Quadratic, or not there are two things about voting: 1. The 'pre-WWII' Hungarian system (I am far from suggesting Hungary as a good political pattern) with 2 lists per party: one of the districts and one latent national for the leading names in the party. EVERY VOTE COUNTS: if somebody gets within the District the fixed number of votes for being elected, so be it and the excess goes to the national list. If somebody does NOT get elected, all the votes (s)he got go onto the national list, from where the names are considered one after the other as the (pre)fixed number of votes accumulated for an election-need. As I hear the system is still on.
This is much superior than the Gerrymandered unjustice of the USA. 2. I do not approve a 'voting' of just "YES-men". There should be a way to express a " N O " to the candidate, or proposal. What I completely disapprove is the Big Money influence on the voting. Any candidate should get identical expense-money once fulfilled the conditions of running lawfully and NO MORE from NO SOURCE. Give the voter a chance to freely compare the proposals and make up their mind in the privacy of their home. Nobody should be inundated with ads etc. On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5/4/2015 2:54 PM, LizR wrote: > > On 5 May 2015 at 00:12, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:03 PM, LizR <[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. > -- 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.
