• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Making Elections Profitable

I'd rather they re-vive the American tradition of serving beer at elections.
 
Tmy said:
I think people get the gist of the process. "I vote for this guy, and hell try to get the things done that I would like to see done."

I could get a polysci majot to pass your test wh flying colors. But if hes never seen a commerical or read a paper, he be clueless about the candidates hes voting for.

People vote because of all sorts of motive. Many of which are not all that noble.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment. But I don't think it undermines my idea.

Let's change tracks a bit. I don't think your fine commonwealth has propositions, be we cowboys in the west do. People vote on these wannabe laws. But most people don't take the time to even read the real text of the law (there's a paraphrased version provided instead) nevermind really think about all of the consequences or find out from the experts what the consequences would be.

Now back to a canidate. They represent a whole slew of issues at once. The voters are even less adept at evaluating them.

This is why weird things like "the taller canidate usually wins" and "the canidate with best name recognition usually wins" are true. It's also why things like proposing impossible to pass bills like a flag burning amendment crop up. These are all because of uninformed voters.

I can't blame them. It doesn't make rational sense to be an informed voter strictly for the purpose of being an informed voter. It involves a LOT of work, and the odds that any one vote will make a difference are astronomically opposed. It's a problem with representitive government.

I don't claim that a poll test is some sort of panaceia. It's just a first tier attempt at filtering out the least infomed. (It wouldn't take a polysci major; every high school graduate in theory knows this stuff. Those that don't are exactly those that I don't want voting. They are among the least informed. That's the whole idea.)

Aaron
 
My view is that if you are running for such a popular seat, you should have the wherewithall to muster the funds from your supporters. If you can't raise money, you have no business in congress.
Click to expand...
Sure, it's easy to raise money. If it seems like you have a decent chance of getting elected, all you have to do is promise tax-breaks and other financial incentives to those who have the money to support your campaign - mostly large corporations and the people who run them.

And if you equate their interests with those of the country/state, it's a great idea.
 
egslim said:
Sure, it's easy to raise money. If it seems like you have a decent chance of getting elected, all you have to do is promise tax-breaks and other financial incentives to those who have the money to support your campaign - mostly large corporations and the people who run them.
Click to expand...

Isn't that what happens anyway?
 
Rob Lister said:
Number 1 rule in marketing.
Click to expand...

What, Location Location Location?

That doesn't answer the question. What incentive is there to pay that much money? Is someone more likely to vote for a candidate just because they have the top spot? Would you vote for a communist because he was on the top spot on the ballot?
 
Tony said:
What, Location Location Location?

That doesn't answer the question. What incentive is there to pay that much money? Is someone more likely to vote for a candidate just because they have the top spot? Would you vote for a communist because he was on the top spot on the ballot?
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I don't explain the auction mindset to you. If you don't buy it, fine.
 
Rob Lister said:
Forgive me if I don't explain the auction mindset to you.
Click to expand...

I understand the auction mind-set. But I don't see it carrying over into something like an election. There has to be an incentive for someone to be on the top spot on a ballot. No such incentive exists. People aren't more willing to vote for a candidate simply because they appear on the top of the ballot so why pay for it?
 
Tony said:
I understand the auction mind-set. But I don't see it carrying over into something like an election. There has to be an incentive for someone to be on the top spot on a ballot. No such incentive exists. People aren't more willing to vote for a candidate simply because they appear on the top of the ballot so why pay for it?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think there is. I believe people ARE more likely to. Especially as the number of canidates increases. Don't ask me. I still believe most voters are turnips.

This was widely discussed during the running for governer of California when there were hundreds of people running for the office. I believe the resolution was to have an assortment of different ballots with different orderings of the canidates.

Aaron
 
HeavyAaron said:
Actually, I think there is. I believe people ARE more likely to.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I'm clear. You believe that people are more likely to vote for candidate simply because his name appears higher than another candidate? That would imply that most people don't make a discussion about who to vote for until they arrive at the election booth.
 
Rob Lister said:
Isn't that what happens anyway?
Click to expand...

To a certain extent, yes. And it's a move away from democracy, towards aristocracy. Which I think is a very bad development, and should be reversed - not promoted.
 
Tmy said:
Why should elections be profitable anyway??

I have a plan for increaseing voter turnout. A $100,000 voter lottery!!! Everyone in the state who votes get puts into a lottery. one lucky voter wins $100k tax free!!!! You can make a whole big deal about it in the press. It promotes future voting and rewards those who care. The money could come from voter registration budgets.
Click to expand...
Congratulations, Tmy, this is the only good idea I have seen mentioned in this thread.

Aren't people already buying their way in anyways? The guy with the most money wins? That'll help weed out corruption, yeah! What're y'all smokin today? Can I have some?
 
Tony said:
Let me make sure I'm clear. You believe that people are more likely to vote for candidate simply because his name appears higher than another candidate? That would imply that most people don't make a discussion about who to vote for until they arrive at the election booth.
Click to expand...

Yes on all accounts. (accept change "most people" to a "small, but statistically significant number of people)

Why do you think there are laws preventing campaign signs from being closer than a given distance from the booths?

Turnips, I say!

Aaron
 
csense said:
It's an awful proposition.

In addition to the obvious problems, I would say that the law of unintended consequences would have a field day with such a system.



Or, it might go to bloodscuking lawyers who inevitably will have to defend the state from the barrage of lawsuits to follow.
Click to expand...

The law of intended consequences suggest that the state will have a barrage of lawsuits no matter what. It has the deepest pockets.
 
Mycroft said:
Wouldn't that favor the independently wealthy as office holders? I don't think that's a good idea.
Click to expand...

congressional salaries are already sufficiently low as to favor independently wealth office holder. If we want to get serious, we should pay congressmen and top appointees what equivalent people doing their job in the private sector make. Same with federal judges. We should also tie pay to performance. For example, presidential pay packages could be tied to keeping inflation low and GDP growth high. Payment of 1 billion per year or more would not be unreasonable for Clinton era economic growth.That could incentivize our best managers to go for top executive spots in the public sector during their peak performance years. This could work at any scale: for example I wish New York City worked that way, so we could easily recruit someone with Bloombergs managerial talent to succeed him as mayor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom