Funny story. So we have an alcohol enforcement officer here in my community. A big chunk of his salary was coming from the state office of substance abuse. they announced that funding was shriveling like a prune. We discovered we weren't going to have enough money to pay for the officer. We contacted our state senator, told her the story. Through the magic of the legislation process, she found a pot of money to funnel to the police department so that work could continue. Want to take a guess at how long all that took?
I not saying that all old is bad and all new is good. Certainly, I expect the kind of interaction you describe happens all the time.
So why do you want to turn it on its ear?
I don't. Two paragraphs later I explain why I think it would be awesome that people with connections could still use them, while bringing some of that utility to a wider audience.
But the wider audience has those connections already. They just don’t use them. You model does nothing to alleviate that. It makes the assumption that people will show up. It doesn’t explain how you get them to show up and participate in the first place.
The problem isn't the system. The problem is the people using, or not using, the system. Your socialogical experiment may or may not change the mindset of some people, but at what cost?
Please see my last response to Kai.
Neato. Now answer MY question.
That's why I say, and will stand firm on this, your eneregy is much better spent designing programs and initiatives to mobilize people. To get them to be more engaged.
The current system is designed to limit decision making privileges to monied external forces while creating a pleasant illusion of control for the electorate. The current system is designed to extract the maximum amount of milk from a docile herd.
But under your system, the Senators and Reps are still there right? So you aren’t changing that part at all. But now you are throwing a monkey wrench into the state and local systems which actually do allow a fair amount of influence on the part of the citizenry. And again, in the process, you are leaving people behind.
You are making a huge assumption that just because it is online and people get to vote more often, tht this is somehow going to make them more active.
Why is that a huge assumption, and not just obvious?
Because it is already incredibly easy for someone to vote and have their voice heard. Especially in states with absentee voting. You can practically vote any time you want now. Your system may be cool and novel for the 20 something Facebookers, but you are kidding yourself if you think that is an actual legitimate representation of the entire country, or even an entire community. There are only certain segments of the population who will key into this.
What about the elderly? How are you going to make sure they are represented when they aren’t exactly hip with computers?
And then I really think you are copping out by putting in this proxy idea. So that the people who don't want to to vote just give up their vote to someone else.
That is a misrepresentation. Proxy-voting would work in two distinct ways - either you proxy your entire vote, or you identify specific types of issues for which you think an acquaintance in your social network or a known leader could make a better decision than yourself.
You mean, *gasp* a person to
represent your vote? Why does that sound familiar? Hmmm……
It would be rare to proxy your entire vote, even children playing with the system would be unlikely to proxy their vote to their parents for very long.
What do you mean by “entire vote”. How does someone make half a vote? That doesn’t make a lick of sense.
The corruption issues aside, that would tend to breed more apathy. Plus, I can just see people scalping their votes. More corruption.
Take Health Care reform. In 2009, $1.4 billion was spent in lobbying. So let's see roughly what the average bribe would be if you instead spent that money trying to convince half the population of the US to sell their vote.
$1,400,000,000 / (307,006,550 / 2) = $9.12
Nine dollars and twelve cents. For every person who would demand $20, you'd need to find two willing to accept $5. But since every vote is equal, once word got out that some people were getting $20, it'd become a sellers market. Anyone who accepted less would increase the pot for the remainder.
Open Secrets pegs the total amount spent on lobbying in 2009 as $3.49 billion -- healthcare was an extraordinary single chunk of that. So for regular day-to-day voting issues, the pot would be much smaller. In fact, this is how much an average American could expect to make in bribes in such a system:
$3,490,000,000 / 307,006,550 = $11.37
Do you really believe that corruption would be a big issue?
Your red herring aside. Yes, I do. If Organization X wants to pass Proposition 23, and it knows that under this proxy bullshit someone is able to give up their vote to someone else or some organization, there will be massive incentive to try to buy those votes and to corral them. Especially if they can get them for cheap. And it will all be under the table and very hard to prove.
Would having smaller issues to vote upon increase or decrease the motivation to corrupt the system?
Would having smaller issues to vote upon increase or decrease the number of people who hold that motivation?
That question isn’t even based in reality. You have no control over whether issues are small or large unless somehow you are able to harness and drive society itself. Healthcare was huge because it was neglected for many decades.
Even if selling your vote was made legal - improbable, but I'll grant possible - could such an enterprise be pulled off without it becoming public knowledge?
Would selling your vote be stigma neutral?
If selling your vote was made legal, we’d be even more fucked than we already are. Corporations would amass even more power than they already have.
