What if the French Family Vote Model was passed in 1923?

[Bad@logic]

In 1916, French Féderation républicaine parliamentarian delegate Roulleaux-Dugage, building on French interest in improving the national birth rate and solidifying paternal authority in the family, proposed a family vote model which would give fathers a vote for every child they had, as well as presumably giving married women the vote. This was passed by the French Chamber of Deputies in 1923, by 440 votes with 135 dissenters, but never was taken up by the French Senate. What if the French Senate deigned to take up the proposal, and passed it as well (which seems likely given the degree of support it had in the Chamber of Deputies), implementing a family vote system in France? Would it last? Inspire other systems? Produce any long-term changes in French politics?

For illustration, the proposed system's impact on votes:

 

[Pesterfield]

Do any groups in France at the time already trend toward large families? They would seem to get the most immediate benefit.
It may push some families over the fence if they were already thinking of having more children.

Would some have children just for the votes? Probable, but hopefully everyone would realize how bad an idea that is.

I think Germany might consider it, either under Weimar to rebuild their population for the same reason as France or under the Nazis as part of their Aryan breeding program.

 

[Dolnikan]

Do any groups in France at the time already trend toward large families? They would seem to get the most immediate benefit.
It may push some families over the fence if they were already thinking of having more children.

Would some have children just for the votes? Probable, but hopefully everyone would realize how bad an idea that is.

I think Germany might consider it, either under Weimar to rebuild their population for the same reason as France or under the Nazis as part of their Aryan breeding program.

That would probably be more conservative Catholics in the countryside. With all the consequences that brings.

 

[Bad@logic]

Would some have children just for the votes? Probable, but hopefully everyone would realize how bad an idea that is.

Raising the birth rate was one of the main objectives for the people passing the law, so I don't really think that they would view that as a bad thing - more like mission succeeded. I'm more inclined to think they will be disappointed to learn that most people tend to base having kids on things other than how many votes they get at parliamentary elections.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Sounds absolutely bonkers to me and prone to... exploitation come the radicalising of politics in the 30s and 40s

 

[Bad@logic]

For my thoughts on the international consequences:

I doubt that the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic countries would adopt this, as their models seem to have been less based on corporatist/family centric models. I could see however, it getting some popularity in conservatives and authoritarian Latin American or Eastern European countries, used as a form of gerrymandering for rural populations. It doesn't necessarily seem completely associated with the conservative right in France, but internationally it would quickly become so. I doubt that it would generate any substantial rise in the birth rate in of itself but it would however, help to continue society in a more conservative and traditional direction. In France, it would probably be abolished, presuming no butterflies intervene, with general suffrage reform following WW2, but overseas it would come to and fro, generally being abolished in different revolutions but being restored by conservative groups after they regain power. There might be a few small examples of it internationally in 2021, sort of viewed as quaint and bizarre, much like how gerrymandering probably is internationally.