Slashdot Mirror
How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth?
Attila Dimedici writes "Two thirds of the students at NYU would give up their right to vote in the next election for a full scholarship. Some would be satisfied with an ipod. A few would be willing to give up the right for the rest of their lives for one million dollars."
I would happily and joyfully give up my right to vote in the next election for one million dollars.
A quarter of it would go to the Ron Paul campaign, since I really enjoy how he's fucking with the status quo. Half of it would go to the campaign of whatever final candidate I like the best. A quarter would go to me, since I'm greedy that way.
"But Zorba! How could you give up your vote!" Come on, do you honestly think that the various groups I like couldn't get far more than a single vote with that much cash spent on advertising? I'm not giving up my vote by taking this deal - I'm multiplying it enormously.
I don't know what the "break-even" point would be on this trade, I'd have to think about that seriously. But if you don't mind going into advertising a little bit, pretty much everyone should be willing to give up their next vote - or even all of their votes - for a sufficient amount of money. Unless the physical action of putting a piece of paper in a box is really that important to you, I suppose.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
Is it any surprise that people value the right to vote differently?
Obviously, since voter turnout is less than 50%, over half the people in the US value the right to vote less than the amount of effort and time required to actually vote.
Consider that, from a logical perspective, VALUE(right to vote) == SUM{[IMPACT(act of voting)]/[(COST(act of voting)]}.
Only when elected government commits truly heinous acts, or actions that directly affect the person in question, does the impact of the act of voting get large enough to make the value of the right to vote very high. This is magnified by the dilution of votes -- if you are in a state with 10 million people, ask yourself -- how much does your vote really count?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Living in a democracy isn't a privilege; it's illegal to deport me to Cuba [I am not a Cuban citizen nor have I ever been to Cuba].
Unless you're saying that I could easily be deported to Cuba against my will, in which case I would claim that that's an indication that we're in a police state rather than a democracy.
"If voting could change things, it would be illegal." - anonymous (AFAIK).
:P
Anyone with power will seek to keep it. The more power they have, the more they will want to keep it, and the more easily they'll be able to ensure they can keep it.
This process has been iterating for a long time now. It's somewhat quaint that people think what they do makes the slightest difference to those in power
[ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
Looking a gift horse in the mouth anyone? anyone? I don't think you fully appreciate the value of such an opportunity provided to you by our government at ridiculously low long term interest rates.
Loan slavery? Strange twist in generation perception. No one says you have to buy this new car, when saving $200 for a tune-up on the old car will do just fine, or you fix it yourself. No one says you have to buy this new house, when the kids can double bunk in one room. And, no one says college is a right. Moreover, work 2 jobs and reap the benefits of serving in the Army to finance your way through college, like I did.
And at 0 to 8% on car to home loans, respectively, your complaining? No. The problem is you expect to have everything else everyone else has. Yes, the X and millenial gen kids never had it so good. It's unfortunate they never realized just how hard it can be, financing your way through life by their own sweat and blood. You think student loans are your shackle and chains? If you take the time, you might see yourself in the mirror wielding the whip in your own hand.
Loan slavery? Heh. You're a slave to your own devices.
You are right...it is aweful that it was economics. We should all still be slaving along as British Empire colonies. I hate to break it to you, but the idea that everyone should be able to make their own money IS philosophical when compared to the status quo of the time. Taxation without representation and all that...hell...most of the British colonies were happy with taxation without brutal killing.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
economic more than philosophical
Without the philosophy, their would have been no economic revolution. The principles that the founding fathers brought forth also happened to be the best principles for economic development. When men are free, they prosper.
the point is we're supposed to ignore that $1 million dollars will make a much larger differences to our lives
How useful is 1 million dollars if, in 5 years, the wealth of a nation can be wiped out by irresponsible government? Without the ability to vote, someone could destroy the economic engine that makes dollars worth anything... and we'd be powerless to stop it without being able to vote. See Zimbabwe for an example of a ruined economy via government.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Wrong premise. An election campaign is different from vote buying. It's more like candidate selling. I.e. convince the voter to spend his currency (vote) on your product (candidate).
There is of course another possibility. According to this clip. A significant number of collage students will give up the vote for no charge at all.
I have to stop here and put on my male-chauvinist-pig's armour and wait for the feminist onslaught.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
A really interesting experiment would be if we allowed US citizens to sell their citizenship to someone else. The deal is once you sell it, you can never get it back. How much would you take to give up your US citizenship forever? I'd trade my American Citizenship for 96% of Canadian Citizenship in a heartbeat.
I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
This reminds me of Robert Heinlein's book, "Starship Troopers", not the horrendous movie of the same name. In their society, to gain the right to vote, one had to voluntarily serve in the armed services. The idea is that, those who choose to defend their nation/planet and put themselves in harms way, would use that vote in a much more reponsible way.
Political power can be measured by the number of choices of potentially winning coalitions a voter can join. Since voters in solid red or blue states only have one potential winning side to join, they have no choice of winning sides to join; they can either choose the side that always wins or the side that always loses. This means solid red or blue state voters have no political power in the election.
Therefore, only votes of people in swing states have any economic value. In 2008 the battleground states are: Arkansas,Colorado, Florida,Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,Ohio,New Hampshire,Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,Virginia, Wisconsin.
There are several populous states on this list: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, but overall the list represents less than 1/3 of the US population. Next, you take a state like Florida, with roughly 17.8M people; discard those ineligible to vote an you have about 11.4 million. Discard those who never vote and you have 5 million left. Discard those who always vote one way or the other, and who knows -- lets say you have about a million people left.
If that is roughly correct, and similar math plays out in all the swing states, then there probably on the order of five to ten million votes up for grabs in places that matter. Of course a candidate can't spend NO money in places that aren't up for grabs, but if he's spending $100 million on his campaign, it amounts to about $10 - $20 for every vote he is trying to swing. This is not counting proxies who are becoming increasingly important; the total amount spent to elect a candidate is probably impossible to calculate accurately, but is potentially several times higher. We might well be talking about an iPod shuffle per vote swung. We will certainly be within that range within our lifetimes.
Also, a candidate might decide attempting to sway voters is a bad investment. Instead he might concentrate on getting out more of the people who will vote for him who might not vote. He might also spend money to suppress the turnout of his opponent. This could be an effective strategy: get out your base, convince the base of your opponents and swing voters to stay home. In swing states where swing voters are not plentiful relative to the committed voters, a swift boating campaign along with a few dirty tricks is going to be a lot more effective than influencing people to vote. Doing something that is tantamount to paying people NOT to vote is probably not all that far fetched.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I understood it a little differently:
Those who have a history of putting their country's interests ahead of their own safety and well-being were those who were deemed responsible enough to have a say in running the country. The idea was that they would continue to act (read:vote) in the best long-term interests of the country, ignoring any personal benefits.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Actually, voting for a third party is the only way my vote could possibly matter in Texas. If enough people did it, that third party would get federal funding in the next election.
I think I'd rather have the $1million, convert it to Euros, and move to Denmark.