This is a fucking horrible heuristic; the people who have the most children often also have ideas that are actively detrimental to the future and success of society.It used to be the law that you needed to own property in order to be allowed to vote. Theory being that property owners had the most invested in society to be the ones to care about the outcome.
I would bring back the general idea but with a change. In order to vote or hold political office, you need to have children of your own. People without children seem to me to lack a certain attachment to the future and success of society.
Who decides and why is an open question, and I personally believe it would be landowners and those who have participated military service. Functionally speaking, a military exists to protect land rights, and land rights exist to benefit a public of landowners and their tenants. The tenants, however, are transient, and much of their value is human capital- eminently transferable. They could leave the country at any time and have the very same value, or even gain in value. If a landowner was similarly evicted, be it a farmer, businessman, or homeowner, they would be in the hole for much of their worth comparatively and without access to a significant chunk of their skillset.Who decides who has the most valid stake in the country and its elections? Why should I give up my rights and not vote upon my ideals because somebody else's are "more valid"?