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."
Theoretically, if we had candidates that represented us instead of the interests of corporations and special interest groups, our right to vote would be worth a great deal.
However, since our choices are limited to list A of sycophants or list B of sycophants, I'm thinking the college kids have over-valued the vote.
We can't elect anyone worth much to the general population, we can't get them impeached when they break the laws, violate the constitution, torture, engage in warmaking, arrest without probable cause, hold people incommunicado without hearings for extended periods of time, make a huge industry out of imprisoning the population for personal choices about what intoxicants they prefer...
Yes, I'd say an ipod is worth considerably more than a vote is today. It shouldn't be; but here we are.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
How much is my vote worth? I can answer that pretty easily...
Give me enough cash to live on comfortably, buy an island of my own where I won't be bothered, enough to bring people I want to visit there, and of course protect against pirates. Anyone know how much an army of ninjas costs?
Everyone has their price - that's mine.
convert them to a more trustworthy currency and get the fuck out of here.
I'd almost say who wouldn't give up their vote for a big material gain? One vote makes a really small difference, and most votes are basically between a douche and a turd.
I take a cup of coffee. It's probably not worth it.
Face facts, in New York, your vote doesn't count. All electors are going to vote for the Democrat candidate.
...then this would be horrible. As it is, selling your vote makes perfect sense. The state of democracy, especially in the US, is disgusting.
I'll only give up voting when they pry the lever from my cold, dead hands!
Seriously, even though corporations have control of our government at the moment, voting is not a right that you can sell or give away.
Vote at the polls, vote by taking action, and vote for yourself as someone who can make our country better.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
Not sure if people are missing the message. It's not about buying someone's vote, but someone's RIGHT to vote. Not just now, but for all time.
Oh, well... in the past, people have sold not just thier vote (or their right to vote), but their very soul... for much less.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
When I gain power, they'll be the first to the wall.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
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.
Voting is a precious right but it exists, in a practical sense, to give people influence over their government. Viewed that way, swapping the right to vote for anything that gives someone a better ability to influence the government is a smart trade.
How does this work in practice? Large corps have great political influence even though they have no right to vote. What they do have is money. In the real world, then, money applied to the political process is the equivalent of voting.
Given enough money that I am enabled to influence politics via means other than voting, I would consider selling my right to vote a perfectly rational, even patriotic thing to do.
In my case, I'm eligible for early retirement and could be politically active in a variety of ways post-retirement, but my pension wouldn't be big enough to give me enough free time to labor toward political goals. With just enough money to augment my pension I'd be free to pursue tasks other than eking out an existence.
I figure USD$1M would do it, barely. I'd certainly sell my right to vote for USD$5M.
It costs about $160,000 for us to go to NYU for 4 years. A bit more, actually. I'd trade my vote for $160k - imagine the political influence you can have with $160,000. In addition, I'd trade my vote for $160k and then buy votes with iPod touches. Every vote makes a difference, but that kind of money makes more difference.
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
You could have far more influence over the government with that $1,000,000 than you ever will by voting.
Would cost them everything they ever had and will have in the future. If they can't meet that price then they don't get it. The beauty of that price is I get my right to vote back and they get nothing for even thinking of something like that. I can only begin to imagine the number of people rolling over in their graves if they found out people were selling their right to vote which was paid for in lots of blood to begin with.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Assuming that we're talking about only giving up an /individual/ right to vote. So long as other people's votes are so cheap, the interest alone on a million dollars can buy more votes than I'll ever had. Even 1% of a million bucks buys a lot of iPods.
What would THAT change, pray tell?
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
Now all we need is to vote in candidates who are willing to enact a retroactive 200% tax on vote selling and we can pay off the national debt.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
When I vote, I have to "fit in" with a majority of the voters in order to get my change made. If my drop in the bucket falls on the other side, say such as a vote for Al Gore, then I am stuck with the decision others had made for 4 years. It's a fair process, but the Electoral College is also a detracting factor. At the point when my vote counts is diminished, frustration sets in. All said, I'd take the money because it is tangible.
At least you guys have a choice. Voting is compulsory in Australia, and every time there is a local election we are requited to turn out.
I've had to fill in so many non attendance forms its not funny...
The Bible: Historically verifiable fact from an observers point of view
Many people give up their vote because they don't want to take the chance of jury duty and others give it up because they can't be bothered. I'm surprised that it took a million to get people to give up the vote. Considering how little value our votes have come to have, I'm really surprised it took that much.
I think you could do a hell of a lot more with one million dollars than you could do with your right to vote in your lifetime.
Especially if you have my (liberal) political views, since there never going to get into power of any kind.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If the candidates are equally good (or bad) to someone, it doesn't matter whom he votes. However, if a significant portion of people gives up their right to vote, one cannot reasonably expect the behavior of all the candidates to remain the same.
People today don't care about politics. They've got little to gain, and little to lose.
...
Perhaps asking the people of teheran/pyongyang/ryadh/... how many months of pay they would give to get a real vote like the americans have would give you another answer.
Americans, especially young ones, don't care. They've got everything they want, why would you bother them with this politics thing ? Is something wrong ? Just cry until someone solves it and surely it will get solved
A ballot means next to nothing, especially in the US where they have a one party system. "Should I vote for the republican party that doesn't care about people and isn't afraid to admit it, or the democrats, who don't care about people and are afraid to admit it" In Canada, it's a similar situation; "This party will ruin everything, this party will ruin our economy, and this party will do absolutely nothing" If you really want to make a difference, sell your write to vote for millions, buy a solid gold house and a rocket car, and use your free time to write Mayors, MPs, congressmen, etc. Boycott organizations or corporations you don't like. These days, money talks, votes do not.
-I only code in BASIC.-
All this really reveals is priorities:
"Two thirds of the students at NYU would give up their right to vote in the next election for a full scholarship."
Okay, so how about they all vote for a candidate who will deliver a European-style Universal Third Level Education?
Yup...
This is hard for me to draw a strong opinion on, because both sides can be argued in many ways. On one hand, those that would willingly give up their right to vote for *any* reason maybe should not be voting in the first place. The opportunity to vote is a privilege that should be seen as priceless. However, education is a path to freedom. Perhaps giving up the right to vote in one election, but having the opportunity to become educated and therefore possibly a more useful and better-informed citizen would be a tradeoff. Maybe they're trading something priceless (if they have no other opportunity for college) for a temporary drop of another priceless right.
The emperor is naked.
If it's just US elections, give me the million and I'll set myself up in British Columbia.
Well, considering there are so many people out there that like to buy votes, these people would just be supplying a product that is very much in demand.
I had a felony, but now that's taken care of and most of the time I was voting anyway.
It's strange how all the states have different laws on how your voting privilege can be taken away.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
Sorry I marred Slashdot's reputation for stellar formatting and grammar.
The emperor is naked.
Your vote wasn't "worthless" when Texas came up with LBJ and voted dem primarily until the 80s. Keep it in a little bit of historical perspective. Heck, there's debate if anyone's vote counted back then, anyway.
Giving up your right to vote for a full scholarship?
Huh. I managed to work my way to full tuition (still paying off the pesky amounts I had to borrow for living expenses.) I did that by working my butt off in high school.
It also means I'm smart enough to not sell my vote.
----
As a side note, did you know that the secret ballot wasn't introduced in the US until the middle of the nineteenth century? We take it for granted, yet it took them decades to realize it might be a good idea...
Actually I am a lab rat in an elaborate plot to take over the world.
So, what about the times that it would matter. Well, again, with the very real possibility that we'll get another "popular vote loss/College vote win" situation, I just don't feel the urge to care enough. Thanks for your vote! It just doesn't matter!
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Vote. Vote for what? One of the two choices that the ruling power allows.
You have been totally taken in.
Enjoy your delusion.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
We'd get a President who could run a successful, large company -- a damn big step up, I'd say.
He who would trade his liberty for an Ipod,deserves neither.
New Yorkers,go figure.
If we give New York to China,can we have the Panama Canal back?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Do you realize that 1/3rd of the student body is not US citizens so they have already given up their right to vote in the next election by enrolling at NYU as very few countries have absentee voting for students studying abroad. Looked at from that perspective 2/3rd does not seem that big a deal. Moreover students have a whole separate level of politics called student union elections where they can make their voices and opinions heard. They probably feel their time is better spent on the level of politics where they can make a difference than just turning up and voting for the Repulicrats or the Democraticans (frankly there is more difference in the policies of 2 communist party candidates standing for internal elections in China than between a Repulicrat and a Democratican of today)
**Life is too short to be serious**
I *DID* RTFA... While most of the discussion (and the intro) was about the *next* election, some of it also referred to the right to vote, period... including the very last sentence/comment: "anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported."
To which I say: A-freaking-men.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Rich people don't need to buy votes, they just need to bribe^Wgive campaign donations to the right candidate.
The only conclusion I can draw from your comment is that you're advocating that everyone in the US should move to Brazil and hang out on the beach all day. And have pet lobsters that we train to fetch us beach-vendor food.
I like the way you think, sir.
The emperor is naked.
a tacit endorsement of the Steve Jobs for Ultimate Ruler of the World campaign anyway?
They got my vote!
Monstar L
is what I'd sell my right to vote for. That should be enough money to buy the government of my country back. I'd have far more ability to kick Washington's ass with that kind of resources than with one vote and sharply worded letters to Congressmen and newspaper editorials.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Everyone knows that most college students don't care about politics and don't bother voting. I'm not surprised that so many woudl be willing to give up their right to vote for a shiny penny. Someone with this attitude doesn't deserve to vote.
Personally, I think that if you are a college student and still on your parents' insurance, you shouldn't be allowed to vote. I would support increasing the voting age to at least 21, maybe higher. I might even support paying off college students to keep them from voting. They're usually mindless, zombie liberals anyway.
The going rate for the year 2000 election was the $200-300 tax rebate Bush promised. I remember, quite explicitly, a colleague saying "I want $200, I'm voting for Bush."
People don't care about their country, their children's futures, or their own long-term well being. They say they do, but they don't. When it comes down to it, they sell out their souls, their childrens' souls, and their nations souls for a pittance.
The truth is that people get the government they deserve. A shit government elected by lazy, apathetic, and happily clueless citizens who simply don't deserve better.
If they did, they wouldn't elect the people they do. The shit politicians we elect are *obviously* shit politicians. Few try and say they're not going to do that, so they vote for the joke politicians: Ron Paul, Ross Perot, whoever. Instead of sitting there with the politician they actually like and voting for them, even when they know they'll fail. Admitting they voted for someone who lost. Instead, we disconnect and feign apathy, as we've spoiled ourselves in our fantasies about what kind of government we deserve. Why do we get so many shit politicians? The good leaders gave up on the US citizenry, for good reason.
Want proof? How many people pay attention in the primaries, where the good candidates actually show up once in a while?
Care about electronic freedom? Consider donating to the EFF!
That's right. More proof that the vote is simply to appease the peepul.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
What was the other third thinking ? Seriously I don't think they believe their vote matter or will possibly change anything.... My guess is that democracy represents some kind of religion for them, a cult of the state where each good citizen does his duty by casting his ballot, protecting his precious liberty... in this mindset, their right to vote holds some kind of mystical power. I am glad the two other third don't buy in this naive cult, freedom has always been destroyed through the ballot.
\u262D = \u5350
Federal elections: It doesn't matter who I vote for, the NY electoral votes go to the Democrats.
State elections: It doesn't matter who I vote for, the NY assembly wastes all the money and asks for more.
Local elections: It doesn't matter who I vote for, everything is dictated by the federal and state governments, except how much money my town wastes on doomed projects.
I'd like a Ritter Sport, but would settle for a few Hershey's Kisses.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
How much's the going rate for giving up the right for ever these days?
Giving the right to vote for ever happens every day - every time some poor sod in Mexico or somewhere else decides to emigrate to the home of the brave and land of the free. Arrived there, he's just an alien with no right to vote and what does he get for it?
A minimum wage job and atrocious living conditions. That's how much it is worth!
As to the right to vote in the next election, that one isn't probably even worth a cup of coffee in a cardboard cup. With the system being as stable as it is, the cattle will just be able to choose between a blueish and reddish tinted droid out of the same assembly line anyway. If you can trade that for a working iPod of any type, you come out a ahead big time.
I shall have my Lobby bring a beverage for you too, while we wile away the day watching scantily clad young laidies parading along the shore.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Make it 1 million Euros (have you seen the dollar lately?) and a one way ticket to Frankfurt and I'm game. If you don't live here anymore, who cares if you don't have the right to vote?
http://www.CelloFourteGroupie.net
Boy if I can get a cool million for my right to vote, how much do you think I can get for my soul? I'm not using either...
The current system is broken and unrepresentative. It's tribal to the extent that a seriously large proportion of the electorate will vote for and vocally defend "their" guy even if he's a corrupt, lawbreaking crook and attack the "other" guy even if he's a saint.
All the while ignoring that neither of them cares for anything other than keeping the profit flowing for themselves and their cronies.
Couple all that with the fact that 50% of the electorate are of below average intelligence anyway and can't be trsted to tie their own shoes let alone decide the future of the country, it seems ever more like a huge waste of time.
I do vote, but if someone offered me a beer not to do it, I'd take the beer.
I gave up my vote, simply for a chance to live and work in Europe.
Overseas votes aren't counted, unless what? There's a tie... ok.
I still vote out of ceremony, but I know full well it is tossed into the garbage can each time.
"anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported."
Now there is the kind of freedom our fore fathers fought for. My way or the highway. Oh my bad, that is what we have in the US.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
Why vote?
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's onetime ambassador to the UN, was questioned once about the fact that residents of Puerto Rico don't get to vote for U.S. President of have voting representation in Congress, despite being citizens of the US. She said that PR residents also didn't have to pay federal income taxes, which she considered to be a fair trade.
So Republicans think that vote is worth your tax burden, essentially. Maybe we should all agree to stop voting if we didn't have to pay taxes any more?
Even that single seat change wouldn't have amounted to anything as the parliamentary majority was greater that 1.
In the US the Bosh-Gore election of 2000 was the closest ever and the margin in Florida was 500+.
So one person's vote has never changed anything. I expect everyone knows this in their hearts - the variation in "offer price" only reflects what the individuals would expect to get for it
Democracy? hah!
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The President and a large majority of both houses of Congress have been telling them for six years that the Bill of Rights is an anachronistic impediment to what the USA really stands for.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
In that respect, since on single vote has ever made any difference to a result in any democracy (it does in a dictatorship as only 1 person gets to vote) then a single vote has never been excercised and never will. That makes it worthless.
It's the same paradox as blades of grass on a golf course. Your ball has to land on one, but there are so many, the chances of it landing on any particualr one is as close to zero as you can measure.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I've looked through a number of the comments on this page, and a lot of the comments run something like this: "My vote doesn't count, and I don't like the candidates anyway, so my vote is for sale."
Honestly, people. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
Firstly, this is how a democracy works: A single vote is unlikely to make a difference, but the total of all the single votes does make a difference. (Countries where a single vote does make a difference are called dictatorships, and the single vote is that of the dictator.)
Secondly, in many countries around the world, people a fighting, being tortured and dying to secure the right to vote for their fellow countrymen. We who already have that right should not treat it nonchalantly.
Thirdly, some people seem to think that being callous and cynical about the way one's country is run is a mark of maturity and insight. Not so! In my humble opinion it is highly immature. It is so much easier to be cynical than making an active effort.
I'm confused. We have a right to vote? I thought that was a privilege for law-abiding citizens of a certain age only in most states, not a right. Last I checked, there is no right to vote in the Bill of Rights.
A lot of ads in the media call it a right to vote. That term while it may not be accurate is widely used to encourage people to vote. They don't try to sell it as a privilige because I think there's some political correctness involved. Though maybe they changed recently. I don't know, I haven't seen any recent ads encouraging people to vote other then by slinging mud at a political opponent. I think even half of those tell people it's a right not a privilige.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
That's the real question, what we'd actually do. Unless they actually had people trade their right to vote, they merely found out what people will answer when asked what they would give up their right to vote for. I'm tired of one poll after another taking the place of actual experiments to find out what people really would do, not just what they say.
So how's the gummint gonna pay for itself?
No taxation without representation, remember that one?
I think all this shows is what people perceive their vote is really worth. All you can really do with your vote is join an effort to throw the bums out. Maybe the next set of bums will be better, but it's usually only a matter of degrees.
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? That's when we'd find out how serious people really are. It would also give us an idea how the rest of the world views living here.
Would I sell mine? That's a good question. I'm pretty ashamed of the last seven years of US history and shamed by the 25% still supporting a corrupt, incompetent administration. Seeing Bush in a prison cell next to Cheney and Rove, stand a couple telco execs up against the wall for cooperating with the effort to spy on the American public, purge the FBI and Justice Dept. of anyone who used investigative powers toward political ends...the answer might be different. But I don't see that happening.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Your vote is not worth a lot. That is, your specific, individual vote is worth next to nothing. You can influence all of the elections you would have voted on far more with a million dollars than with a single vote.
Of course, the point is that the right to vote is priceless. And if everyone could exchange their right to vote for cash, then suddenly that million dollars would not buy you any influence.
Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
One *BILLION* dollars (pinky to mouth).
That should be enough for me to hire some good lobbyists to get my ideas passed as laws. Why vote when you can lobby your ideas through?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Here's one possibility - give up your right to vote in the next election in exchange for a year's NYU tuition. Then, instead of slaving away at some summer job so that you can pay for ramen noodles for the next year, go and work on your campaign of choice. You'll probably be able to do more for your chosen candidate than simply voting for him would.
If you work on a voter advocacy campaign, registering new voters and getting them to the polls on election day, even if you yourself don't vote, aren't you doing more to further democracy? Also getting an education is, I believe, a furtherance of democracy, too.
Ron Paul, at least in my opinion, is one of the few decent politicians we have left. He actually says what he believes, and then consistently votes that way. He also takes virtually no money from lobbying groups. He is running for President in 2008 with the Republican party, although his views are much more in-line with the libertarians. Here is a link to his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul/ views on wikipedia
Right now, my vote counts for exactly nothing. At least with the money I could help my causes financially.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Enough to let me move anywhere else I wanted.
In any political election the probability of your vote tipping the balance, and therefore having any real meaning in the electoral system is so close to zero it is absolutely irrational to assign value to it. For that matter, being within 1 vote in a large election will trigger a recount, which will then end up with a random result due to error. So I'd happily sell my vote for $1. That's likely a good reason it's illegal.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
As an individual, your right to vote is nearly worthless, and anybody saying anything else is rabble-rousing. A million dollars is far overpaying for the right. You, as an individual, cannot make a difference with your vote. If you think you can, I've got a bridge to sell you.
As a population, your right to vote is fairly important. Well, at least the right to vote guarantees that politicians have to say nice things about democracy. What else it guarantees, I'm not so sure.
Wrong. Its not true that the students would give up their right to vote for some amount, its just that they _said_ they would. Given that you cannot give up your right to vote for any amount, the question is meaningless. Voting is secret for a reason - someone could pay you $1,000,000 to vote Demublican but then you go and flip the lever for the Replicrats in the booth.
Easier just to wait until after the election and pay the money to the winning party...
No actually, you don't. Scholarships don't need to be repaid.
I won't vote, so actual "worth" is technically $0.00.
That said, I still technically reserve the "right". I'll gladly give it up for $0.75 presidential, $0.25 other. That's about all the value I see in 1 vote.
Sorry, I'm honest.
From the Article.
"One CAS junior went even further, writing that "anyone who'd sell his lifelong right to vote should be deported."
I'd bet that those people who you were going to deport would be glad to leave after you gave them the cool 1 Million dollars. In some parts of the world you could live like a king on that.
Seriously, I am very surprised there are not already sites on the internet where one can sell their vote.
Effectively they're selling their vote for president in exchange for the ability to buy congressman votes.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I'd sell my right to vote in a presidential election for about $0.02 . I live in a winner-take-all state and I know my vote only counts for funding purposes. Luckily the overwhelming majority of people here are pretty liberal and vote for the least of all evils so at least my vote not-counts in a less frustrating manner. If I lived in Ohio I'd probably change my tune.
> Right now, my vote counts for exactly nothing. At least with the money I could help my causes financially.
You've got the right idea. Despite efforts like McCain-Feingold, it seems likely that it will always be the case that money = free speech = votes. The more money you have, the more representation you can purchase. Until strong AI takes over, this doesn't seem likely to change.
Ask me about my sig!
By voting one party or another you make a certain somewhat random, somewhat informed investment: you expect certain profits for your decision, if the party wins you expect they will support your interests and will provide you with certain amount of goods, material or not. Now what kind of goods, what value of them can you expect? You're retired and you expect your pension to be raised? You expect the state to fund the police better, providing you with protection of value equal to service of private security company costing some kind of money, they invest in research that will make your kids' lives better by the amount they'd get if you paid on their accounts... how much is it?
Removing the randomness factor from the profit (what if my vote is wasted on a loser? what if my winner lied to me and did opposite as promised?) is worth a lot of the final percentage, all by itself. Immediate results (getting what is promised now, and not in some distant future) is worth a lot too. Freedom of choice as to what you get with the money given ("I'll spend the money on a better janitor and my kids' education" instead of getting the whole package of what the politician promises) is valuable too. Meaning the expected profits from voting on a certain candidate better be significantly better than what you get right now for not voting, or voting whoever buys your vote, better be really good.
It's not giving up the right to decide about your future. It's a very conscious choice - dropping your right to vote means you agree to whatever others choose and consider the risk costing less than immediate profits. An iPod? That's some $300. I can't count the service of "my" candidate will give me more than $300 worth of profit over leaving the country to "the other".
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
If you're committed to influencing elections, you can probably have more influence on elections, for the rest of your life, with the annual interest on $300,000, than you would with your single vote. And that leaves you $700,000 to play with. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
If you want to really cheat the buyer, sell them your lifetime votes for a million dollars. Then kill yourself. That'll teach 'em.
In essence, citizens have always surrendered their vote in exchange for what they value. It used to be for political/social/moral values, but in today's society the real "value" is (sadly) now an economic one, so their willingness to surrender their vote for an iPod is perfectly logical. It's the way this generation has been brought up, nothing more or less, and certainly not surprising.
This is like asking how much would I pay to murder somebody. This question has no practical application in the real world.
I see you've never been married...
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Go look it up. "Technically" you do not have a right to vote for President in the first place. It was SUPPOSE to be that we the people, voted for the house of representatives, "the peoples house". State legislatures voted for the senators, "the states house". The senators elected the president from among its members. THAT was the way the constitution was written. I wish it would go back that way. But, with the so called popular elections, the person who gets elected is like a stupid American idol contest! Personally, I think some sort of IQ test or means test should be administered. If you are so stupid you can't find things on a map, cannot tell who at least some of your senators or representatives are, cannot name ONE supreme court judge, or something similar, then you have no business voting. If you are so self absorbed that you cannot keep involved with what is going on in your country, then you have no business voting!
It is perfectly logical to be sell your individual right to vote for a large sum of money. One individual's right to vote is worth little other than the warm feeling one gets for taking part in the process. One person's vote is very unlikely to determine the winner of an important election.
What's more valuable is the public's right to vote. I might be willing to sell my own vote, but if everybody sold their right to vote, we would no longer have a representative democracy and tyranny would surely be around the corner.
I would gladly sell my right to vote if a proper sum were offered. But I would strongly oppose allowing anyone else to do the same.
A group chooses it's best and brightest to lead. What does that say for the rest of us. What would my right to vote would cost? The fire of revolution. The death of myself and loved ones. The loss of the pursuit of happiness, and liberty for all. That was the original price to have a society that can vote. In the end that is what my vote would cost. If everyone, lost, sold the right vote what is the price of admission to the new well................. overlords?
I am interested. I follow the news of the day and am informed about current political issues. I have belonged to a political party in the past and have volunteered on a number of election campaigns in a variety of capacities.
But I don't vote anymore, and I intend not to in the future. I learned a great deal from my past experiences, but the most important thing I learned is that the political elites have a vested interest in ensuring that the political system serves their own interests, rather than the interests of the citizenry. The best we can hope for is that those interests intersect at some point, but there are no guarantees.
I believe that the act of voting is like playing those games at a carnival. They are subtly rigged in favour of the people who run the carnival. By playing the game, you consent to be taken advantage of.
I do not believe that there are any successful politicians who truly care about the public good.
My own observation is that the people who do care, and get involved for the right reasons are terribly disappointed by the way the political system really works. There is no place for principles and integrity and the most successful politicians are burdened with neither. So, once they get there, those people essentially have two choices: sell out and become part of the system they once vowed to reform, or return to private life and find other ways to contribute to the public good outside of the political system.
Sadly, the reality is that long-term politicians are the least fit to govern. They are petty little power mongers, more interested in looking after their own perceived interests than the interests of those they are supposed to represent.
Ultimately, the voters are to blame. Politicians who make unrealistic promises, are rewarded. We elect politicians who make poor decisions based on short-term political gain with no regard for the long-term consequences of those decisions. Why vote for the candidate who promises no short term benefits but moderate benefits down the line when the other guy is saying we can have our cake and eat it too?
It seems to me the only sensible thing left is to opt out of the system. Perhaps when enough people refuse to participate, there will be a crisis of confidence in the political system and the politicians will be compelled to make changes to improve the system.
Or perhaps not...
Like I said before, I refuse to vote and my hands are completely clean. I am not responsible for who gets elected - that is the fault of the people who did vote. However, I am affected by the decisions those politicians make and that gives me every right to complain.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I would give my right to vote for a case of beer, or a free lap dance, maybe for even $1 so I can buy a Diet coke out of the machine at work.
But the joke is on them...I was not planning to vote anyway! HAHAHAHA!
I'd like to see how many of those college students would give up their other Constitutionally protected right, freedom from slavery. Would they take a million dollars in exchange for becoming a slave for about 40 years, until they turned 65 years old? Ten million?
Rights are inalienable. We can't surrender them, though sometimes we can suffer their infringement. The more temporary the infringement, the more voluntary, the more we can suffer it. But any infringement pressures people in a way that inevitably becomes intolerable, and we don't tolerate it. That's why we create governments to protect those rights. Because not only our rights, but the rights of everyone around us, are infringed only at a much greater cost, even if it can sometimes be postponed.
--
make install -not war
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The Constitution doesn't grant rights to citizens, it grants powere to the Federal Government.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Classes are near empty at NYU after the majority of students were arrested for offering to sell their votes.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
"A few would be willing to give up the right for the rest of their lives for one million dollars."
It would give me enormous pleasure to become a front-line member of the (unelected) government with the primary responsibility for enforcing a brand new $1,000,000 stupidity tax on their pathetic asses. Capital punishment, promptly and efficiently administered, to those who failed to comply.
And two thirds would give up their right to vote even once (assuming, apparently, that somebody would give it back to them)? This is what happens when you fight a war without instituting a draft. These rancid little creeps might have a different view if their vote could determine whether the pathetic weenies had to do a little bleeding and dying in some Third World swamp.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I'd like to put my vote on eBay and sell off parts of it in a conditional game. That is, if 'x' gets more than a given % of the vote then I will vote for candidate 'y' or bill 'z'. And since there's always more than one election going on I should be able to sell my votes to different races.
From Rational Choice Theory you can calculate how much a vote is worth for you (assuming that you are rational):
http://wikisum.com/w/Riker_and_Ordeshook:_A_theory_of_the_calculus_of_voting
This is like asking "How much for your musical talent?" or "I'll buy that feeling of love for $1 million."
Not everything can be exchanged between people (i.e. bought and sold), freedoms and rights should be unexchangeable.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A few would be willing to give up the right for the rest of their lives for one million dollars."
:-P
My price is $2 million. I could retire to Belize and not give a shit what the Mental Institution (read: government) does. With the investment income from that I could afford to have a stable of whores who get regular medical checkups.
Yes, that's all I care about at this point: retirement and whores. I blame society for giving me anything better to care about.
Although I do have a good net worth of my own now in the upper half of six digits, so I might take the one mil is that was the final offer.
So... who's offering?
It's worth about 5% of my salary or the amount which democrats would raise taxes. *I made 5% up but it's still funny
Well, maybe not to the extreme of making people go thru military services to earn the right to vote, but at least revoke the right of those who agreed to give up their right to vote. As a newly naturalized citizen, the price i paid to vote is years of immigration processes and interview and I am gonna damn make sure I get my vote in when the time comes.
This is like saying if Firefox is broken somewhere then jump into the source and fix it.
On one hand I tend to agree with the statement, but then again running for office (or fixing Firefox) is not for the faint-hearted. Or I suppose you can just say that in life we have winners and losers - deal with it :(
I'm sure the right to vote is included in there.
But wait, act now and we'll double your freedom for the same low price!
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I'll second that. Kucinich rocks. Ron Paul is a bigot whose big new idea is to dismantle government. Just like the neo-cons, except that he actually means all of government, not just the parts that don't benefit the rich. At least he's fair, but I'd rather pay for social programs than have hordes of poor, hungry, desperate people eying me enviously. If everyone else is better off, there will be more opportunities for me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Actually, you can't give up your right to vote, because not voting is a type of voting; you are voting for the status quo.
In effect, by not voting, you are saying, "I am happy with the status quo", there are no issues I really care about. In a way, that is a testimony to the wonderful job the government is doing; most of the population considers the government "background noise", irrelevant to their daily lives, which is an excellent place for a democratic government to be.
In this thread, we hear a lot about differences between leaders, either in Congress, or in the Executive branch. But the leaders are not the ones who really decide what laws get enforced, and what direction society goes in.
Kennedy Kasselbaum (HIPPA) or Sarbanes Oxley? The first spawned a nice black market in medical records for debt collectors looking to locate people, and the second was just another way for accounting and consulting firms to siphon money from stockholders. The fact is, Congress passes laws and the bureaucracy and the private sector ignore, them, or interpret them to do the exact opposite. Even if someone in congress wanted to make a real change in society, by the time it got past the hundreds of others, it would be watered down to a meaningless gesture. Look at the records of the number of bills that die before getting voted on, for example.
The same is true for the leaders in the Executive branch. Do you really think that Bush is continuing the Iraq war all by himself? Look at his approval rating. he doesn't have that kind of personal support. It isn't even Bush plus the Senators that are blocking the Iraq withdrawal bill passed yesterday. It is the infrastructure, the social network behind them that pushing the war (for entirely different reasons than the ones stated publicly, by the way). That social network is not voters, with voting percentages so low, voters are ignorable. As long as you can buy enough media time, the job is yours, is the current thinking. No, that social network is members of the bureaucracy (mostly State and Defense) and the complex network of obligations and favors they are embedded in that are the real force behind the decisions.
And, counterintuitive as it may seem, that is the system working exactly as it was designed to do, to resist short term fads but adapt to long term trends. It is obvious by now, that the US will get out of Iraq, although the exact date is uncertain. That is because it is obvious that the majority of the American public wants it, not because of a one time vote, however nationwide.
When I was young, a half century ago, many minorities did not have full citizenship; I remember how Blacks were treated, and gangs hunting Jews for sport in my neighborhood. Now we have Barack Obama as a legitimate candidate for president, and I have run into only two serious antisemites in many years.
That took decades of Americans working toward the world they wanted to become, not instantaneously upon the passage of Title 7.
And that is why votes are not important. They have no real power. The real vote is the one you make every day, to strive in your everyday behaviour as though you were living in the world you would vote to create. Because that is the only way that world is ever going to materialize, just look at prohibition for an example of what happens when a vote doesn't match what people want.
And, in the end, thats why America works, and why we should be so proud of it. Because we do not need to pull a lever in order to make a dream of a better world come true. We don't need revolutions to make changes to what we are. All we really need to do is want to make it happen, and those levers pull themselves, sooner or later.
There is no denying we, as a people, still have many flaws and inequities. But when you look at how far we have come, in so short a time, you cannot deny that we must be doing something right.
So don't worry about whether those students would give up the right to vote, worry about what sort of world they want to live in, because voting or not, thats the world they (and us) WILL be living in.
Why would Ron Paul pay people to post on Slashdot? There's enough of us supporting him here that we'll post about how awesome he is for free!
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
It might be wise to take the million. There is an argument out there for non-voting being the rational decision. Please see Rational Choice Theory.
the point is we're supposed to ignore that $1 million dollars will make a much larger differences to our lives than whether or not we vote,
;-)? Households with a worth of $1M are merely upper-middle class. $1M would only DRAMATICALLY change the lives of half the population.
Only if a handful of people took up the offer would this statement be true. If a thousand or more voters did this, in a close election as Bush fought in 2000, it has a more profound effect than $1M would ever have. It might affect our own life less, but it would re-shape the nation as a whole. Could you imagine if Gore went to Florida in 2000 and gave away a couple thousand Prius cars to Republicans in exchange for forfeiting their right to vote? I'd have to say the whole world would've noticed the difference.
If every voting citizen was given $1M in exchange for eternally being denied the vote, then I'd have to disagree. The loss of voting rights would probably have a far more important and dramatic affect on our lives than having a million dollars. Loss of any sorts of freedom or rights would not be worth $1M. Wealth certainly hasn't helped legal professionals and media execs in Pakistan for example.
Besides, since when is $1M a lot of money these days (especially in US$
One hundred English pounds!!
NO!! Too much!
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
A few million are willing to give up their right to vote for representatives in exchange for living in Washington, DC.
I like Ron Paul too. However, his push towards small government would eliminate every single government support program. I think some of them, while bloated, are needed. Federal tuition assistance programs, programs sponsoring the arts and science, Medicare, the CIA. Completely ditching some of these concerns me.
He has used CIA intelligence to justify his position, but he then says that he would eliminate the agency.
I think the people who make the claims you discussed are just looking for justification for their apathy. I doubt any of them have done the hard work of electing a worthy candidate, or even tried. It's not easy to change something as big as government, so they use the "both sides are the same evil blah blah blah" as an excuse to avoid actually doing something.
And honestly, I think some of them just like to bitch and display how they're opposed to "the man".
In 2004, I gave up my right to vote in an overwhelmingly blue state in order to work on a get out the vote campaign in Ohio. The job opened up at the last minute, and I wasn't able to get my absentee voter registration in on time (I don't remember if I had actually missed the deadline, or if I just didn't have my shit together). At the time, I certainly appreciated the irony of the situation, but I never had any doubts that I was doing the right thing and participating more, rather than less, in the democratic process.
So, I'm not saying that any of the NYU kids saw things this way, but if offered the legal chance to sell my vote for $1 million (whether actually selling the vote or merely not voting), I would definitely take the offer. I'd put a large part of the money towards a campaign, and use much of the rest to support an unpaid leave from my job so I could personally do campaign work.
If you commit a felony, you can't vote.
Is that REALLY an effective deterrent or punishment?
It is a good way to disenfrancise folks tho, considering the relative chances, historically, of a white man vs. a black man of getting a felony conviction for the same action.
As the number of voters decreases, the impact of the individual vote increases. If I can find a way to get most people to stay home glued to their free iPod, then my friends and I can walk right down the polling place and elect ourselves into whatever office we choose.
Perhaps the ruling two party system already figured it out. They just get people to stay home by bombarding them with political garbage to the point of nausea. Then their buddies go and cast straight tickets. Oops, looks like this plan is already firmly in place.
Mods? The guy was obviously being sarcastic, and trying for "funny". I'm not sure if he succeeded, but when I metamoderate I'll mark that one "unfair".
However, the parent comment was incorrect -oilmen Bush and Cheney got us into Iraq to destabilize the region so the price of oil would skyrocket, making them and their associates even richer, and to hell with what it does to their country's economy or citizens.
Now go ahead and mod me "troll" too. You might want to first check my karma status...
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Your vote wasn't "worthless" when Texas came up with LBJ and voted dem primarily until the 80s. Keep it in a little bit of historical perspective. Heck, there's debate if anyone's vote counted back then, anyway.
Gerald Ford wan't voted into office; he was appointed Vice President when Nixon's first VP, Spiro Agnew, went to prison. He succeeded Nixon when Nixon resigned. He was our history's only appointed President.
He was soundly trounced by Jimmy Carter. I never thought I'd ever see a worse President than Carter, but George Bush managed educate me about that little fallacy.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I figure $100m is the magic number. I would immediately leave the country and temporarily put all the money in gold (the universal currency). That would be enough money to buy a large chunk of land and the right to sovereignty over it from some country that needs money, acquire some military hardware on the global arms market, and live freely for the rest of my life. Under those circumstances, the right to vote in my current country of residence is pretty much irrelevant, and in fact my vote in my new home would be worth far more as it would be the only one. It's a no-brainer.
Of course, if I had to value my vote as a rational economic actor, I'd probably give it up forever for about $1k. The probability that my vote will affect who wins any office is zero (I have never voted for a major-party candidate for any office and, at the rate things are going, never will). So all that's left is my vote on ballot questions; even at the local level there are often 100k votes cast, so the likelihood that my vote will be decisive is very low. And the actual difference to me (in taxes, services, whatever) of any single question is probably no more than a few hundred thousand dollars. So even $1k per lifetime is probably too high. I wonder what Lloyd's would charge me for "political insurance" - a policy that would protect me against loss of income, wealth, or material liberty due to political change or unlawful act of government - seems that it ought to be the number of voters times the present value of my vote divided by 2. This is sufficiently interesting to justify a trip to the library. Surely some economist has written a paper on it.
My right to vote is worth the lives of every US politician.
*cracks knuckles threateningly*
*My* right to vote in one election? I'd trade that for enough money to sway someone else's vote. Changing someone else's mind is worth twice as much as actually placing a vote, and the price of tuition these days is likely enough to swing several backing the right message.
The right of people generally to vote in the next election? No bloody way.
$1 million dollars invested to produce even a rather miserable 2.5% return would give you $25,000 a year. Assuming that was entirely devoted to political activism (campaign donations, independent expenditures, etc.), I would think it'd produce substantially more effect than the one average voter. So, really, even looked at from an "concerned citizen" standpoint, it seems rational under the status quo system.
While for western countries this might be more of an entertaining acadamic excercise, this (give your vote away for money) is applied in some countries. IIRC the oil rich nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuweit and the Emirates are among them. The ruling class (monarchs) offer a wide range of financial benefits in exchange for not challenging their rule.
Because of the EC if I lived in NY I would give up my right to vote for a doughnut and a good cup of coffee (at lest in 2008). The Dem candidate is going to win the state, it matters not whom is it. The senate seat will go D if Hillary wins the presidency, house districts are seldom competitive (D or R). I suppose if there were a local election which was competitive I might feel differently.
But if you live in a Florida, Ohio, PA My vote is worth more than my life.
Maybe the fact you can't find a candidate who represents you says more about the reality of your positions than it does about the political system?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In my opinion, voting for either a Democrat or Republican in a national election, at this point in time, is equivalent to a vote for the "status quo" of corruption in our "democratic system".
.... but the more votes are cast for folks like him, the more of a "wake up call" is sent to whoever DOES win that some people out there are really unhappy with the current state of affairs. They're going to start asking "How can *I* win those people over when I'm up for re-election?" and it might cause some useful change.
On the OTHER hand, rather than abstaining from voting (and having your "voice" be completely ignored), you could vote for an independent candidate. I know I'm casting a vote for Ron Paul, this election year, if at all possible. It's obvious he's not a candidate who advocates leaving the current systems in place and functional "the way we've always done it". Does he have a chance of actually winning? Well, probably not
Maybe that was worded incorrectly. Here is what I meant. Giving up one's vote for compensation is a bad idea. It is one thing to not vote, but ti give it up entirely allows those who can vote to have more power over you, especially if they are swayed to vote for someone evil, for lack of a better word.
I was born and raised in the UK and had the right to vote from the age of 18. I never really took advantage of it. Seemed too much hassle having to go to the polling booths to check a box. A couple of years ago I emmigrated to the US. I did this the leagl way and am now classed as a legal permanent resident. Sadly the state I am in only allows voting by US citizens not US residents. This has given me a new appreciation of what a gift that right is and why the founding fathers were willing to give their lives for it.
Your vote is your voice, regardless of how pessimistic you might be (I know I am), so cherish it. You might not appreciate it today but you never know whats going to happen tommorrow.
Be gone from my sight or prepare to feel my flaming wraith!
This article has made headlines by avoiding the real issue of influence.
People want influence and voting is a very round-a-bout way of getting it. A million dollars on the other hand isn't that much money, but it has far greater utility than my vote. As mentioned in the article, some people will sell their vote for an iPod. A million dollars buys many iPods, so in a way it's stupid not to sell your voting rights for a million dollars and the ability to buy many more votes.
It's also a "prisoner's dilemma" problem. It really doesn't matter if I sell my vote. When I start running into trouble is when all my friends (people who have similar views as me) also sell their votes. Then the collective effect matters.
Personally, I'll hold on to my vote (or at least my price is really high), but that trait is influenced by my beliefs, and not based on an assessment of what's really best.
T.J. was a deist, if that. Please stop the mythmaking about our founders being Christians, it just fuels the wackaloons who want to turn America into a theocracy.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I would happily sell my vote. In the U.S. a vote is worthless, but I could use the money to help the politician I prefer stay ahead of his competitors.
Unfortunately there are no politicians I prefer, so I could hold the money in trust until one shows up with an interest in providing leadership.
I was tired, and I probably said it incorrectly.
The article is speaking about giving up one's vote in exchange for a good. Like selling your right to vote for $1 million. You never get to vote again if one takes the deal.
There is a saying that those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither.
I see giving up one's right to vote equivalent to receiving security, if one receives something in exchange.
Imagine a family who needs the $1 million, so they give up their right to vote. Then when it is time to vote for a candidate, or a measure directly for them, they have no voice. They have no say in the matter. Maybe the next thing they know is that someone passes a tax that retroactively taxes that $1 million at 99% of it, leaving them only with $10,000.
My point is that the choices you are allowed are fixed.
You may vote for the Republican dejour or the Democrat dejour. Most states do not allow open ballots http://www.ballot-access.org/.
You can choose to put your money in my left pocket or my right pocket. Your pocket is not a choice.
Choose, but choose wisely. - Which shell is it under?
- Cynicism, the ultimate result of experience.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
It took me a little while to understand what you were getting at, but it's something I've concluded as well: if you really, truly want to change something, don't bother voting. Don't even bother getting elected to office. Instead, get rich and buy your own politician. It's much cheaper than running for president, and you have the benefit of not having to worry about re-election.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Then I would take the money and finance my own election :-)
How much is the right to vote worth vs. the right to participate in the political system? The latter is priceless. The former is negotiable.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I will more than likely abstain from voting because I think it is a waste of time. Does that mean I don't have a voice? No, because I contribute money to places that echo my views, like Mises.org and LewRockwell. And despite my non voting stance, I even contributed money to Ron Paul's campaign, only because he's got it closer than anyone else who's running. My money, though it's not much, will do more than my voting ever will.
You are aware that General Howe wrote in his diary about his sympathies for the colonists, right? Most of the other British Generals know, respected, and sympathized with the economic and political injustices in the colonies (Burgoyne was an exception and note that Howe withheld military support for Burgoyne against direct orders from the crown).
In the American revolution there were two sides: The British Crown, and almost everyone in the colonies (British military included). Believe it or not it was fought as a gentleman's war on both sides (Washington making arrangements with Howe to return captured Masonic regalia, for example).
The real cause of the American revolution was simple. British subjects in the American colonies were being denied basic political and economic rights which were afforded British subjects living in England. These included a right to trial by jury, a right to be represented in tax decisions, various economic controls, and the like. The Declaration of Independence documents these problems well (and seems particularly relevant today under the Administration of President George III). And the Bill of Rights, with a few exception, is based largely on the rights that British subjects in England were granted.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
You're so right on so many levels.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
I guess this is a move toward the "Bread and Circuses" or "Right to Vote" debate as happened in the Roman Republic
... and people will want their bread and circuses, obviously enough.
What cost Tyranny?
I can't believe this hasn't been brought up yet. The United States Electoral College is who votes for president. My vote doesn't count for the presidential election, and neither does yours. So hell yes I'll sell it.
See, I'd like to make all of this more visceral. Here's the plan: when you're born, you get one share of "Ameristock". When you turn 18, you can show your Ameristock certificate at the voting booth and you get to vote - until then your parents may act on your behalf.
Ameristock shares are 100% transferable - once the original owner reaches 18 - and can be traded for real currency (for a bookkeeping transfer fee). Citizenship is not a prerequisite for owning shares - anyone can! Each share is worth one vote, and there is no limit to the number of shares which can be controlled by a person or entity.
Need cash? Sell your share. Want more political power? Buy more shares!
The end result would be about the same as it is now, but hey, at least everyone would know what their vote is worth. I call this plan "Americockracy".
Remember, If Democracy worked, it would be illegal.
You might want to check your logic. Ron Paul is a Republican.
In my opinion, voting for either a Democrat or Republican in a national election, at this point in time, is equivalent to a vote for the "status quo" of corruption in our "democratic system".
I'll be voting for the party that is *not* trying to remove the judicial branch as a significant part of the government. If it weren't for that, yes, I might be looking at minor parties.
More importantly in the case of Puerto Rico, the majority there considers it a fair trade. They had the chance to vote on whether they wanted to keep their current status, become independent, or go for statehood. Three times they chose to continue to keep their current status. I suspect they will have further votes in the future until statehood or independence wins, because the US govt would really like to get the tax money.
I also honestly don't know (I can only assume) how many others feel this way (I simply don't talk about this kind of thing on a day to day basis), but I am taking the first step (I don't know if its the right one) to "register to vote" in MA (I don't know if this is even the right thing to do considering I am never in MA!!). Anyways, to do the same as me and instructions for doing so can be found at: http://www.vote-smart.org/
After that, my plan of action is as follows:
1) Read about the current officials in MA and see what writers are saying about them.
2) Determine my egibility to vote in various elections: primaries, presidential...etc because honestly (and I don't mind saying here in this forum) I don't know anything about the election process other than the presidential election process.
3) Continue to research potential and current officials.
4) Vote in all election processes that become available to me.
How does that sound? Anyone else in the same or similiar boat? My high school didn't teach me any of this stuff (...?) and at least should have had me reinforce a plan of action on how to vote and stay informed on politics..... cause God knows I am informed on other things (...not be mentioned).
Even you have have no chance of winning voting still can help your cause, in several ways and by refraining from what is a very simple and painless activity, you are giving up some very useful opportunities to help you cause.
You have to recognize this on some level or you wouldn't be giving money to Ron Paul. After all, what is he going to be using that money for than to try and convince people to vote for him? While persuading public opinion will be the main positive effect of his campaign, the rest of the political system will never change in that direction, until the people who he has persuaded are willing to act on it. That includes you.
Third party and outlying candidates getting votes in the polls can absolutely affect the behavior of the major party candidates. I saw that first hand with Montragon's run for Governor of New Mexico as a Green party candidate. Environmentalists/Progressives had been talking about the same ideas for years, but it was his good turn-out in the election that created the political momentum for it to actually happen.
Secondly, many states have ballot access rules that rely on voter turn-out in the presidential and gubernatorial elections. By choosing to vote Libertarian in the presidential election, you could help push that number over 5% which would make it far easier for them to get candidates on the ballot in local elections. Having even a single LP member in a city council or county position can do quite a bit of good. The chance that spending a measly half hour to cast a token vote could potentially save LP members from literally hundreds of thousands of hours of gathering signatures, makes the choice pretty damn easy for me. That is something that no amount of money I have would be able to do.
The little bit of time you save, you did on the backs of everyone around you. The system only works if people vote. The less people vote, the less our elected representatives feel the need to do their jobs correctly. Your "stance" isn't heroic, it's just harmful, and it's basically what the Ds & Rs want you to do. They want their diehards to support them, they want everyone who thinks critically to get out of the way. If everyone who felt like voting doesn't do anything voted for a third party candidate, or wrote someone in, it'd put the fear of God into these guys. I guess it just isn't gonna happen, though.
with very great painful regret for USAll.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Replied; Rueddy and Hillarity for POTUS!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Take the $1 million, and invest it. Assuming a conservative 5% return, take the $50,000 per year, or $200,000 per presidential cycle, and make 6-figure donations to select candidates. That should be enough to buy you a few minutes of face time with an aspiring president, and a suitable amount of groveling from his cadre of cash-hungry fund-raisers when the party machine sweeps through town. I dare say that would add up to a hell of a lot more political influence than one measly vote.
it is all about Corporatist inflation.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Since when are there only two parties?
The sad truth is that $1,000,000 will buy you a lot more representation than voting will. You could donate the maximum $2,000 to 500 candidates, or of course donate more to PACs for fewer candidates and issues. So if the goal is to have your voice heard, taking the money would make a lot more sense. For the same reason, getting a free ride at college in exchange for skipping a single election cycle would be a no-brainer.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
That depends on the state you live in. According to this article http://www.ballot-access.org/winger/iba.html since the late 1800's.
My personal experience: The 2004 election in Oklahoma had only two candidates to select from for president. Had there been any other candidate on the ballot I could have voted but as it was the State took away my vote, without due-process.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
College students are too immature and inexperienced to make these decisions. Draft them, then ask their opinion.
You vote everyday with your checkbook. So yes, 1 million dollars is a powerful option in terms of who and what you spend that money on. Certainly more powerful than a vote.
Care to tell me how to prevent him being of the "black pointy hair" type?
I think people *should* have the right to give up their vote. More to the point, I think people should be able to sign their vote over to a specialist on matters pertaining to that particular subject. I might not be interested in the healthcare system for whatever reason, but I might know somebody who I trust to whom I could hand my vote on matters regarding healthcare. I'd also have the option of allowing that person of passing my vote on to somebody he/she trusted, so that votes can be pooled and develop a sort of collective bargaining power.
My whole point is that Democracy doesn't work in the first place. At least, not in the way most people claim. My stance isn't harmful. The people who continue voting scum into office are the ones who are harming me. Even if I do cast a vote, the odds that it will prevent a scumbag from being elected are zero.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
If you are between 20 and 35, well, your generation is a bunch of ipod-obsessed weaklings who deserve any system they aren't revolting against, and you have my sympathies.
Why should we revolt against any system? Did you ever think that perhaps people are happy having luxury items like ipods? that we don't mind working white-collar versus blue? That so much of our 'weakness' is really because we don't have to fight anymore?
What makes the generation before this better, or a younger one better for that matter? I'm sure the generation you are a part of railed against integration, women in the workforce, and homosexuality. Sorry we haven't picked up those mantles. You assume we're doomed and weak because we've got it okay, and instead of being happy for the state of the world where everyone doesn't have to be a revolutionary, you look down on us because we haven't had to do what you have done. That's not our fault, nor should it be. In an ideal situation, the system works well enough that people don't need to revolt.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
Was wrong with socialism?
:) (Not that I'd generally let my religion affect my political opinion)
Socialism is a beautiful philosophy, there's nothing wrong with that... There's an implementation of socialism called communism, which we as mankind have had some bad experiences with previously... But that doesn't mean that socialism is bad or liberalsocialism.
America needs to grow up, you not at cold war anymore... And while you were all the Europeans were running half socialist countries, and still is... (I know, I live in Denmark and it's good).
Philosophically I believe we as a society have a responsibility to the poorest and weakest in our society. And by the way that matches my Christian religion pretty too
I just don't understand why Americans fear socialism so much. In Denmark we have a communistic party and a few socialistic parties, we just had an election and a little less than half the population voted for a red party (one of the socialistic parties). And just for the record the blue parties in Denmark aren't that blue; if they'd even talk about cutting down the educational support they'd be out of office in no time.
And just for the record, even though the taxes in Denmark are roughly fifty/fifty the economy is great.
- So tell me what's wrong with something being socialistic or liberalsocialistic?
Voting is not compulsory in Australia! Attendance on polling day is. What you do once you get in the booth is entirely your business. You may vote, or you may draw a pretty picture of a cow on your ballot. You may even right out 100 times "I don't have a basic understanding of my electoral rights" if it gives you the jollies.
Ron Paul is a Republican. After 7 years of the Bush and Dead-Eye Dick, NO Republican will ever get my vote.
I do hope he sucks votes from whatever potential candidate the Repugnicants nominate. That would be nice.
Obama '08
Jim Lyons
FIRED UP! READY TO GO!
http://eburgobama08.org/
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
I'd happily sell my permanent right to vote for $10k, and only for that much because it means I can't sell the right again, even if the value of that right goes up. I don't need 10k for anything, but if you can sell something that you consider worthless, why not? So.. if anyone wants it, let me know. I'll happily vote for anyone you demand. I just go along and spoil ballots as it is now, so I'm not fussy.
I view this as one of those topics that is rather meaningless as a survey, rather like "Would you kick a small, defenseless kitten for a sum of money?" People can say whatever they want, but unless they are actually at a point where they have to commit, it may not be what they would actually do.
Now if you were to stand there with legal papers for people to sign that gave away their right to vote in the next election and guaranteed them a one year scholarship to NYU upon signing, then I'm fairly certain you'd get different results. (I imagine you'd get different results in different years, too, depending on the candidates who were running and what state you were in. Fairly certain your candidate was going to win? Live in a state that is dominated by one party? I could see people deciding to go for the scholarship. It would be a much more difficult choice in a hotly contested state... or giving up the right to vote for life as opposed to one election.)
I don't disagree that just going in places like the DMV gives you that "evil, big brother is here" feeling. But ultimately, what's the "end goal" of your anarchist stance? Once the current system of government is overthrown by force, what do you foresee replacing it that will be so much better than people trying to fix the current system?
Anarchy doesn't really strike me as being a "political position" as much as it's a temporary state that usually exists during the transition of government from one form to another.
It seems to me, the Libertarian party is exactly who you want to get out and cast a vote for, since they're generally working under the premise of dismantling anything in federal government that's unnecessary, and valuing individual rights and freedoms above all else. If you simply want "anarchy, because anything has to be better than this!", I'd say you're taking a HUGE risk that you'll actually end up with a worse outcome than before your revolution happened. That's usually what's happened in other countries of the world, if you ask me.
what its purchaser will pay for.
I do like the "If everybody ..." arguments. Of course, if everybody who doesn't currently vote, voted for some candidate there'd be an effect.
On the other hand, if everybody who does currently vote, didn't, there'd be another effect. For one, I'd vote. Because it might actually mean something.
But the people who don't vote aren't going to start en masse. And those who do aren't going to stop en masse. So the "if everybody" stuff is a rather pointless assertion to make.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
A Constitutional "right" to vote.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I would refer you several films/books: 1984, Equilibrium, V for Vendetta, The Time Machine, Dark City, The Matrix, et al.
Ultimately, I don't think it will matter much. The resources on this planet will "run out" at our current rate of consumption in 30-50 years, depending on who you ask.
Personally, I agree with the GP: Buy some guns, ammo, learn how to get by with farming/hunting, and try to live a self-sufficient lifestyle.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Its WAY cheaper to just way till the congressfool gets elected and THEN purchase him.
Seriously, simple economics, folks.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
These students need to live somewhere where they can really vote on large sums of money. In March, I voted on a $750 million dollar bond issue. There were 80 people who voted out of the 300 eligible. The margin of victory was 30 votes. You just have to love California school bond issues.
Does your state have write-in?
My state had nine candidates on the ballot back in 2004.
Is that the price you set for your freedom ?
The right to vote gives you the power to change things every x years. It enables the people to get rid of tyrants or leaders they are not willing to follow. An ipod or even a million dollars is very cheap to give away that power.
I basically agree with all that. The thing is, if corps (and others) couldn't buy legislation, then the system would be working in the "one man, one vote" sense. If that were the case, selling my right to vote would make less economic sense since, individually, my right to vote becomes far more valuable. Instead of using money to influence big, national political issues, I could more profitably use my time, vote, and limited financial resources to influence something very important but closer to home. School board elections, for example, are hugely important. And those are the kinds of elections where, quite literally, a single person who actively goes out and talks to people (either to get elected or in support of a candidate) can sway enough votes to change the outcome of an election. That's amazing and wonderful. I'd love to do that and I would if I weren't so disenchanted with the whole process, if I weren't gripped by the paralyzing sense that no matter what I do at any political level, big moneyed interests on a national scale can sweep it all away after a single closed-door meeting to decide strategy.
As an aside, your observation about corps representing incorrectly the interests of their employees is off base. Corps, unions, special interest groups, and pretty much all large organizations lobby in favor of the interests of their investors. Supposedly, what's good for a big corp is good for their investors. It may be terrible for employees, but who gives a crap about them? (Unions, theoretically, but that's a whole 'nother discussion that could go on for pages.)
Oklahoma, No. But according to one site I found it is in court to have a more open ballot.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
Are you fucking serious? Are you using FICTION as a basis for how we should plan for our lives? Oh shit, someone made a movie, and my brain's so malleable that I'll believe its actually how the world is!
Grow up. The world is fine. And the problem with the world being fine is is makes people like you impotent... because if the world's fine, why am I so unhappy all the time? If you lie to yourself and tell yourself the world is fucked up (just like in the movies and books!), you feel better knowing, of course I'm not happy, look at how fucked up the world is!
Personally, I agree with the GP: Buy some guns, ammo, learn how to get by with farming/hunting, and try to live a self-sufficient lifestyle.
Fine. You do that. I'm going to live in the world as it actually is. I refuse to give up on the progress that men before us have bestowed upon us. Why are you posting on slashdot, you should be learning to flay a deer or peel a potato.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
"Suppose my electorate is ten people with the following IQs: (7, 100, 110, 120, 110, 100, 105, 98, 100, 100)."
And that's where you fail. Intelligence within a population is usually modeled as a normal curve. Due to the large numbers of people involved the case of extreme sqewing you present is very very unlikely.
Frankly I don't trust the political opinions of most people over the average intelligence either. Their all too willing to vote for the one that looks trustworthy. Humans are dumb, tribal animals.
By the numbers, NYU students aren't appreciably less dedicated than the rest of us. At least they demanded something of value for their unvote! Lots of us skip elections all the time and we receive nothing in return.
66 - percentage of NYU students who would trade one vote for a ~$140,000 scholarship
50 - percentage of NYU students who would trade ALL votes for $1,000,000
45 - percentage of eligible voters who traded their 2004 vote for nothing (i.e., they didn't vote)
20 - percentage of NYU students who would trade one vote for a $300 iPod
There are two things TFA could have done, but didn't, to provide some newsworthy insight: (1) what percentage of NYU students who actually voted in the last election would trade a vote for money? (2) What price is a non-voter's non-vote worth to them? That is, how much would it take to get non-voters to vote?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
An author who's name escapes me said that Canadians are often described as 'nicer versions of Americans'. He, (being a proud Canadian Nationalist) said maybe another way of looking at it is to describe Americans as "Canadians in a hurry".
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
"And, no one says college is a right."
No, but didn't most of the founding fathers, especially Jefferson, feel that an educated population was essential for democracy to function?
Also, can't one make an argument that society as a whole benefits by having most people be better educated?
"reap the benefits of serving in the Army to finance your way through college, like I did."
Benefits like what, Post-traumatic-stress disorder? I'm curious, was there a war on when you did this?
What about those of us who are medically unfit for serving in the army? I guess if they weren't born rich, they get to spend their whole life flipping burgers?
"Yes, the X and millenial gen kids never had it so good."
Um, compared to what, exactly? When my dad graduated university with a Bachelor's degree, (chemistry) major employers were lining up to hire him. When a friend of mine's mother graduated journalism school, major news outlets were competing for who gets to hire the grads. These days, your average j-school grad is temping in an office if they're lucky.
When my dad was my age, (early 30's), he had been a homeowner for several years. This was normal, not exceptional, and he came from a lower-middle-class background. The average price of a home was 4-5 times the median income. Now the average price of a home is 10-20 times the median income, depending on what city you live in.
so, when you say people in their 20's and 30's today have never had it so good, what decade are you comparing that with? The 1930's?
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Does Oklahoma have the initiative process?
An open ballot is currently in line for court. I have not checked the status of it recently that was as of about 6 months ago. Don't know about initatives, seems like there were some on previous ballots. But, point taken.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
Why would the citizens of your state have to resort to court action to decide something like this? I think there needs to be something in place, in all states, in which the citizenry can vote to change the laws, or perhaps the constitution (which I'm not sure if any states permit the latter by direct vote).
There is a lot of info about the history of closed ballots on this site: Ballot Access It takes a bit of digging but it is there. This article is interesting The Importance of Ballot Access One item which it states is that access to the ballot has been degrading over time. As we gradually become something other than what the founders imagined.
As I understand it there are two ways to change laws. One via the judiciary branch. The other is via referendum. This requires a large number of signers on a petition 50,000+. And those in power may disallow many of the signers claiming many reasons. So groups attempting this method usually try for twice as many votes as necessary.
Then we have the shining example of Wyoming (If memory serves) where the people got a measure on the ballot then the measure passed yet those in power have decided to ignore it. As I remember the people voted to legalize marijuana yet the government blocked it. The case I am talking about occurred in ~2006. I was living in Colorado at the time and hearing about this on the radio. This is how our government really works.
Another example of our vote being worthless is the electoral college. Should "we the people" actually elect someone other than one of our two "approved" choices, the electoral college would step in and vote for the "proper choice". No the electoral college may vote for whom ever they choose the popular vote is only sort-of a guide-line.
There is of course the last, third, method of changing the laws. The founders of the US realized this when they included the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that is why the incumbent government wants to remove that right.
Nothing is foolproof, fools are too ingenious. - Murphy
Interesting! It's far from a controlled comparison, but I wonder if the context of that web survey - outlining several different ways to be involved in politics - changed the responses people gave, instead of TFA which asked in effect "What non-political thing would you be willing to trade your vote for?"
More likely, it's probably just a different pool of subjects responding to yours. Still cool though.
I'm a bit on the tired side, so let me organize my thoughts this way.
1. If you cannot get enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot, then there is another problem in society where people are this apathetic, possibly.
2. How did your government block the law?
3. Medical marijuana is illegal, plain and simple, due to a SCOTUS ruling in years past. So state law doesn't override federal drug laws. I don't agree with this, but I'm just saying.
4. If you don't like how the Electoral College handles your vote, then have your state change how the EC votes are handled. Here is an idea. Do what some states do, make it illegal for EC members to vote against the public's wishes. Would an EC member be willing to be incarcerated by voting against the public's wishes? Well, I would hope so, if they truly felt that way.
No, I'm using fiction to show you the things that we used to think were the ultimate trespasses on our rights and would never allow them to come to pass. Yet we're closer and closer to that every day.
We need to change our consumption; Which is unlikely to chance considering the most populous country in the world is really going to their industrial revolution now.
We will run out oil in my natural lifetime, period. Before we do there will be [more] wars over what's left and I'd like to be self-sufficient before that time comes.
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.