ because she knows that all the killings and Boko haram wahala is a northern (awusa) plan to unseat GEJ.

My elder brother hates GEJ because of the devaluation of our Currency and now scarcity of dollars. So you see my mum is head but can't tell any one of us whom to vote in the elections.

Good part is that my brother doesn't have a PVC whereas my mum and sisters have a PVC and will vote GEJ

Well that might be true in your case, but don't you think it is easy for your brother to have disagreed on this because it was your mum. Do you think it will be easy if it had been your dad?

lolaxavier:


Well that might be true in your case, but don't you think it is easy for your brother to have disagreed on this because it was your mum. Do you think it will be easy if it had been your dad?

My dad was non partisan.
Our decision when it comes to politics is non of his business.
By the way we all are adults now.

It all depends on the partisanship of the man. You can't expect an active party man to have his family voting the opposite direction .e.g. Amaechi's wife or children voting for PDP. But for non-active men, the choice should be individual based though they can come together to harmonise their choices.

Because of Why?

myhoodlink:
It all depends on the partisanship of the man. You can't expect an active party man to have his family voting the opposite direction .e.g. Amaechi's wife or children voting for PDP. But for non-active men, the choice should be individual based though they can come together to harmonise their choices.

Hmmmmm, I still feel partisanship or no partisanship, one's view on who to vote for should be a personal decision. This can be likened to religion when one grows up in a family that attends redeemed church for example, he is certainly bound to be in redeemed while growing but along the line of aging, he or she should have the final say on which denomination he or she feels more comfortable with.

ImBae:
Because of Why?

Because he is the home head...

Good question.
I don't see why the "head" of the household can't or necessarily shouldn't.

It worked that way in the past in some societies - there was only 1 vote per household and the head cast it.
What reasons would there be for a united household to have different views on who should be elected to government office?

If my wife and I have similar worldviews and progressive desire for our families, what's to stop us scrutinising the aspirants and coming to a conclusion as to what's best for us and our children?

I don't have anything per se against universal sufferage, but that's not to say it's somehow better. It also speaks the "autonomy" that is gripping us now. Possibly diluting the power of family and community, by pitting them against each other in an ideological sense.


TV^MIC

Proper democracy means you can vote faithfully but in private. No one need know, nor could they prove, who you voted for on the day

No. The head of the home can only suggest and not force or coarse.

Voting should be personal,and independent of the political belief of the head of the family..

Flytefalls:
Proper democracy is means you can vote faithfully but in private. No one need know, nor could they prove, who you voted for on the day

Gbagaunnnnnn.....

lolaxavier:


Gbagaunnnnnn.....

My phone keyboard has made me illiterate nowadays, excuse the error

TV01:
Good question.
I don't see why the "head" of the household can't or necessarily shouldn't.

It worked that way in the past in some societies - there was only 1 vote per household and the head cast it.
What reasons would there be for a united household to have different views on who should be elected to government office?

If my wife and I have similar worldviews and progressive desire for our families, what's to stop us scrutinising the aspirants and coming to a conclusion as to what's best for us and our children?

I don't have anything per se against universal sufferage, but that's not to say it's somehow better. It also speaks the "autonomy" that is gripping us now. Possibly diluting the power of family and community, by pitting them against each other in an ideological sense.


TV^MIC

You are only referring to a situation where both ended up agreeing to a conclusion. What if it is otherwise? If I have a wife at this stage and she is trying to convince me to vote for GEJ, I will definitely not even listen not to talk of reaching a conclusion. In that case, will you send her packing?
This has nothing to do with any autonomy. Everyone has equal rights when it comes to voting. If your wife feels GEJ has ruined this country, you certainly have no right to force her to vote GEJ.

lolaxavier:
You are only referring to a situation where both ended up agreeing to a conclusion. What if it is otherwise?

If they discuss with their vested family interests in mind, why won't they come to a common conclusion? Even if they don't come to a common conclusion, that does not mean they cannot agree on who the household should vote for.

lolaxavier:
If I have a wife at this stage and she is trying to convince me to vote for GEJ, I will definitely not even listen not to talk of reaching a conclusion. In that case, will you send her packing?

Perhaps voters consider the issue backward. We are wedded to each other, not a politician or political party. Why are we "convinced" to vote for anyone or anything other than our family' best interest? And even if we do not agree is it in our best interest to seperate because of it

lolaxavier:
This has nothing to do with any autonomy. Everyone has equal rights when it comes to voting. If your wife feels GEJ has ruined this country, you certainly have no right to force her to vote GEJ.

To my mind, it is indeed evidence of the progressive autonomy that's being pursued.

The "equal right to vote" is as society has decided, we could also decide on "household right to vote". I have seen nothing to suggest individual right to vote is any better in that it leads to better elected officials or improved governance. You harp on about the right, think about the outcome.


TV

TV01:

If they discuss with their vested family interests in mind, why won't they come to a common conclusion? Even if they don't come to a common conclusion, that does not mean they cannot agree on who the household should vote for.


Perhaps voters consider the issue backward. We are wedded to each other, not a politician or political party. Why are we "convinced" to vote for anyone or anything other than our family' best interest? And even if we do not agree is it in our best interest to seperate because of it


To my mind, it is indeed evidence of the progressive autonomy that's being pursued.

The "equal right to vote" is as society has decided, we could also decide on "household right to vote". I have seen nothing to suggest individual right to vote is any better in that it leads to better elected officials or improved governance. You harp on about the right, think about the outcome.


TV

I would say your point of view is a text book offering...Try to sample a cross section of your married friends and you will be surprised to see that both husband and wife are probably going to vote different candidates but that does not imply any form of disunity in their homes. No matter how you perceive it, politics rests on ideology and you can't be an authoritarian in this case. It is not all situation in the family that will warrant you to dictate what your spouse must do. These are instances where she can also have rights to her views.
Trying to persuade is an indirect way of suppressing her opinions and you are also indirectly creating a scenario that might lead to quarrel/dissatisfaction.

LMAO @ this thread taking feminism back 1000+ years.





*Sad*

Shollypopzz:
LMAO @ this thread taking feminism back 1000+ years.





*Sad*

What is your point exactly

lolaxavier:

I would say your point of view is a text book offering...

Meaning what exactly? That it makes absolute sense, and you can't find an adequate rebuttal !

lolaxavier:
Try to sample a cross section of your married friends and you will be surprised to see that both husband and wife are probably going to vote different candidates

So you make a somewhat lazy assertion that it wouldn't work practically? What if I told you most of the married couples I know share a common worldview of faith and family first - and vote accordingly - they are not wedded to any political ideology or person

lolaxavier:
but that does not imply any form of disunity in their homes.

Does one vote per household as I outlined it suggest disunity? However,I would reckon that a large difference in worldview could give rise to marital disunity - however the spouses vote.

lolaxavier:

No matter how you perceive it, politics rests on ideology and you can't be an authoritarian in this case. It is not all situation in the family that will warrant you to dictate what your spouse must do. These are instances where she can also have rights to her views.

What I outlined was not authoritarian, it was not dictatorial and neither did it deny anyone rights - why are you mis-ascribing my position?

lolaxavier:
Trying to do persuade is an indirect way of suppressing her opinions and you are also indirectly creating a scenario that might lead to quarrel/dissatisfaction.

Who said persuade?,or suppress? Where did I say it even had to be the heads decision?

If they discuss with their vested family interests in mind, why won't they come to a common conclusion? Even if they don't come to a common conclusion, that does not mean they cannot agree on who the household should vote for.

The "equal right to vote" is as society has decided, we could also decide on "household right to vote". I have seen nothing to suggest individual right to vote is any better in that it leads to better elected officials or improved governance. You harp on about the right, think about the outcome.

You've not made a convincing argument against or answered any of the questions I posed. Thnaks all the same.


TV

lolaxavier:


What is your point exactly

She thinks that wholesale feminism will cover her sins !


TV

lolaxavier:


Trying to do persuade is an indirect way of suppressing her opinions and you are also indirectly creating a scenario that might lead to quarrel/dissatisfaction.

How is persuasion suppression?

persuade - /pəˈsweɪd/
verb
1. induce (someone) to do something through reasoning or
argument.

suppress - /səˈprɛs/
verb
1. forcibly put an end to

There is no need to be dishonest just because you want to push your ideologies and beliefs on people. Arguing your point logically is a much better approach and you could learn a thing or two in the process.