Your Vote Is Inversely Proportional to Your Wealth

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

@Smapti

So you can literally buy votes?

How is this supposed to solve the problem of money influencing politics?

Ah, you are approaching enlightenment! You only need to shed a few old misconceptions and you’re home free.

Yes, you can literally buy votes in my system. But you buy them from the governmental agency that you wish to vote for. That’s how public corporations are run, and they tend to run pretty well now, don’t they?

Money does indeed influence politics, but that is not a *problem *as you so quaintly put it. That is a fact of life, and a good one at that. Money is not evil, money is just a way of keeping score of value that has been added to society. And the more value you add to society, the more I want you having a say in running that society. Certainly I want you to have more influence than some welfare parasite who takes and takes but never gives back. It makes perfect sense.

[Chronos]

Wait, Tim R. Mortiss, make up your mind. Do you want a system where the producers get more of a vote, or do you want a system where the rich get more of a vote? The two are at cross purposes with each other.

[Tim_R.Mortiss]

@Chronos

Wait, Tim R. Mortiss, make up your mind. Do you want a system where the producers get more of a vote, or do you want a system where the rich get more of a vote? The two are at cross purposes with each other.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say that they are at cross purposes, but I agree they are not necessarily the same people. However, when I get finished with a few other little changes I have in mind, they will be much more closely aligned.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Stringbean

We have to realize it’s not the vote that matters it’s that once elected even well-meaning politicians succumb to the cesspool of special-interest bribery that is Washington. It’s all about getting re-elected, which is why term limits and fully transparent campaign finance reform are the true remedies.

There is also the revolving door problem where public servants are trying to line up lucrative private sector jobs after their public service is done, and you can’t do that if you step on the toes of the rich and powerful.

[Cabbage]

To clarify one thing: In my second proposal, I wasn’t suggesting the government give money to the non-wealthy which can be used for campaign donations, just that there’s a cap on the quantity “Your Votes + Your Donations” (and a conversion rate between dollars and votes). If you have no money, all you can do is vote.

It just seems extremely disingenuous to live by the rule “One Man, One Vote” but when it comes to campaign donations: The sky’s the limit! I think there should probably be a cap on all quantifiable forms of influence (such as money and votes. “Charisma” is another influence, but I don’t see how you could quantify or cap that).

For another (extreme) example, say every voter gets one unit of “Influence”. “Influence” here is a combination of votes and campaign donations (and could be broadened to include other variables for other examples, but let’s stick with these for this example).

That one unit of influence converts to either A) One Vote, or B) 1 Quadrillion dollars. Let’s also say the one unit of influence can’t be prorated: You can’t spend any money unless you spend a full quadrillion. Barring any corruption, of course, that would end campaign donations; it would all come down to votes.

In general, for another example, say everyone gets 100 units of Influence each. Say that translates to 100 votes, or 100 units of money (not necessarily dollars):

If each unit of Influence is 1 penny, then the most you can donate is $1 (and you don’t get to vote). $1 is so inconsequential, I expect most everyone would just stick to voting. (Though it’s possible some interesting things could happen if various groups pool their Influence)

If each unit of Influence is 1 Quadrillion dollars (and each unit of influence is indivisible), no one could afford to donate. Everyone would just stick to voting again.

It would be nice if somewhere in-between, there is some x, where: One unit of Influence = x amount of dollars might encourage some people to donate, but only at a significant cost to the voting influence that person has. (Or, just as a thought, you could also try using a nonlinear relationship between dollars and votes).

For the record, I’m definitely not endorsing this idea; there’s a distinct possibility that it’s an absolutely horrible idea. I just thought it might be worth exploring.

[robert_columbia]

@Blaster_Master

…For example, using the first Vote = 1 / Wealth proposal…Potentially, this could even make the rich more powerful since now a particular demographic has greater proportional power, and they can then use that more to their advantage. If they can get greater fractions of millions of votes, I think any of them would happily trade away some of their own…

This is the most insightful thing I’ve read all day. Kudos.

[andros]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

That’s how public corporations are run, and they tend to run pretty well now, don’t they?

Riiiiight…

[Smapti]

(sorry, wrong thread)

[Mangetout]

@Cabbage

For a while now (especially since SCOTUS removed limits on federal campaign spending) I’ve had this idea that, since big money controls so much of the decision making in government, it might be worth considering having a system where your vote is inversely proportional to your wealth: Vote = 1 / Wealth, or something like that. (It doesn’t have to be precisely that, just something along those lines).

Well, one problem with this is that wealthy people often have quite the knack for appearing poor on paper.

[Chief_Pedant]

@Cabbage

I think there needs to be some change to give the poor equal representation).

Poor people have equal representation.
The poorest individual in this country can go to the poll and ask the system to give him my tax money, and his vote to take my money counts as much as my vote to continue to hog my money.

The idea that money buys votes is predicated on the notion that the masses are too stupid to figure out anything, and therefore dupable.

This may be reasonably correct, but creating any system of voting other than one person one vote will not ameliorate stupidity.

In every society ever invented anywhere across all of history, inequity is driven more by differences in luck (who did you choose for parents?) and intelligence (how well can you figure out how to navigate life) than any external constrain trying to drive “equality.”

We are not equal as humans. We never will be.

One person one vote is as equitable a system as can be made in terms of sharing power, and from my perspective, the average polloi has pretty much figured out how to vote for his share. Perhaps I have a little less skepticism about the lower end of mass stupidity than do you.

This idea that the rich guy has all the advantage because he can persuade the dumb poor guy to vote for him because he will make them richer is way overrrated. The poor may be a little dumber, but they are not that stupid.

[Buck_Godot]

@Tim_R.Mortiss

I would make voting proportional to the taxes you pay. You paid $100,000 in federal taxes last year? You get 100,000 votes. You paid zero taxes last year? You don’t get to vote at all.

Let the people paying the freight have the most say in how the system is managed.

What I imagine would happen in this scenario is that Koch et al, would get into power. drop everyone’s taxes to zero except their own, which will be set to $100.00 per year. Start financing government with a series of “fees” that are not strictly speaking taxes, and are used to finance a bunch of government grants to themselves. Rich get richer, poor get poorer and have no recourse until the eventual revolution. Sounds like a great idea.

[kaylasdad99]

@Smapti

So the goal now is to punish people for not voting the way they “should”?

Well, there is some appeal to the concept that people who vote for Republicans should suffer some sort of consequence. Other than the consequence of having Republicans running the government, that is ('cos I have to suffer with that one, too).

@Stringbean

We have to realize it’s not the vote that matters it’s that once elected even well-meaning politicians succumb to the cesspool of special-interest bribery that is Washington. It’s all about getting re-elected, which is why term limits and fully transparent campaign finance reform are the true remedies.

Fully transparent campaign finance reform I can get behind; the most salient result of term limits is to deprive the people of representatives who know how to govern.

It is a learned skill, you know.

[Omar_Little]

@kaylasdad99

the most salient result of term limits is to deprive the people of representatives who know how to govern.

It is a learned skill, you know.

It’s not rocket science for sure. The longer tenure in Washington breeds the wrong types of incentives among all politicians. Representing your constituency should be a service, not a career or a way to enrich yourself, which it is now.

[John_Mace]

@Omar_Little

It’s not rocket science for sure. The longer tenure in Washington breeds the wrong types of incentives among all politicians. Representing your constituency should be a service, not a career or a way to enrich yourself, which it is now.

I never get this bit about “service”. It’s a job. They get paid. But I do agree that they should not have advantages others don’t have due to inside knowledge and the like. But it’s still just a job.

[JohnT]

@Cabbage

For a while now (especially since SCOTUS removed limits on federal campaign spending) I’ve had this idea that, since big money controls so much of the decision making in government, it might be worth considering having a system where your vote is inversely proportional to your wealth: Vote = 1 / Wealth, or something like that. (It doesn’t have to be precisely that, just something along those lines).

…

That’s a great idea.

I’ll see if I can get severely in debt so I can have a multiplied voting effect. I mean, if I can get into, say, $80 million in debt, and my vote is inversely proportional to my wealth, then hell… my one vote should pretty much cancel those of half the electorate.