Slashdot Mirror
Voteauction.com
GMontag writes: "Actually, this idea came up on the H2K mailing list a few months ago. A Wired story covers James Baumgartner's idea of the same thing. James is an MFA student at Albany, N.Y.'s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. Basic idea, auction off write-in ballots to the highest bidding special interest group (not politician, read the article). The voters fill everything out themselves and they go through a service to check if the vote was cast "properly". Pretty nifty idea and keeps with the tradition of George Washington of Va., The Hon. Richard J. Daley of Chicago and Cas Walker of Knoxville, Tenn. Research of the last 2 men is an exercise left to the reader. If you were planning on skipping your vote this year, perhaps you can pocket a few bucks instead."
Well the coming of age thing is a big problem in my opinion. After all, kids pay sales taxes but--while they derive some benefits of taxation, i.e. school--they have no governmental representation... Which I (as one of the precocious) always thought was a serious violation of civil rights. But who's gonna stick up for a 15 year old? I mean, they can't even vote!
CNN is running a story about a citizen of Maryland who has put his vote up for auction on E-Bay. The article includes some insight into the laws surrounding such an act.
We must respect evil, and we must make evil respect us.
Well it`d be nice to think that there could be a society where people could get on with their lives and politicians would genuinely be doing the tedious stuff thats needed to get trains running, roads cleaned etc. I think we`d still need people to oversee all that...
but i`m not really up for a `putting the world to rights` thread right now... arent there drug sites that deal with this sort of thing. "if i were prime minister i`d...."
As for the fact that the person who raises the most money often wins. Well, with our current fund raising laws, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, with a cap on the amount an individual can give the politician with the most money generally has the most supporters.
Are you talking about America? If so, you are forgetting about soft money. IMO a soft dollar is probably worth 90% of a hard dollar due to the effectiveness which you can use it in broadcast advertising.
*shrug* Thats all...
Pax -- Ob
Don't worry, I won't. That was the whole point of my post - that voting is useless because every politician once elected completely discards his or her conscience on the altar of reelection. So instead of standing up for what's right, they focus on two things: raising enough money for the next campaign (basically, accepting bribes), and making sure they keep the support of the biggest voting blocs (generally, by casting votes according to polls, when they don't contradict the bribes they've taken).
This is a crock. I won't vote until meaningful reforms are implemented; namely, one-term-only for all offices, the prohibition of lobbying, of political contributions by corporations (for-profit or not) and of total political contributions exceeding $1000 per individual in any given year, and life in prison at hard labor for anyone who violates these terms. Yes, I realize that in many jurisdictions these changes would require constitutional amendments. So what? The current system in this country (and most others) is a farce. I don't expect integrity from politicians because not one this century has ever demonstrated knowledge of the concept.
I fail to see how believing as I do means I have no integrity, but if that's what you choose to think, I won't try and stop you.
Our FIRST Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, linking 13 independent states into a broader Union, while maintaining local sovereignty. That principle remains in the current Constitution of 1787. . . .add to that the fact that several sovereign nations voluntarily joined the US: the Republic of Texas and the Kingdom of Hawaii come to mind. . . .
These are NOT superficial differences. . .
Our democracy is already being baught and sold, We might as well be the ones getting the money :). I doubt it will work, though (except maybe in key, close states...) its probably cheaper to buy america in bulk then each individual person...
One could say the labour unions have been doing something similar to this for a while, and maybe the Christian Coalition as well.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Alright so people bitch and moan about how lobbyists and money skew politics. Well if the voter was paid directly for voting this problem would be exacerbated by a very large factor. I don't see paying voters as part of the solution. Besides how much could political organizations (or lobbyists) actually afford to pay the voter? I think it would be *really* *really* sad if the only way a voter would come out and vote is to be bribed, and our society deserves to go down in flames if it comes to that (after all, they all do eventually). Haven't people seen what the evils of corruption do? Look at law enforcement in almost any latin country! Been there, seen that!
I for one vote on the issues, what a politician stands for, and how that relates to my beliefs. If some piece of shit wants to sell their vote for $5.... and alot of people do that... well then I'm getting the hell out of the US because democracy, the constitution, etc.. is just a joke at that point. I'll go somewhere where people aren't so damn apathetic and self-centered. A place where people who bitch about politics, politicians, etc.. do something about it. With the Internet we can be informed voters. There is no reason to be apathetic anymore. We just need better more useful sites of political information. I don't know maybe at 23 I'm too old fashioned.
JOhn
Campaign for Liberty
Actually no. The electoral college does not require a majority of popular votes cast. It does not even require a plurality (more than any other candidate). President Lincoln, for example, was elected with fewer popular votes than Douglas due to the electoral college.
If at first you don't succeed, try try again. Then give up. No sense being a damn fool about it. -- W. C. Fields
It's not illegal and the rich do own the government.
The only difference here is that the money is going straight to the people rather than the current sysmtem where the corporations pay (buy) the media to brainwash the voter.
Sell your vote? Bypass congress? Is this what they mean by cutting out the middleman? You know this will never happen. The congressperson is the only one who is allowed to sell their vote and they have written the law to keep it that way. If you were allowed to sell your vote can you say " campaign finance reform "?
Voters involved in the Voteauction.com program will vote by mail-in absentee ballot. The completed ballots will be mailed to voteauction.com, where they will be counted, verified and then sent to the appropriate election district. In exchange for voting for the chosen candidate and following the Voteauction.com procedure, the voters will receive an equal share of the winning bid for their state. Voteauction.com will not receive any money from the auction. The starting bid for each state is $100, with a minimum bid increase of $50.
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
Yeah, but at least Gore isn't a retard and a murderer.
The bullet lives on, at least as part of the hockey logo.
Besides, if memory serves me, doesn't the Alma Mater begin "Here's to old R...P...I"?
- Mark
Tutescrew victim 83-85
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Nor a lying, (former) cocaine addict. Is Pat Paulson still around?
I'm Peggy.
heh, I agree with your last statement
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
Actually, I think you're highly underestimating the effect of one vote. It turns out that it's a tiny chance at a very big change, sort of like a lottery that pays off more than 100%.
In one of my philosophy courses, we read that some researcher (I forget who) had estimated the odds of one single vote affecting the outcome of a US presidential election to be about 1 in 200 million. But then, that outcome makes a difference to the entire US population, which at the time of the research was about 200 million. So using a risk analysis, the expected benefit of one vote is roughly the benefit of the preferred outcome to one person. Given those odds, I vote.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing "negligible" with "zero". (Negligible)x(big number) may no longer be negligible.
"Greetings Citizen:
For the next two years you will serve as your district's Federal Representative. You have until November 8 to report to the Capitol, Washington D.C. Failure to report will result in your being found AWOL and in deriliction of duty..."
And as for the other bits keeping people from declaring themselves as dictator, just put the appropriate controls in the Constitution. Heck, we'd have to get a few amendments made just to put the system in operation anyway...
--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Yeah, I don't disagree with you. I'm not voting for either.
I'm Peggy.
/.ers sick of the two party duopoly should vote for Hagelin. Hagelin.org for scoop. He's a Harvard educated physicist and his running mate is an internet entrepreneur.
What more can you ask for!
While I appreciate the sentiment behind the story it would be way better to vote for a qualified candidate than whine about how Gore/Bush isn't a choice.
Maybe you need to learn what sarcasm is too. ;)
Let me guess, now you're going to claim you were being sarcastic. :)
Now, it could be claimed the post I responding to parent's post was set up in a deliberate manner to trick people, i.e., a troll. In which case, my original post would have been wrong, as it wouldn't be sarcasm anymore, but a lie.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I like the last quote in the article
one of two things would happen. He would either be facing a considerable jail sentence, or he
would become one of the most powerful men in America.
This sums it up well. Depending on who he upsets and who he makes rich, he will either go to jail or get very wealthy. I like it, real risk with real payoff, all for calling attention to how corrupt modern democratic politics has become.
Does anyone remember the greek word for government by money? Specicratic? Does this make the US a dollaracracy?
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I think I have too much free time on my hands.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Your example requires amoral voters, journalists who don't care, etc. Elections don't take place in a vacuum. Don't you think that someone would smell a rat if $1000 per vote is on the table?
My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
If the selling of votes isn't already illegal, it should be. It could cause so much corruption, and it goes against everything we hold democratic
C'mon, man... that's just your gut reaction. Think it through -- the political system is already completely corrupt with soft money and lobbyists. Do you think it really matters right now who gets elected?
"And like that
That's pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Duh.
For more information, click here.
Please moderate the parent post (#227) up.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Some good examples of this sort of hacking can be found at the Idiosyntactix Culture Jammer's Encyclopedia - especially in their Guerrilla Hacks and Modest Proposals sections.
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
If I were talking about just buying votes directly from undecideds, you'd have a point.
I'm talking about donating money to groups for use to pay lawyers to fight against certain laws.
If I had it to give, I'd donate a BIG FAT pile of money to any lawyers who could get FACE declared unconstitutional or Roe v. Wade reversed.
Lawyers and advertising campaigns are expensive.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well if you read the goddamn article, you'd see that George Washington bought votes with alcohol at one stage of his career...
"And like that
Along a similar line, who do you think destroyed Clinton's health care package? Member of the government? No, the people who purchased and produced the Hellen and John (or whatever there names are) ads.
Do you think that the producers were repersentative of the general population? Probably not.
Were they elected? No.
Did they represent the wealthy interesets of the insurance companies and drug manufacturers? Yes.
If the selling of votes isn't already illegal, it should be. It could cause so much corruption, and it goes against everything we hold democratic.
Some advice: don't read any newspaper articles about campaign finances or lobbyists. It's just upset you.
Polytechnic Institute is in Troy, NY, not Albany.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
does it hurt to be so stupid, or were you being sarcastic and me one of the humorless bastards that I hate so much on /.?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
That said, I'm voting for Brown on the Libertarian ticket regardless of the ability to make a few bucks by voting for someone else.
What do Libertarians really believe?
There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
(hint: before you go telling me how wrong I am, think about it for a second.)
Why do people put up these annoying little disclaimers? noone is that stupid
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
A lot of people have said "That's sick! You can't buy a vote. It's not democratic. It's not FAIR!" But why are so many people upset at the idea of buying a vote? It's not unusual. It happens all the time.
... This is a good law that will help the citizens of the country lead a better and more productive life?" or was it "Where am I going to put this extra truckload of money the MPAA/RIAA/M$ just brought over?"
... I bet this will encourage writers/musicians/artists to produce unparalleled works of art and will raise the quality of life in America." or perhaps "Disney is giving me how much for my next campaign???!!! Woo-hoo! I am going to Disneyland!"
Think about how many laws are past that are not in the best interest of the constiuents. When the DMCA was passed did Congressman Joe Democrat or Senator John Republican think, "Hmmm
How about the 20 more years extension (after the prior 70 year extension) to copyright laws? Did our representatives think, "Hmm
For the doubters, please read this link and tell me if you still think that you can't buy votes in America or that isn't already done by America's wealthiest individuals and corporations.
A final note. This guy is not actually in favor of selling votes. He's making a mockery of the current system. He wouldn't be offering to buy votes if it wasn't already so ubiquitous. So rather than getting pissed off at him. Why not support him? I can't think of a stronger political statement you could make this November.
Be sarcastic, be cynical, get even.
I'd like to offer $999,999 for your vote this year. How 'bout it? If you can wait till next year I might be able to find some change in my couch to get up to your $1M limit.
Seriously though, do you suffer from the illusion that your vote, cast as you normally would, is about equal in efficacy to $1M donated to groups working for the changes you want to see? If you agree with me that the $1M would be far more efficacious, then I have two questions for you:
Where is the "extra value" in your vote that justifies the $1M price?
What monetary amount, donated appropriately, would you estimate is about equal in efficacy to your one vote?
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD
Today roughly the bottom 5th of households by income do not pay Federal tax. Do you propose that households that effectively pay no tax either by credits or by being on public assitance lose their right to vote. Do they vote only in state or local elections if they pay state or local tax? Everybody pays sales tax, does that count? You pay imputed tax on gasoline does that count. Maybe we should give MORE votes according to how much tax you pay? Is that what you propose? That's Uh.......aristocracy. So be prepared to get a t-shirt that says Apre Moi l'Deluge!
"It's not illegal and the rich do own the government."
This is most definitely illegal. Sure, politicians get campaign funding from companies, but for that to be legal, they are required to report who gave them money, and what amount they were given. This info is available to the public, maybe on a web page somewhere? Not sure... Anyway, some parts of the government are controlled by the rich, but not everything. Anyone who actually cares about the way this country is supposed to work will understand me with this, at least I hope.
Anything that I've missed can probably be answered in the Simpsons episode where they all goto Washington, or the Futurama episode where Nixon gets elected president of earth.
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
Make me an offer.
I bid one novelty T-shirt, marked "I sold my vote, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
See this Salon story.
Make me an offer.
Don't complain unless you know what you're talking about. The US system is called a "democratic republic" because we elect our representatives and do retain some democratic powers.
Athens was not only the first true democracy, but the last one of any real size.
My mom is not a Karma whore!
So I will.
The site claims:
What the Supreme Court has found (in Buckley vs Valeo), is that that restrictions on political contributions and expenditures "necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society requires the expenditure of money."This is not controversial. It takes money to get airtime, buy ads in newspapers, etc. On these grounds, much of the law was invalidated which was being challenged (the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act).
The Court also found that restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest, and that the "appearance of impropriety" in elections was one such interest. And on that basis (badly decided IMO, but WHATever), we have the campaign finance restrictions of today.
The selling of any vote, or even the appearance of selling a vote, would almost certainly pass muster as the reality or appearance of impropriety. And therefore the government has a compelling interest to stop it, which is the interest embodied in the current laws against selling votes.
So, this site and anything like it will never be able to hide behind first amendment considerations, rightfully so. And thus the equation made on the site between buying votes and spending on campaigns is fundamentally flawed; as a critique of our society it is juvenile.
this was done on ebay before. A cnn news story described the phenomenom. According to the article, the practise is very illegal.
Lemurific!
an "Alma Mater" is a school, spesificaly one you've graduated from. For instance, my Alma Mater is Ames HighSchool, and will eventualy be Iowa State. Literaly "mother school", the school you came from
I think you're thinking of "school song"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
What, special interest groups can just buy their votes directly now?
It looks like politicians are becoming a thing of the past.
-asparagui on #efnet
At least this would be much more up front and honest than the current system.
Obviously (I hope) I'm being absurd.
Icebox
The whole basis of voting for a leader is that everyone gets an EQUAL opportunity to influence the final decision.
Wow, somebody actually believes this. I'm flabbergasted.
If this wasn't illegal, the rich would control the entire government until some of the middle class and most of the poor realize that a vote is more important than any dollar amount you can put on it.
The rich don't control the entire government already? Haven't you been paying attention?
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
When I skip sections on the ballot, it's because I don't know the issues, and can't make a stand on them. I like the idea of one person, one vote. Imagine what Microsoft could do with sort of thing.
If the selling of votes isn't already illegal, it should be. It could cause so much corruption, and it goes against everything we hold democratic.
Not terribly unlike the Democrats who are always trying to bribe voters with their own money. The only difference is the Democrats promise to buy you things with your money, rather than give it back to you to spend or save as you choose. So, I guess it's pick your poison...
-----
Actually I did read the article before posting this And the same thing still applies. The only difference is that in this case the person has managed to come up with a minor work around that will keep him from getting caught immediately Overall it's still illegal the person is still basically taking a bribe (cash for vote).
Our ability to vote is one of the rights and to capitilize on that for cash is just fucking stupid
Probably one of those EMAC people.
(and as stated in first reply, it stands for Master of Fine Arts).
And we prefer "Rensselaer", the same as they preferred "Digital" to 'DEC'. Don't ask why . . .
--
Never trust anyone over 90000.
Under rational choice theories of political behavior (see, for example, Downs' An Economic Theory of Democracy), it is irrational to vote if the expected benefit of voting is negative. Since the universe is highly uncertain, and there are tens of thousands of voters in most democratic elections, the gross expected benefit of voting is damn close to zero already, and the net benefit rapidly turns negative when you incorporate the hour it takes to go and vote, the gas for your car, the forgone income or quality time with your family, etc. (Ego satisfaction may have some positive impact, but that's usually offset in most people by the other factors.) It is particularly irrational to vote in the United States, since Democrats and Republicans basically do the same thing once they are elected (take your money/freedom and spend it on their favored groups, without making any real societal changes).
Exchanging money for a vote changes the equation. People who don't otherwise care will vote because the net benefit of voting will be positive. Smaller groups in society benefit from this arrangement because they can "buy" support from apathetic (or even slightly opposed) voters, if they can translate their passion into money.
Imagine the following scenario: homosexuals in Colorado want to defeat an "anti-gay" state referendum (this actually happened). Under "non-vote-buying conditions", you get something like:
- 10% - Adamantly support gay rights
- 10% - Adamantly oppose gay rights
- 10% - Somewhat oppose gay rights
- 70% - Ambivilent; they probably split 35-35
In this situation, the gay rights people lose (the proposal wins 60-40). (The real vote was somewhat closer, 52-48, but the principle is the same.) Now imagine if the gay rights people gave $10 to anyone who voted against the anti-gay proposal (maybe they get the money from Liz Taylor or something; it's not important):- 10% - Adamantly support gay rights
- 10% - Adamantly oppose gay rights
- 10% - Somewhat oppose gay rights
- 70% - Ambivilent; maybe split 50-20 since they get $10 for supporting gay rights (but $0 for opposing them).
In this situation, the outcome is a 60-40 vote against the proposal, and the gay rights people win by converting ambivilent voters. Of course, the anti-gay-rights people could do the same, but if you accept "passion = $$" (admittedly, an imperfect relationship, but well-evidenced by the Israel lobby and other groups) it makes for more equitable outcomes to groups that genuinely care about the issues.My Blog. Sela Ward can sell me long distanc
I already know everything. Reading is such an overrated trifle these days. People come to this site to read commentary by such people as me, not to get their daily reading list. What is this, the Oprah Winfrey show?
For more information, click here.
When ignorant foreigners comment on American politics, it is almost as annoying as when ignorant Americans comment on American politics.
The last tax cut the Republican leaders pushed for in an election year was a 10% cut. They held their majority in Congress, but actually lost seats, which means they really did not have a clear popular mandate for their reforms like they did in 94. They proposed the cut anyway; it failed to pass. Even if it had passed, a Clinton veto would have prevented it from being adopted.
This year, Bush (the GOP Presidential candidate) has yet to offer any specific tax cut proposals, beyond a repeal of the so-called "mariage penalty" (the part of the tax code which pushes joint-filing couples into higher income brackets), and a partial privatization of Social Security.
"They should add more criteria to the right to vote than just coming of age. For example, you have to be a tax payer before you can influence any of the tax legislation."
Bullshit. That is exactly the kind of corruption that is already destroying the process. Suppose the 'taxpayer' block votes to stop paying money to a certain class of Medicare patients and take them off life support. Or suspends public education. How would the uneducated then become taxpayers? What you mean is, only people who are important and have money should be able to vote. Why don't you just tear up the constitution while you're at it?
The idea is, and always has been, that each person gets to have a hand in determining the outcome of the government's efforts. Establishing special criteria for who is 'more' or 'less' qualified to decide these things is exactly what our corrupt political parties have done by engaging lobbyists, refusing to reform capaign finance laws, and so on. It's the idea that you should have some special qualifications before you can really sit at the table. Nonsense. The specially qualified (in this case the rich) can then go on to ensure that they remain specially qualified and others do not.
The selling of your vote ought to come with a fairly stiff penalty . . . but then again I think it already has. Your freedom.
What's further, it would be a grass roots effort if the candidates were to purchase the ballots directly from the individual voter.
It's probably not the best thing for democracy, but nothing new to the US government.
What I like more is conditional fractional voting. That's where you get to plug in a part of vote based on other contingencies. Such as if Prop X gets passed by >Z% then I give 0.45 votes for Prop W. Or, I could split my votes into .25 candidate 1 and .75 candidate 2. Or I could save up votes into a vote pool and spend several votes at once apportioned over many different contingencies.
.01 votes for Dubya or whatnot. Or in exchange for giving up some private information you get a tiny vote credit. Of course you'd have to sign it away anyway so that Steve Case or somebody could use it however they wanted and they not you could transfer it, etc. just like software licences. But you get the picture. Hell - maybe instead of change back from your purchases you could get microvotes! Whoever gives the best deal in exchange would get your business. The end result is obvious - if people can get enough vote credits together then they can unlaterally make up their own referendums, props and candidates. And since the US's three biggest creditors are Japan, UK and Holland, they could swoop in at the last minute and enact gun control and legalized reefer. I can hear Rush's head exploding now.
The idea though of vote auctions seems dangerous. The first thing I'd do is form a VC firm and buy up masses of votes and use them as a more aggressive form of lobbying. I could threaten a candidate with a loss if I didn't get my way where I could control a large percentage of votes that I bought with other people's money. Hell I could sell debt to some third world country at junk bond rates that you would pay for anyway in order to get a tinhorn dictator into my VC vote fund. That way I could get guys like bin Ladin or the Medellin cartel to effectively buy whatever US election they wanted. Now that's Democracy!
Maybe we can get microvotes for surfing the web. You know - click on this button get
3. RULES AGAINST BUYING VOTES(10)
It is useful to distinguish two types of vote markets: the market for the votes of legislators and the market for the votes of the electorate. The first refers to a legislator's vote on a law. A legislator's vote may be valuable to someone who stands to benefit or to lose from the law. The second refers to a member of the electorate's vote for a political candidate. This vote may be valuable to the candidate herself or to others who believe they will benefit if a particular candidate is elected. We begin by discussing the market for legislators' votes since this market is more common.
The Market for Legislators' Votes
Members of a collective would oppose the buying and selling of legislators' votes. The reason is more complex than it seems. Actually, some members of the collective may anticipate gains from allowing legislator vote-buying because they would expect it to make them better off. Consider a bill in the legislature that would give cash payments to a special group of people, say military veterans. The cash payments are financed by taxes on all citizens. Suppose that the veterans expect that by buying the votes of some legislators, they can cause the bill to pass. Then they might favor a system where legislators' votes can be bought and sold.
This kind of vote-buying is most likely wasteful. The net effect is to take money away from one group and give it to another group. So there is no net gain in money. Yet resources are likely to be wasted both by the supporters of the veterans' benefit bill and by its opponents. However, buying legislators' votes need not be so clearly wasteful. The bill may be intended to finance an environmental cleanup and the damaged environment may threaten otherwise clean groundwater or be a spawning place for contagious and deadly disease.
To see why most people would want to outlaw vote-buying, we must put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are likely to lose when others buy votes. Suppose that you expected to be part of the tax-paying group in either of the above cases. To defend yourself against having your wealth taken away, your group would have to bid a higher price for the legislators' votes than others.
There is a virtual infinity of bills that may benefit some groups at the expense of others. If vote-buying were allowed, many people would want to buy votes to support such bills. In order to defend themselves against losing their wealth, the prospective losers would have to bid against them. We can imagine competitive bidding for legislators' votes on thousands of bills. The result would be a needless waste of resources during the bidding process and, of course, substantial benefits for the legislators.
If we had some reason to expect that the benefits from the laws that resulted from such bidding would exceed the harm, we might investigate further. However, the main effect seems to be that the legislators would get rich at the expense of members of the collective.
In short, allowing legislators to sell votes reduces citizens' protection against external costs of collective decision making. Members of the collective hire legislators to help administer the monopoly over force. They expect and want the monopoly to be used only to help supply public goods. To allow legislators to sell their votes would give them a greater incentive than otherwise to use that monopoly over force for other purposes.
In some countries, vote-buying is not outlawed in the constitution but by ordinarily legislation. Even though legislators would seemingly prefer to allow vote-buying, they have passed legislation outlawing it. The apparent reason for this paradox is that if they did not pass such legislation, voters would vote them out of office.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
In sports they do this because it makes gameplay more exciting. With a straight points system, most of the time each point is boring. Only sometimes is it close, and then every point is exciting. With a series, or electoral college type system, there are many more exciting points. Translated into politics, exiciting points means votes that can turn the election, which means more power to the voters.
"I suspect if James got the sort of traffic that Napster got, one of two things would happen. He would either be facing a considerable jail sentence, or he would become one of the most powerful men in America."
And now he's on Slashdot and Wired... heh. He's off to a decent start.
This actually brings to mind a legal question that most posters probably missed. He's a student at RPI, as am I. He runs this site from his public web directory on the RPI server, something all students get.
Now Slashdot has presumably dumped a bunch of traffic on RPI, because lots of people (myself included) checked out his site from the link. The CIS department at RPI is probably looking at their info right now, and noticing an unusual amount of traffic. This will point them to his page, and they'll notice what his doing with it.
That brings up my legal question, which is:
Is he allowed to run this business from RPI's server? I'm pretty sure students aren't allowed to run businesses with their student accounts; does he have special permission because this is a thesis project?
And let us not forget how much the current president has benefited from his predecessors winning the Cold War. Military spending cuts have been a major part of this regime's spending cuts. Sorry... those kind of cuts were simply unthinkable in the Cold War era.
-----
RPI is in Troy, NY, not Albany.
If you read the tone of the writing on the site, it's pretty obvious IMHO that these people are doing this as a comical protest of the way money influences elections and the actions of the government today. It's not a very professional site - for example, the dropdown list of states has NY twice and misses NJ. It also requires you to check a box that says "I have read and agree to the voter agreement." When you click on "voter agreement" it takes you to a page that says "The voter agreement isn't up yet. It will be emailed to you when it's finished."
It's a good idea, though. I just feel bad about all the flames they're going to get from people who don't understand satire....
grep -ri 'should work'
RISE UP MY FELLOWS it is time for the common man to takeover! We take control scrap the current government, and setup a new one based on some of the following great examples...
sparta, athens, rome, the republic by plato, star wars, and yes the constitutuion.
And no I dont care if this whole thing is spelled wrong cause being buried so its unlikly for anyone to read it anyway...
Good grief, what are the moderators smoking???
:/
Tell me why you think this is so off-topic? There should be no annonymous moderation, ie, you should not be able to moderate without a comment on why you think something is OT/FB/etc...
And me here with 2 more points left for mod-ing
"a powerful and unexpected ally..."
My God man, how old are you? 5? Wake up and smell the money, jeezus. You really think this isn't already what happens? That major corporate and lobbying organizations don't already control more or less everything? The only difference here is that votes are being sold earlier in the process than they traditionally have been.
Quite frankly, I find the concept of buying individual votes to be inefficient. It's much cheaper, and quicker, to simply buy the politicians once elected. Since this is what's been going on all along, it's surprising that anyone would be willing to change it.
There's no such thing as justice. There's no such thing as freedom. There's no such thing as integrity. The concept of reelection threw those out the window right from the start.
What the Vermont Constitution has to say about this:
Every person of the full age of eighteen years who is a citizen of the United States, having resided in this State for the period established by the General Assembly and who is of a quiet and peaceable behavior, and will take the following oath or affirmation, shall be entitled to all the privileges of a voter of this state:
You solemnly swear (or affirm) that whenever you give your vote or suffrage, touching any matter that concerns the State of Vermont, you will do it so as in your conscience you shall judge will most conduce to the best good of the same, as established by the Constitution, without fear or favor of any person.
Violate that oath and loose your right to vote.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
use yer brane. nobuddy wunts yer voat.
Ok, you're a troll, but I'm responding anyway, because you illustrate why this system should not only be allowed, but encouraged.
The President doesn't create the budget and then spend the money. He has a lot of influence, sometimes to the point of forcing the Congress' hand by claiming 'they shut down the government', but in the end it's always a tug of war. The fact that says that someone has to explain such a simple concept to you (forgive me if you're not from the US), signifies that you don't know enough to vote. You are obviously so confused by media hype that you can be whipped around to believe anything. Why shouldn't you be able to sell that vote to someone who is willing to put their own money on the line? You're not informed enough to weild it properly.
Democrat, Republican, Liberalist, I don't care. Everyone should be required to pass a test on civil law before they are allowed register to vote. Else, we deginerate into mob rule with debates that go along the lines of :
R: It's their fault! I'm just President.
People: Yeah! That right!
D: Nuh-uhn. It's their fault! We're just Congress.
People: Yeah! That right!
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
I for one believe votes are worthless and you might as well use it to make a statement. NOT voting is a strong statement. It is saying you do not wish to participate in a failed/flawed/corrupt system. By voting, even in this manner, you are further legitimizing this failed/flawed/corrupt system.
And to ward off those civic republicanisms who jump up on their patriotic high horses whenever they hear me say these things: I'm not moving. I love the country, I hate the politics. There is a difference.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
What you forget is that Bill Gates has now re-distributed the wealth. The american people who sold their vote are a little better off, and the people who didn't are probably a little pissed that their candidate didn't win. (Because you would willingly accept the $5000 if you agreed with the platform Bill was pedaling)
So 2 years pass and we find out that Bill's special intrest has screwed over the country... Guess what? Next time people will either vote themselves, or pay a little bit more attention to who they sell their vote to.
If anything the longterm effects force people to become more politically aware.
You say you want a revolution?
The same in Corsica.
A headline of "Le Canard Enchaine" (the chained duck, a french political weekly) lamenting the poor turnout in the last elections was:
meme les morts s'abstenir en nombres
Even the dead didn't have a large turnout
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
That site makes me sick. First of all this is illegal according to federal law. That site should be down within a matter of days. The whole basis of voting for a leader is that everyone gets an EQUAL opportunity to influence the final decision. If you don't wanna vote, then don't vote. You're just giving up that right. But if you sell that vote, then your giving someone else a greater influence on the final decision than everyone else. And how are you sure that person won't sell the vote to someone else, and they perhaps vote in a way that is unfavorable to you. If this wasn't illegal, the rich would control the entire government until some of the middle class and most of the poor realize that a vote is more important than any dollar amount you can put on it.
"0101100101? It's just jibberish. *looks in mirror, gasps* 1010011010@!? AHHHHHH!!"
That's pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.
Ugh, that sounds like some kind of pulmonary disease involving asbestos... but then, IANADoctor...
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this but isn't this just changing whom the middleman is? I mean under conventional election systems, the media, advertising companies and those who make, market and deliver political items are the middlemen. Under this new system, a dot com is the middleman. I agree that this is very similar to Richard the First, Mayor of Chicago. His patronage employees dug up the votes in order to guarantee their jobs. The fact that they altered the outcome of a national election, putting Kennedy in over Nixon, probably thus plunging Cuba into forty additional years of communism, was purely accidental.
Also, why is the presidential election the only one for sale. More money (and the franking privledge) is even more important in congressional or state house elections.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
If you've got the $999,999 right now, I'll take that. By election time I'd have more than $1 in interest.
:)
Where is the "extra value" in your vote that justifies the $1M price?
My principle's can't be purchased cheaply.
What monetary amount, donated appropriately, would you estimate is about equal in efficacy to your one vote?
Good question, I have no answer.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Do you understand the concept of a bribe?? That is basically what it comes down to If you sell your vote (and I'm talking about showing your vote to someone I mean taking money in order to vote how someone else tells you to) is called a bribe bribes are called illegal comprehend that?
Didn't know that actually Where I had referenced it being illegal was from the article posted on CNN about the ebay case so I didn't have an exact section/article to cite
slight edit to this I means I'm NOT talking about showing your vote to someone
Let's see...
born resident
at least 35 years of age
must have lived here for significant part of that
cannot have sworn allegiance to another country
I believe those are the real qualifications for the job. (Someone with a strong civics background please correct/confirm)
So don't go saying there is a lack of "real" qualifications for the job. When I turn 35, I'll be fully qualified...provided the rules don't change by then.
-Vel
I like it a lot. It show's the absurdity of certain laws and attitudes. It reminds me of prostitution laws: If you pay someone cash for sex you're breaking a law (except in parts of Nevada). If you spend the exact same amount of money on gifts, dinner, etc. its called a date.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
I believe there is such a website that allows Presidential candidates to state where they stand on the issues ( > 20). I believe it is here. Unfortunately, none of the major candidates (Nader, Bush, Gore) have answered their questionarre, despite being asked to. That may have changed since I checked the site last.
---- Yay! I have a sig!
A lot of the threads that I've read have been filled with people complaining about not knowing where the candidates stand on the issues. Many of the candidates for the Presidency have responded to a questionarre here. This shows where many candidates stand on many different issues, and thus allows us, as voters, to make informed decisions.
---- Yay! I have a sig!
A group of people, lets just say intelligent tech aware people could come together and form a coalition vote. Not only could they offer this block vote for sale for large amounts, Im sure they could also use it to extract payments from special interest for NOT voting. Assuming of course that this coalition was large enough and had the right marketing.
I saw Andy Roonie (that's gotta be spelled wrong) on 60 minuttes a while back, and he had a proposal for the american political system that I think sounds sensible:
Each of the candidates get an equal amount of money for campaigns from the government. This amount is all they are allowed to use for their campaign. If a candidate use more than this, they are disqualified. Federal (or UN?) inspectors make sure that the rules are obeyed.
That would remove the "richest-gang-wins" problem from the current election process, and probably cut a lot of crappy political commercials.
I still doubt that it would make the american people get of their butts and go vote though.
- the Crazy Fraggle
You should press ENTER
After every line and use
Plain Text formatting.
For more information, click here.
30% PRI members
30% PAN or PRD members
40% undecided; these split 80-20 for the PRI due to free washing machines, televisions, and other gifts provided by the local PRI boss.
This year, the Mexican public voted No to this arrangement and elected the opposition leader, Vicente Fox.
Money != passion. Money == pre-existing power and influence. Allow vote auctions and you entrench those in power, particularly because they typically have more $ to give out, mainly because they've extorted it from their corporate supporters, just like the parties do now.
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
A friend of mine was talking about something like this about three years ago... think of it as "Capitalism meets politics." We (USA) live in a democratic society which promotes a capitalistic economy (or so they would have us believe). Most people feel as if their vote doesn't count or their choices are the same. So why not be able to do the capitalistic thing and sell your vote?
Well, if you're not going to vote in an election, you might as well sell it... Sell it to the highest bidder, the special intrest group which you most agree with, whatever it doesn't really matter - you proffit.
Consider the market, most Americans are apathetic about politics but very interested in the economy. This puts more money in the American workers hand (from selling their vote) and creates an entire new line of work - vote-brokering. Entire blocks of disenchanted voters can be bought out (at a fair price) and sold by these vote-brokers to the highest bidding candidate (well you sold it to them, they can do with it as they please). The neatest thing though? The price of your vote becomes more and more valuable as the election draws closer - and both candidates (or sides to a referendum/whatnot) want your vote more and more as they approach the 51% mark. After that, your vote is 100% worthless.
You wouldn't have to sell your vote, you could still vote normally - but you would have the option of making some money off your vote if you wanted to.
So what happens if someone bad gets elected? Obviously they get into office, screw up and piss off the people, and then the people decide to either vote themselves or make sure they sell their vote to any opposing candidate next time...
Why do I call it Tommunisim? My friend's name is Tommy... and he's grown bizarely adamant about such things...
You say you want a revolution?
Politicians of all stripes make campaign promises, including tax cuts or entitlement increases to influence voters to vote for them, which could be construed as logically equivalent to buying votes, but I don't really think it is. Selling a vote would entail voting for a politician for direct personal gain, but voting in favor of a politician who promises a tax cut is a statement on public policy; I doubt many voters calculate out "If I vote for X, I will get 1/280,000th of a 10,000,000 tax cut over 7 years, whereas a vote for Y only gets me 1/280,000 of 5,000,000 over 3 years", and then votes for the politician who is offering to "pay" more.
I live in Washington, DC, and have watched Congress at work many times. I really believe that most Congressmen are honorable and doing their best at a staggeringly hard job.
I'm starting to wonder about some of the citizens, though.
Actually that's not bad. Why don't we draft our presidents instead of elect them? Here's the deal: if you want to vote, you put yourself in the lottery for president. You are compensated EXACTLY the salary you had the year you took office. You are GUARANTEED by law to have your job when you come back out. Maybe the terms could be shortened to six months to avoid so much disruption. Legislators and the like are still subject to vote, but the guy with the veto pen has no political party, no campaign contributors, and no swarms of advisors crawling up his ass. He cannot propose any new things (i.e., he cannot nullify elections, make himself dictator for life, declare war, or in some other way fundamentally alter things). He (or she) can only approve or deny legislation brought by a group of elected people. That way he can't screw anything up _too_ badly, and he can't be bought. Attempting to give money to this person during their term would be a life-in-prison sort of crime. Oh it could be done badly, but it could be done right too. More like a jury than an elected leader.
I disagree - if people werent so ****ing stupid there`d be nothing wrong with democracy.
SURPRISE UPSET VICTORY!
November 8, 2000
WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) -- In an unlikely turn of events of last nights presidential election, Natalie Portman (Star Wars: Episode I) has been elected President of the United States.
Women's groups around the world celebrated for their first oportunity with a women in the Whitehouse. When informed of the shocking news, Miss Portman commented, "I'd like to thank the american people for such an oportunity. I didn't think that I even had a chance with all the competition. I'd like to thank George Lucas, Rick McCallum, my Mom and Dad... oh wait I thought that was for the academy awards.... who the hell are you guys?"
Both former Vice President Al Gore, and Govenor of Texas, George Bush were unavailable for comment, but spokespeople from both parties have indicated that a recount has been ordered.
You say you want a revolution?
How could you pocket some bucks? Either consider paid holidays like extra cash, or be the first to come up with a non-counterfeitable receipt and sell it to the government. Either way you're on top.
Of course the details would have to be figured out, but I know that I'd be more inclined to vote.
managers...why god invented purgatory
Actually, I'll expand that one a bit.
If people weren't so stupid, and lazy, greedy and generally a bunch of bastards, there'd be no need for democracy.
The citizens vote and pocket their $100.00 all happy and good till the deformed babies show up and they die of cancer.
A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.
War is necrophilia.
Um...this isn't a democracy anyway. Your points are moot. If this were a democracy, we wouldn't have elected representatives and the electoral system, would we?
Isn't this where we get "Vote Early, Vote Often" from?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
As an aside, this points to perhaps a more interesting idea- sell out for corporate money to your favorite cause. What I mean is, if you agree to vote in a way that supports a "special interest" for which you have no special love or hatred, they agree to donate some amount of money to a cause you love. For instance, I agree to Microsoft's request that I vote for Bush on the condition that they donate $20 to the Free Software Foundation. Well, maybe that's not the best example, but hopefully you get the idea. What do you think?
Sausage King of Chicago
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
There are no references.. I was trolling the troll, trying to incite a flamewar of sorts. ('streetlawyer' happens to be one of the trolls around here, and known by many other names.)
He knew perfectly well which Daley had been meant, and I needed fuel for the 'fanatic pro-Boss' to counter me with, so I claimed he had been indicted, which I knew perfectly well was false.
It's fun if you can get a few bites, pissing one way or another, but apparently he wasn't in the mood and you were too late to get in on the rush.
.sig: Now legally binding!
As I think was mentioned before, this is a very bad idea. Sure, you pocket a few bucks, but the last thing we need is for the people with the most money to be able to influence things more than they already are. Just a little bit of thought will show why this is a very, very, very bad idea.
--
Given enough personal experience, all stereotypes are shallow.
Every vote that is cast, even if it is invested in a 3rd Party candidate (don't believe anyone who says a vote is thrown away, those 'discarded' votes got the Reform Party 12 million dollars of government matching funds), is the citizen saying, 'Hey, this system works for me so I use it.'
It is a lot like going to a restaurant even though the service is bad because the food is wonderful.
By not voting, you are saying you are not legitimizing this system. You are refusing to accept the fact that you have been given a limited choice in a vital decision. Vote turnout is decreasing and it isn't because people are apathetic, it is because they don't want to be responsible for putting a Bush in the White House, or backing a lame-ass like Gore.
I give this site major kudos for laying the issue right on the line. I hope some of the major news sources pick up on it and let it shake out some commentary from the pundits.
---
I'm not just a Political Scientist, I'm also a Philosopher. Now who has a toilet that needs to be cleaned?
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
I mean, they're pretty much buying votes as it is, right? Whoever has the biggest ad campain, the most soundbytes, the fanciest tour bus (hey, it's important to me) is probably gonna win. Why not just cut out the middleman, and give all that wasted cash to the people? The politicians wouldn't have to worry about all that advertisement, hand-kissing, and baby-shaking (uh...), we don't have to watch those boring and misleading campain ads 24 hrs a day, and all us ambivalents get some moola to boot! It's especially nice in the case of those heading for reelection, as it lets them keep doing their jobs without interruption or worrying about catering to minority groups. Sure, there are people whose vote can't be bought. But in my experience, these are the belligerent folks who aren't gonna respond to a slew of ads, anyways! So ads just for them wouldn't be worth it. - MWoody (professional devil's advocate... and baby-shaker.)
Er, this may be off-topic, but us monolinguists might find the answer very interesting:
Why on *earth* is it called "The Chained Duck"?! Is there some way to explain this in English that would make the least bit of sense? Or is it just one of those inexplicable idioms that has no meaning?
Curious Minds Wish To Know!
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
"James is an MFA student at Albany, N.Y.'s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "
Last I checked, RPI is 8 miles north of Albany - across the wide reaches of the Hudson River. If your lost, its opposite Watervliet, NY.
When we have true universal access to the Internet, then this could work, but not until then.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
How ridiculous is it that we still use electoral votes? My representatives no longer need to ride a horse and buggy to Washington, D.C. to cast their vote!
Living in the DC area, I can tell you that on many, almost most occaisions, a horse and buggy would be FASTER. . .
As for "direct democracy", nice idea, except for a few minor facts. Structurally, the US is a confederation of 50 smaller political units. The real reason for the Electoral College is to insure the votes of smaller-populated states aren't washed away by the swell of votes of a few highly-populated states. That's why we admit States to the Union, and why the Constitution prevents the sub-division of States into smaller States. . . .
Voting in person overrides your absentee ballot, so you can sell your "absentee" vote and still vote at the polls for the candidate you hate least.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
The current mayor is Richard M. Daley. He made specific and careful mention of Richard J. Daley, mayor from 1955-1976, who was indicted twice on vote rigging and accused of racketeering.
Next time, pay attention before you flame on.
.sig: Now legally binding!
Pleae encourage people to be informed voters. I know I'm preaching to the choir...
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Actually there is no difference.
This article: Person organizes votes that constituent was not going to use. Sells this vote to highest bidder. Divides cash to constituent. (Cash for vote bribe)
eBay case: Constituent sells vote to highest bidder. Recieves cash (Cash for vote bribe)
Soo there is one minor difference theres no middle man in the second case.
And to respond to your saying I didn't cite jurisdictions it doesn't especially matter since it is Federal laws that are violated and on top of that local state voting laws are violated too. You cannot sell or attempt to sell your vote to any political interest It's just wrong and should remain that way. To allow this would basically to be allowing the buying of leadership in our country. That goes against the foundations of our society
Whether you agree w/ this or not oh well I dont' really care
Maybe if this gets enough press, people will finally pay attention to how corrupt the entire system is. Special interest groups buy candidates, and money rules the country. We can't beat this system the old fasioned way, with correct principals. People with principals don't have money. No decent laws about campaign finance reform are going to get passed, because all the politicans who would pass them are bought out by the intirest groups. Soooo, if yah can't beat 'em, join 'em! If all the american voters join the corruption, and we all sell our votes to the highest bidder, then the people will benefit from our dolarocracy. Or maybe the majority will realize just how corrupt everything is, and the masses will do something to stop this whole special intirest group thing. In the long run, if no one does anything about the corruption of the system, no one will call it a democracy. Maybe we'll end up with a whole new system. I like the idea from "Starship Troopers" about maintaining a difference between citizens and civilians...
...and require that the winner of the election get at least 50% +1 of the vote. It's time to take back our government from the 25% of the population that elects the president.
If people weren't so stupid, and lazy, greedy and generally a bunch of bastards, there'd be no need for democracy.
:)
There's a saying here in Mexico, which goes "...and if my grandma had wheels, she'd be a bicycle". Which means, there's about the same odds of either one happening
Let's be honest. We'll never have a great society until we impose a totalitarian regime based on IQ, not money.
I'd rather be ruled by Stephen Hawking than by William Gates.
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earth-bound misfit, I
Learning to fly, Pink Floyd.
The electoral system has several benefits. It gives political power to small states and increases the probability that some candidate will have a majority of votes.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
To take this idea to an extreme, where voters can put their individual votes up for sale, doesn't the individual/group with the most money win?
For example, let's say that Bill Gates, after selling his humongous stake in Microsoft for a total of $30 billion, decided that he wanted to support a particular presidential candidate. If we take the rough estimate that there are 300 million Americans, of which, on a whim, I'll say 20% vote (that's 60 million), if Bill were to pay 60 million Americans, who are totally ambivalent, $5,000 each to vote for his candidate, don't you think that Bill's candidate would win the election?
Sure, Bill's broke, at this point, but I'm just illustrating a point here. If votes were up for sale, then business would drive politics, not people. Perhaps the more jaded among us would say that this is already the case but, personally, I believe that we live in a world where an individual can still make a difference. Selling votes, were it legalized, puts government fully at the service of businesses and not individuals. This is flat wrong.
Why did I put my vote for sale on ebay? It was a statement. That statement being that I see a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of the Republican and Democratic parties as relates to vote fraud. Don't call the people who bid on my auction "bidders", call them "lobbyists". If it's wrong for me to engage in the satire of acting as if I'm going to sell a vote on the internet, why is it not also wrong for our politicians to represent large corporations at the expense of their constituents? I'm sick of the two-party system. They're both beholden to corporate interests, and they don't represent anyone but their big-money masters. The Attorney General's office hasn't contacted me yet, but then again, the CNN story only broke last night. Vote Nader!
I don't see how anyone can say that George Washington would agree with this. I'm not even sure I do, though my personal greed gets in the way, and everything seems fine.
Source code is a lot like a parachute; it needs to be open in order to function properly.
At the moment such companies simply buy the elected representatives -- very few issues ever reach a public ballot (at least here in Australia).
They should add more criteria to the right to vote than just coming of age. For example, you have to be a tax payer before you can influence any of the tax legislation.
Founder's Camp
Founder's Camp
News for non-Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Are you expecting something like "The Red Herring" in style of obsure meaning? I'd be interested if it's something like that, but I'd wager it's a double mis-translation (English-to-French-to-English) of "The Sitting Duck" -- and judging by the material it sounds like The Register (biting the hand that feeds it).
From what I can make out from across the pond the Republicans are always trying to bribe you with your own money (wasn't a 20% tax cut their ridiculous promise last time?).
No doubt Mr. Katz will have something to say on this...
Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
Actually, that was Dan Quayle
-toup
"It gives political power to small states "
Why is this a benefit? I want the power to belong to the people, not the states.
"increases the probability that some candidate will have a majority of votes. "
Ummm, no, actually there is a greater mathematical chance for a tie with the electoral system than with a popular vote.
-thomas
"And like that
And before you say this is impractical, what if each locality has a secure (I know, I know) website where issues up for discussion were listed up to a month before the decision was to be made. Voters could skim through the list and simply check yes or now -- it would take maybe 30 minutes a month and could be done from any PC.
Now, I'm just pulling there numbers out of my ar.. hey hey! but I reckon that every $100 you donate to an organisation you support will help them gain 1 vote in the direction they'd like.
However, if someone actually comes up with some justifiable figures I'm more likely to make donations (based on the figures) to groups I agree with than sell my own vote.
I should arrest you for not citing the law.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well as someone who lives in the midwest, if it were just a straight-up popular vote, then we'd never hear hide-nor-hair of the president because he/she would just pander directly to california and the boston-ny-dc areas.
Why do you need to "hear" from the president directly? You have an internet connection, you have access to TV and newspapers. I have personally NEVER seen a president or presidential nominee in person... no harm done.
I think the problem with lobbists aren't lobbists in general, but corporate lobbists
Why should there be ANY lobbyists? People that know their way around the political landscape, with the ear of the politicians? Most people don't have this kind of influence over politicians, so why should these select few get it?
-thomas
"And like that
So what's to prevent me from offering my vote up for sale, taking the money and then voting any damn way I please? I'm not a US citizen but in my country elections are by a secret ballot. If I'm unscrupulous enough to sell my vote, I'm probably unscrupulous enough to be disloyal to the money I've just taken.
What advantage does an interest group have in buying votes from citizens who vote for representatives anyway? Isn't it a lot more reliable to just buy the damn representatives?
Mmmm.. Donuts
That's a bunch of horse-shit. Who cares if watching the votes come in is BORING? If Nominee A gets 50 million votes, and nominee B gets 40 million votes, why should nominee B get a chance at winning?
I don't want more "power" to the voter, I want each voter to have equal power. That is a democracy.
-thomas
"And like that
well if your not too lazy look up state and federal voting laws personally I don't feel like wasting my companies time to satisfy your anal retentive whims
sulli
sulli
RTFJ.
I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable in the arena of election laws, but I definately have feelings on this topic.
If you're clueless enough to sell your vote for $10-$50, you're precisely the type of moron who SHOULD NOT BE VOTING.
If it would take less money to buy your vote than it takes to go to a ticketmaster promoted concert, your vote would be meaningless anyway.
This year for example, It would take no less than 1 million dollars to buy my vote. Is this hypocritical of me? I don't think so. Why? Because that amount of money could assure that I could donate enough to help get things done about the issues that are important to me.
So, sure I'd vote for cantidate X but I'd give several hundred thousand to group Y, so that they can fight for issue Z.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
In order to register to sell your vote, you have to certify that you have read and agreed to the voter's agreement. The voter's agreement is not yet available, and they offer to mail you a copy once it is posted. Therefore, you cannot make a legally binding agreement, since the act of registering requires that you make a certifiably false statement, and binds you to the terms of an agreement not yet published. In some jurisdictions, just completing the registration process coule easily be construed as committing a crime. That hasn't stopped a handful of people from registering, though.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
If people weren't so fucking stupid, there'd be no need for democracy.
The simple act of getting attention and letting people know that you exist is all that is neccesary to get elected. My roommate put up a bunch ofposters all over campus with his name in big, bold white on pblack background letters. Upon closer inspection, the poster didn't even say what office he was running for. zNow he's this year's student senate president.
The only reason we have a 2 party system is that those 2 parties are the only one's capable of making enough noise. Independents in local elections stand a better chance, but on a national level, you need complete national recognition, and that only comes if you can get the attention of the media to do our campaigning for you. Tom Brokaw is free advertizing.
That's why this year I'm voting for Doty (if you watch the Daily Show, you know who I'm talking about)
The entire argument breaks down when you consider the fact that politicians spending their vast war chests aren't assured of anyone voting for them because of it. This website, on the other hand, is like a legally (or illegally) binding contract to pay you $X for your vote.
Does our current political system pander to the rich corporations and special interest groups? Yes. Is that wrong? Maybe. Does it have to? No. How much does it cost to setup bushcheney2000.com and list a few pages stating where you stand on the top 20 issues of our time? Not much. How much does it cost the average citizen to visit that site (and gorelieberman2000.com) and make an informed decision? Not much--maybe a trip to the local library at most.
But are politicians going to objectively list where they stand? No way! Someone might actually--God forbid!--vote with their mind instead of their gut feeling if they did that. *gasp* So instead they build up massive amounts of campaign cash and flood your every aural and visual sense with their propoganda. The current system is where it's at because the voting populace is stupid and politicians cater to their stupidity.
--
Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
Well as someone who lives in the midwest, if it were just a straight-up popular vote, then we'd never hear hide-nor-hair of the president because he/she would just pander directly to california and the boston-ny-dc areas.
That said, I think the idea of the electoral college was something that in less informed times was necessary, but I think that it's a middle step that is just ripe for abuse. Just think of instead of buying a person's votes (each person's vote just influences the electoral college...not directs it), you could buy an electoral college vote. Sure it'd be more expensive, but it would also be more effective -- although if you could buy those, the person selling their electoral college vote should be dragged out into the streat and shot for treason...
So basically, I'm saying that the electoral college shouldn't be another vote -- it should be turned into a popular vote with each state weighted by the number of electoral college votes.
Hey, while I'm overhauling politics, let's kick out the legalized bribes (lobbyists), too!
I think the problem with lobbists aren't lobbists in general, but corporate lobbists. In fact, if the politicians would have to report every cent of what they take in, you'd see a lot less vote-buying going on :) ...and then you're just left with the plain old illegal bribes.
Good Fast Cheap. Pick any two.
Rensselaer Polytechnic is most definitely in Troy, NY. Not Albany.
Physicist Alan Natapoff has demonstrably proved that, mathematically speaking, the Electoral College is superior to a normal popular vote in that the Electoral College actually increases the likelihood that a single voter will turn the election. There are good reasons for keeping the current system.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
This gentleman is an MFA candidate at Rensselaer. The only Master of Fine Arts degree at that fine engineering insitution is called Electronic Art.
I don't know this guy, but the fact that he is an artist leads me to believe that he is more interested in making a point with this website, than he is with selling votes to the highest bidder. This would not be an unusual project for an MFA candidate at RPI. I'm just surprised that the website isn't better designed.
Mike
Wait a second...
t
Don't worry, though. I'd say you're still more up on American politics than your average American. :)
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
You know what it's really called? It's called rationalization. If you really don't want to legitimize the system, vote for Han Solo, vote for Clyde Barrows, or vote for the paper doll you have cut out of a newspaper and taped to your ballot. Not voting in 'protest' has exactly the same effect on society as being a lazy bum and sitting on your butt.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Maybe this will force an overhaul of elections in the United States!
How ridiculous is it that we still use electoral votes? My representatives no longer need to ride a horse and buggy to Washington, D.C. to cast their vote!
Let's cut out the middle men, use the internet, and most importantly -- count every vote directly. A popular vote, without party and state lines, is the only fair way to elect a president. (Otherwise the third parties are never going to have a chance.)
Hey, while I'm overhauling politics, let's kick out the legalized bribes (lobbyists), too!
-thomas
"And like that
> Nor a lying, (former) cocaine addict.
Well, Gore did invent the Internet (and his boss invented not having sex with interns.)
Democratic presidential candidates are most definitely *not* liers. What's more, they are ingenious inventors.
I'd go on with why you should vote for Al Gore, but I'm getting sleepy.
...Vote early and vote often. We already do this. It's called the electorate (at least at the federal level), and so far the electorate only went against the popular vote once. This sounds too much like applying votes directly to the electoratal instead of winning delegates to me. This is the difference between voting for the electorate to vote for your guy and picking an elector yourself. While I prefer direct representation myself, I cannot see this as another realm in which an "e"-solution would help much.
Dotgrump as usual,Lowmag.net
I will not vote for that green monkey. Harry Browne is the only one who would change the system for the better. I refuse to live in a socialist regime.
This is a good part of the reason why third party movements fail: even if the people who don't like the current system and have enough passion to do something about it amount to 15% of the population, we are so hopelessly fragmented into different groups that refuse to come together for the purpose of pursuing the areas that we share in common that we fracture our support and each end up getting 1-2% of the vote. The circus in Long Beach was a good example of that --- why fight with the enemy when you can fight with yourself?
d00dz! 1 cr4ck3d th3 pr3zid3nt! H3's my 8itch!!
Actually, it's already happened...
"Personally, I'd like to see more porn on the Internet, Wolf; how about you?"
Fist Prost
"We're talking about a planet of helpdesks."
-Jaron Lanier
For those confused I believe the point is to highlight what politics has devolved into. Of course it would be outrageous to do such a thing, but essentially the same thing is being done by big corporations pouring money into the system. They're blatently buying legislation and blind eyes, and politicians are even brazenly attesting to this.
Might as well throw the voters a few bucks for the reaming we're getting, right?
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Although I like the idea of showing how America's election system truly works, I do see a difference. With the big corporations and even with George Washington, they were trying to buy everyone's vote. It wasn't a forgone conclusion. Just because a corporation gives me something doesn't mean that I am going to vote for their canidate. However, if I participate in voteauction it does. Also what happens if I don't vote for the candidate I am supposed to? Do I just receive no money, or is my ballot tossed?
The people get all worked up in a tizzy and "demand leadership on the issue".
Then the soft bigotry of the 30 second spot begins. In "old media" such as newspapers, it's commonplace for the papers to announce to all their readers who they support in an election. This allows the reader to regard the content they read with a better understanding of the papers point of view and 'take it with a grain of salt'. There is little such disclosure on the part of the local and national television media.
When the politicians team comes to town and wants to buy up every other 30 second advertisement on "CBS Action 4" in the first week of november (the last week of the election) the sales manager makes a decision that effects his or her viewers without disclosing the why and for how much. Are you watching wall to wall Quayle 2000 adds because:
1) The local station was on the verge of chapter 11 and this sale saved the station?
2) Nobody else offered to buy the spots and without this sale, they would have been filled with PSAs?
3) Quayles apposeing candidate offered twice as much money to run her adds in those same spots but, the station sales manager is banging that hot chick who works for the quale media team?
4) The station owner plays golf with a lawyer who made a mint off of quayle?
5) Everybody at the station just likes that quayle guy?
In the process, the media makes millions off of campane financing (ever notice how television reports of campane finance reform talks about how they raise their money and never on how they spend it?) to show you adds you don't want to see and to further suppress voter turnout in the country.
So there you sit, getting "educated on the issues" by anoying adds in the middle of The Simpsons. So somebody brought up the idea that the same 'media team' comes to town and gives the money directly to the people casting the votes? If it means cutting out the media middle man, I'm all for it.
You're wrong about Daley. Unless this guy's plan calls for hiring necromancers and ISPs to raise the dead and hook them up with Internet accounts, he can't hold a candle to the creative voting that (is said to have) supported the good Mayor's election bids. The Graveyard vote was supposedly Daley's strongest demographic. Mere buying of votes is expensive and inefficient in comparison: it requires that you actually find the people willing to sell their votes and that you actually pay them money. The Dead, however, can be recruited quickly by a visit to the local County Records office, and rarely ask for so much as a thin dime in return for their votes. So to compare this student to the great Richard Daley of Chicago is really an excercise in futility.
--Jim
Anyway, it should be spelled "poughtaightteaux".
Blasted polititions can't do anything right its time we take over, I hearby nominate our most frequent poster for president.
Anonymous Coward 2000!!!
Jainith
If you can see whats wrong with this it just means your smarter than the "MAN" and therefore should rule...