h a l f b a k e r yNo, not that kind of baked.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
In this system, any money contributed towards a presidential campaign does not go towards advertising, publicity, or the usual efforts, but rather, must be placed in a trust fund that cannot be accessed until after the election.
The popular vote in each state is then modified by a factor representing
which side raised more funds, times a typical "influence percentage" which represents how many extra votes each dollar typically is worth in publicity, like I don't know, 10% per $1 billion.
Each state's unadjusted popular vote plus the deemed "monetary vote" determines the winner of that state's electoral votes.
The trust funds are then emptied and they become a discretionary fund for the government to reduce deficit, instead of valueless advertising and gainless temporary jobs that artificially affect the unemployment rate. Or if this system is used for a state election, the trust funds could go towards education.
[link]
|
| |
But... but... that actually makes sense. It's un-American! |
|
| |
I gave it a + for the pure engineering elegance, and the fact that it makes clear what is already true: the election results are for sale ot the highest bidder. But while all the advertising is quite annoying, at least it helps somewhat to educate the general population about the issue and candidates. If you combine this with some other system to help promote productive debate in the general population it might even be workable. |
|
| |
For maximum benefit the money should be collected in such a way that money submited earlier in the collection time period counts more than money collected later. That way contributors will submit money as soon as possible, but then based on the real-time tally would dig deeper to add funds. For example, if after the first day of collections the money in support of XX was behind by $1M, that shortfall could be eliminated by submitting $1.1M the next day. |
|
| |
I was also considering a system where every person can either contribute money or vote, but not both. But that would be too hard to administer. |
|
| |
Not to mention that it's a no-brainer for politically-minded
CEOs who have millions of easily-laundered tax-deductible
corporate dollars but only one vote. |
|
| |
I want to hate this idea so bad, but, it is better than the system we have. :'( |
|
| |
In all political systems (even dictatorial ones) -
there's some range of idea competition --
obviously a narrower one for dictatorships. |
|
| |
The closer you get to a democratic ideal, the
larger that range is, but it's not infinite (i.e. some
ideas are so politically incorrect true debate is
impossible in a modern society, but they still exist
at the fringes). |
|
| |
Enter campaign contributions. What are they
used for? |
|
| |
1) Organization, i.e. hiring campaign workers, etc
2) Advertising, primarily TV advertising. |
|
| |
It seems to be a universal presumption that this
second use is at the very least problematic. It is
also statistically demonstrable that it is effective,
at least in the form of negative advertising. |
|
| |
But what does it actually mean that it is
"effective"? It means the vote of a range of voters
is very sway-able, which most likely means it is
insufficiently informed. (or if you'd like, they are
not set in their ways). |
|
| |
Bottom line is -- no matter what you do, so long as
a democratic system depends on getting votes, in
large part on getting the votes of those who are
not informed and honestly mostly couldn't care
less, it is impossible to expect that money would
not be used to attempt to influence those voters -
- since they are the only voters who would actually
possibly change their mind. |
|
| |
I suspect the real flaw is in the system, and is
unfix-able. It is a direct result of actually letting
people vote. Enter your favorite Churchill quote. |
|
| |
As to the "goodness" of the cause, and whether
money comes from one or more sources: |
|
| |
There's a wondrous thing about money -- it is a
mostly universally accessible, fungible exchange
mechanism. |
|
| |
So if you are able to motivate 1000 people to send
you $1000 each, or a single person to send you a
million dollars, or even if you are using your own --
it is an indication of different skills, and perhaps
different strategies -- but in the end, what
matters is that you figured out how to get a
sufficient amount of money to pursue your goal. |
|
| |
One way or another, in the upcoming Presidential
election, the candidates will spend roughly $20 per
vote. But in actuality, if you divide by the "sway-
able" votes, it's closer to $200 per vote. Gotta get
the money from somewhere. |
|
| |
You want to reduce the deficit? Have the people who pay taxes, make the budget, not the politicians. If you don't pay taxes, you don't get to decide (even through a representative) where the money goes. |
|
| |
Politicians pay taxes, cat. Well, some of them do, anyway. |
|
| |