On 5/4/2015 2:54 PM, LizR wrote:
On 5 May 2015 at 00:12, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:03 PM, LizR <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
Yes, very. I haven't read the paper yet but I hope when they say you
pay for
votes that isn't meaning a plutocracy, but from some share of equally
distributed "voting capital" or something similar? So people can spend
their
voting power on whatever they're concerned about?
The idea is very simple. You can buy x votes for (x * c)^2 dollars. In the
end, all
the money that was spent on buying votes is equally distributed by the
voters. So
the more the plutocracy spends its financial capital to influence policy,
the more
wealth equality you get. The author proposes a mathematical proof that such
a system
would stabilize on an equal distribution of political power.
Of course, there are many real world details that could make this idea fail
miserably, but it's fun to think about.
Yes, if it's real money being spent it's kind of similar to the current system, at least
in countries where unlimited pre-election spending is allowed. A lot of the time the
rich - who own the media and so on - buy the result they want, as per Mark Twain's comment.
Where does the money go once it's bought votes?
It's redistributed. So after the Koch brothers spend $889,000,000 in the next election to
cast 29,816 votes, each of the 129 million voters will get back $6.88 (plus the $1 they
put in plus a share of whatever other big spenders put in). Actually I think the Bros
will be better off buying attack ads with their billion.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
