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."

55 of 857 comments (clear)

  1. Frankly... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth?

    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.
    1. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, I'd say an ipod is worth considerably more than a vote is today. It shouldn't be; but here we are. Well it costs about $100 million to run for President which makes each vote (considering turnout and a roughly even split) worth about $1-$2. You can't just start giving away iPods for votes with only a $100 million budget. Well, except in Ohio.
    2. Re:Frankly... by nschubach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      According to our forefathers, the right to vote is worth your life. My how times have slipped. But I do agree. I can't blame the voter when you have the choices you have today.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    3. Re:Frankly... by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      About the scholarship part, well, since you'll have to serve as a slave for half your life just to repay it, there's no WONDER they'd give up their right to vote.

      The other half of the life as a slave is to pay for house mortgage, cars, and maybe lawyers as needed. Oh, and health, too, because your insurance will find a way not to pay, when you'll need it.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    4. Re:Frankly... by Noonian+Soong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article didn't surprise me much either. I think many people feel the same way you do. Many people don't use their right to vote, so they actually give it up for free, so why not give it up for an iPod?

      But I think giving up your right to vote is disgusting. Living in a democracy is a privlege. I think it's part of our duty as citizens to be informed, be active and also vote. I know it's hard sometimes to find the right party to vote for but even when you cannot agree with anyone, there's always the possibility to take a more active role yourself. This might be becoming a politician yourself or joining an organization that influences politics. Even if you think the system itself is deficient, you could always try to change the system.

      But many people are not interested anymore. They are uninformed, inactive and don't vote. This way, politicians who do not care about the public good, get away with bad decisions. But I often notice that those people who complain the most, are the ones that don't vote.

      Sometimes I also think it might be a good idea to send people who don't vote on a vacation into a dictatorship. Just for a few weeks or so. But that is of course illegal and I don't really want it to become legal. Still, sometimes I think that sending people away for some time might help them realize what chances they actually have and how they have wasted them so far.

      --
      The strength of a civilization is not measured by its ability to fight wars, but rather by its ability to prevent them.
    5. Re:Frankly... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Frankly...that's a load of horse. People bitch and complain about how there are no choices except "sycophant A or sycophant B", but that is literally untrue. Even in the major parties--yeah, that's right, both parties--there are candidates of forthright honesty and ideological integrity (or at least consistancy) whose concerns seem to tend more toward their constituents than toward the powers-that-be.

      It is depressingly cynical to look at a field of candidates that include men like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich and then turn around and say "yep, all the candidates are the same old thing, not worth a damn, believe in nothing but power for its own sake, care only about themselves, etc.". The right to vote is important and useful to use, and if there are men like that in the field, to use that vote to support them. Unelectability is a buzzword to convince people to not use their vote to matter; Abraham Lincoln was an "unelectable" nobody from the boondocks, and look how that turned out.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    6. Re:Frankly... by TheMeuge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well at least if we sell our votes directly, the special interests would vie for our attention.

      As it stands now, the voters have largely been sidelined, and to pursue their interests companies only have to buy the attention of a few politicians, which makes bribery a prudent and cheap business option. For instance, RIAA campaign donations of $2000-5000 seem to be sufficient to have their way. If they needed to buy the unconditional support of the general population, it wouldn't be nearly as inexpensive.

    7. Re:Frankly... by dhasenan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Frankly... by kamapuaa · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Logically, you're not capable of voting if you're dead - your statement is patriotic but makes no sense.

      Obviously this whole topic is to be hyperbolic, 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, or that the American Revolution was economic more than philosophical - these are *seriously* inconvenient historical facts. Instead the point is to to praise "our forefathers," Mom, Apple Pie, and baseball. Perhaps we can erupt with a few spontaneous rounds of "I'm Proud to Be An American" or "God Bless America" while we're at it.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    9. Re:Frankly... by Cruise_WD · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "If voting could change things, it would be illegal." - anonymous (AFAIK).

      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 :P

      --
      [ cruise / casual-tempest.net / xenogamous.com / transference.org / quantam sufficit ]
    10. Re:Frankly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    11. Re:Frankly... by db32 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    12. Re:Frankly... by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I'm getting sick of this "candidates don't represent me" shit."

      The candidates don't represent me.

      No reasonable person is expecting a representative to agree with them 100% of the time. When NO candidates and neither of the political parties agree with me on what I consider to be the most important issues however, it's not "shit" to point out the failures of our voting system and the non-representative duopolistic government.

      1. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: majorities of both parties voted to approve them, and continue to support them.

      2. Civil Liberties: Patriot Act passed with an overwhelming majority, both parties approve of extraordinary renditions, treatment of "enemy combatants", and warrantless surveillance.

      3. Fiscal responsibility: In the last 20+ years, both parties have had their chance to control both the legislative branch and Presidency simultaneously, but we have deficits every year and the national debt continues to swell.

      Show me a candidate that agrees with my position on these 3 issues (even if they disagree with every other political opinion I have) and I'll stop suggesting that I don't have a candidate to vote for who would represent my views.

    13. Re:Frankly... by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And, no one says college is a right.

      When anything more than the dismal world of blue-collar education requires a university degree, it sure is a necessity.

      Moreover, work 2 jobs and reap the benefits of serving in the Army to finance your way through college, like I did.

      Speaking as a Navy veteran, I hardly think that the military is a good way of putting yourself through university. Programmes like the G.I. Bill give you enough money for a second-rate state school. You can't easily get through four years at a decent private university through the military.

      University loans are shackles. Look at students in countries where there isn't a tradition of taking out enormous loans. Once they graduate, they can travel the world for a few years if they want, or work limited hours at part-time jobs and spend more time entertaining at home. In the United States, on the other hand, you are forced immediately into employment to pay back the loans, and by the time you are free to travel, you are old and grey.

    14. Re:Frankly... by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Logically, you're not capable of voting if you're dead
      Sure you can: Lots of dead people have been voting in Chicago since time immemorial.
      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    15. Re:Frankly... by JediTrainer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We should all still be slaving along as British Empire colonies.

      Your friends to the north of you seem to have come out reasonably ok.

      --

      You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
    16. Re:Frankly... by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I know it's hard sometimes to find the right party to vote for ...

      There are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans. Perhaps the problem is too many people voting for the "right party" instead of the "right person"?

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    17. Re:Frankly... by darjen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you don't vote you don't have the right to complain, no matter how bad your choices are.
      Actually, if you vote you have no right to complain, because you essentially agree to participate in a democratic system that is utterly, completely, hopelessly corrupt.
    18. Re:Frankly... by Richthofen80 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
    19. Re:Frankly... by networkBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Partly because of the American revolution.
      It was because the yanks revolted that the crown realized that a looser grip on the colonies elsewhere was needed, lest they all revolt.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    20. Re:Frankly... by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Looking a gift horse in the mouth anyone?

      Gift horse? Nobody gave me anything.

      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.

      The government isn't loaning the money, the banks are, and they extract their usury. The Student Loans benefit the banks far more than they do the students. Student loans aren't a gift from government to students, they're a gift from government to bankers.

      No one says you have to buy this new house, when the kids can double bunk in one room.

      Nobody ever gave me a first house. My choices are to take out a mortgage or pay rent. Nobody "said" I had to buy the house I'm buying, but it's a hell of a lot better than renting. At least it will be mine in the unlikely event I live to be 85.

      Shelter is a necessity, especially in cold climates. Duh.

      And, no one says college is a right.

      I say it should be. High school has been a right for generations, ever since a high school education was mandatory for work. Now that college is mandatory (all the factory jobs are overseas thanks to our corporate slaveowners) it SHOULD be a right.

      Moreover, work 2 jobs and reap the benefits of serving in the Army to finance your way through college, like I did.

      I did too, as well as taking out student loans, but we shouldn't have had to.

      And at 0 to 8% on car to home loans, respectively, your complaining?

      Yes. Nobody is giving 0% on a mortgage, and they go far higher than 8%. If you're Christian, Muslim or Jew, look up "usury" in your bible. You'll find it's a worse sin than homosexuality. According tho those three religions, all the bankers will burn in hell. I hope you're not a Christian banker!

      Loan slavery? Heh. You're a slave to your own devices.

      No, you have to eat, you have to have a warm place to live, you have to have transportation. You can't live off the fat of the land in your log cabin, shooting rabbits and deer for food. That life was long gone well before I was born, and I'm a geezer. You're a slave to the corporation you work for. Sure you can quit - and become a slave to d different corporation.

      Unless you want to sell drugs or steal or something. Capitalism demands capital, and the only way to get capital is to have capital. A capitalist without capital is a fool.

      -mcgrew

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    21. Re:Frankly... by Elemenope · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Candidates "like that" have beaten the party machinery several times in history. In all honesty, I think it more likely that we will see an Obama v. Huckabee or Obama v. Paul race. And not for nothing, but Obama is not the run-of-the-mill candidate either. This is a guy who wants to approach foreign policy through *gasp* diplomacy (only Paul agrees with him on this radical idea), and he's a guy whose talking about setting up all federal depts and agencies with live blogs and online minutes of meetings and you know, dragging the federal government kicking and screaming into the 21st century. None of the other candidates have talked about anything like that.

      Even with good choices among the "electable" popular candidates, the fact that you fuckers (collectively, that is, not directed at parent) still are whining about how nothing can ever change and that your vote doesn't matter is a group-think kood-aid moment of Apple computer proportions. The only way we will see Hillary v. Giuliani is if jokers like you guys not only don't vote in the primaries but also consistently spout about how everything is so god-damned hopeless.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    22. Re:Frankly... by Forge · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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 ?
    23. Re:Frankly... by Grym · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Logically, you're not capable of voting if you're dead - your statement is patriotic but makes no sense.

      I realize that some of you have been led to believe that self-interest is all that matters in this world (in which case no amount of human dignity would be worth dying for), but the truth is a representative, accountable government is something worth dying for. The only semi-reliable way to achieve this end has been through the institution of democratic governments. Your vote, while perhaps meaningless to you and maybe even meaningless to the outcome of an election, is a powerful symbol of your heritage as a free, represented citizen.

      that the American Revolution was economic more than philosophical - these are *seriously* inconvenient historical facts.

      Yeah, yeah. You're not the only one that knows about Charles A. Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States--get over yourself.

      Regardless, the fact remains that there were legitimate grievances against the British Empire. And, besides, doesn't taxation carry both an economic and philosophical component? Furthermore, aren't all exploitative arrangements like colonialism, by definition, immoral? To say that 25,000 American civilians-turned-revolutionaries gave up their lives because they envisioned only an economic benefit would be ridiculous. Furthermore, if Beard's thesis is correct, (i.e. that the founders were just a bunch of fatcats trying to structure the government in a way that only benefited themselves), why would they even bother seriously considering abolishing the institution of slavery? How could such a purely philosophical ideal serve to benefit any of them economically?

      Obviously this whole topic is to be hyperbolic, 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

      How much would that one million dollars (or any amount of money, for that matter) be worth if a tyrannical regime decides to take it from you? It's funny how you want to lecture us on history and then assume as if our unusually peaceful domestic situation as a society will hold forever and ever simply because that's all you, yourself, have ever known.

      I can understand antipathy towards modern day politics. What I can't understand are the great number of people who have become convinced that governance is somebody else's problem.

      -Grym

    24. Re:Frankly... by Pragmatix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You need to ignore the parties and look at the individual candidates. Ron Paul, although Republican, is very much in alignment with the 3 things you listed.

      It is your right to sit back on your ass and complain that "nobody" represents your views. But it will never get you any closer to having your views represented. If you really care about certain issues, you can't afford to wait and hope some shining knight will come along, you have to get personally involved.

    25. Re:Frankly... by poticlin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the British colony of Canada in 1775 was barely 12 years old and was handed out to the British by the French who lost in a battle of war in 1763. The Loyalist who fled the USA to Canada were loyal to the crown and were, of course well treated by the leader of the British colony. Who needs a tight grip when you know your people are happy?

    26. Re:Frankly... by Elemenope · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you might be surprised this time around. I didn't believe that a libertarian could ever gain traction again either, but people are starting to get rightly sick of the stuff coming out of government these days that there are so many libertarian pressure points lying around to be pushed, and Paul (having listened to him do the rounds on talk shows lately) is starting to push them. Lots of people are sick of us spending billions upon billions to have military bases in Germany, Japan, Korea, et al. to say nothing of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lots of people are sick of the drug war and are not seeing the sense of prohibition anymore, especially given its costs in lives and money. Lots of people were angry with the Kelo decision and the idea that government can use public power to take their homes and businesses away just to turn around and give them to other private businesses. Lots of people are sick of the cops being armed like the fucking marines and patrolling the halls of schools and streets and harassing people with impunity. Lots of people are sick of corporate welfare, interest rate manipulations making their savings inflate into toilet paper bills, and being taxed more and more for less and less benefit.

      I honestly think that a lot of people are willing to look past the parts of the agenda they find disquieting because either they don't believe he'll be capable of tearing the state down that far or they simply are desperate for a new voice and a new approach. If he surprises in NH, the shit will hit the fan, and I think possibly in a good way.

      --
      All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
    27. Re:Frankly... by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm astounded that you can think this.

      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.

      It's not the interest rate - it's the declining wage and increasing tuition. Even a public school education will run you $10,000 a year when you're not otherwise making any "real" money - and after you graduate, the jobs are few, far between, and don't pay well - across all fields, the value of the dollar is declining, too, so cost of living expense is going up while wages are going down, meaning it's harder to pay off any loans.

      In other words, it's not the principle of the thing, it's the principal of the thing!

      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.

      Used cars are still damn expensive and you need one to commute to work in most places. Oh, and that $200 for a tune-up? That's 1978 money. Think $1000 if something goes wrong - more if it's something like the transmission.

      Owning your own house is also 1978 thinking - our generation can't afford kids.

      People often say "Work another job" as if it's an option. People are already working two jobs to make ends meet - what's the answer to that? Work a third job? A fourth? It doesn't matter how many jobs you work if the pay's so bad that you can't pay your bills.

      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.

      Look, I'm on the X/Millenial cusp. I'm 28. I've got a good paying job. I can't say how much it is, but it's more than most of my graduating class is getting and less than what most of 1978's graduating class is getting. I've gone only to state schools, not private schools. But it took a damn long time to find this job. I'm one of the lucky ones and I'm still saddled with over $15,000 in debt - and I did everything -right- by your standards.

      Our generation is getting screwed because of people like you thinking that we have it easy. We're not. We're the first generation that's likely to earn less than our parents over the course of our lifetime. We're the first generation to inherit the massive trade deficit and debt. We're the first generation with broken manufacturing unions and outsourcing. And we're not going to join the army where we can get paid less and shot at for no good reason other than to make the people who are screwing us richer!

      I don't think you realized how inflammatory your comments are, but they certainly hit a nerve with me. Maybe you should actually talk to some of those Millenials and Xs that you complain about. Maybe then you'll know why we complain about you.

      --
      I used to work for NetQoS. I no longer do, but want to keep the excellent karma attached to this account.
    28. Re:Frankly... by rasputin465 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?

      Yeah, you really should wear some deodorant.

    29. Re:Frankly... by Lurker2288 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the problem is that, I, the individual, can't stop that irresponsible government from doing whatever it wants just by voting against it. Technically, maybe, I can (if I have the deciding vote) but the odds against that happening are miniscule. One the other hand, a million dollars in my pocket now is something tangible. Add to this the fact that the last two American elections have been fraught with allegations of illegal vote tampering and disenfranchisement, and it should be very clear why some people don't put much value on voting nowadays.

      I do wonder, though...the folks who see voting as most important are probably also the best informed about the candidates. Now, assuming there's not a systematic bias that causes one party to be better informed than the others (e.g., assuming that most politically observant people don't naturally become Democrats), then maybe this will just eliminate random noise in the results.

      In any case, I figure that if a given bit of policy strongly effects me, I'll go vote for or against the candidate advocating it. If it doesn't effect me, then why should I care anyway? It's easy to bleat about civic duty, but what duty have I really done if my vote doesn't change the results?

    30. Re:Frankly... by Luteus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    31. Re:Frankly... by Echo+God · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is no constitutional right to vote in federal elections.

    32. Re:Frankly... by db32 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It depends on which ones you are talking about. Go read some of Thomas Jefferson's letters. He was a wealthy conservative christian...but he also spoke out a great deal about how religion is meaningless if morality and belief is enforced by government. He also had wonderful things to say like "The beauty of the 2nd ammendment is that you do not need it until the government tries to take it away".

      People try to do this crap with the founding fathers about how "oh they were just rich elitists too". Well some of them surely were, the famous ones not so much. They were felons and revolutionaries and were well aware that if their little rebellion were to fail... "We must all hang together, or assuredly we will all hang separately". Fancy that...government officials that actually DID risk their lives... No they are most certainly not the same as the current crop of sniveling spineless greedy jingoistic wack jobs we have today.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    33. Re:Frankly... by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    34. Re:Frankly... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    35. Re:Frankly... by Cornflake917 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, according to the constitution, we all have the right to complain. It's not the people who complain that cause problems in our government, it's the people who don't.

    36. Re:Frankly... by Sancho · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  2. How much? by Palpitations · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How much? by mrjb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Protect against pirates? But what about global warming?

      --
      Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  3. Actually... by thewiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"?
  4. Not thinking far enough by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  5. The practical approach by BenEnglishAtHome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. No surprise by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:No surprise by Nimey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on lunch.

      Libertarianism is a well-armed sheep contesting the issue.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  7. The last group are the smart ones. by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could have far more influence over the government with that $1,000,000 than you ever will by voting.

  8. Cool, $2,000,000! by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  9. All this reveals is priorities. by Altima(BoB) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  10. Re:the right to vote by EzInKy · · Score: 4, Funny


    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.


    Wow, you would think that everyone who was against compulsory voting would have voted against a law like that.

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  11. Re:Evil by dhasenan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We'd get a President who could run a successful, large company -- a damn big step up, I'd say.

  12. Isn't getting an iPod by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Funny

    a tacit endorsement of the Steve Jobs for Ultimate Ruler of the World campaign anyway?

    They got my vote!

  13. Historically by Lally+Singh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  14. Not a whole lot by illuminatedwax · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
  15. Best way to cheat the buyer by Chapter80 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you want to really cheat the buyer, sell them your lifetime votes for a million dollars. Then kill yourself. That'll teach 'em.

  16. Re:Relative value by boyko.at.netqos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  17. uhhhhh he wasn't a Christian by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 . . .