PDA

View Full Version : More money = more votes?



KingsGambit
02-14-2014, 07:57 AM
At least, this guy thinks so.

(No, I don't think so, but everybody knows that.)

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investing/tom-perkins-vote/

Chrs
02-14-2014, 08:18 AM
That'd just be formalising how society works already.

Juvenal
02-14-2014, 09:12 AM
I say we assign votes based on the number of puns you can get published. Now, don't be thinking I'm trying to privilege myself here ...

I sent in ten puns to a contest once, hoping for at least one winner, but no pun in ten did.

Spartacus
02-14-2014, 09:28 AM
Let's give them the option to, in addition to the taxes they pay (or don't, may be more likely), buy more votes at a rate that increases exponentially: 1 million each for the first 5 votes, 10 million for the next 5, etc. Or something like that. :tongue:

Sparko
02-14-2014, 09:39 AM
That'd just be formalising how society works already.
um....

no. The US is a representative republic. We only vote for the PEOPLE we want to make the decisions for us. We don't normally get a popular vote done for things although if enough people make a stink something is usually done.

Chrs
02-14-2014, 09:55 AM
Yes, but in reality it's the people with money who get laws written for them :P

Carrikature
02-14-2014, 11:06 AM
um....

no. The US is a representative republic. We only vote for the PEOPLE we want to make the decisions for us. We don't normally get a popular vote done for things although if enough people make a stink something is usually done.

Right, the people we didn't ask to pick among in the first place...

Sparko
02-14-2014, 11:07 AM
Right, the people we didn't ask to pick among in the first place...

that's where the money comes in. The more money you have the more popularity you can buy and afford to campaign for office.

Epoetker
02-15-2014, 06:10 PM
that's where the money comes in. The more money you have the more popularity you can buy and afford to campaign for office.

I'd say it's less about buying popularity directly than it is buying access to Congressmen, lobbyists, and their various front organizations. Voting is mostly a foregone conclusion among certain racial blocs, the real money is sneaking in your particular piece of legislation between elections. For that, popularity among Washington's hermetically sealed environment is more important than general popularity among voters.

JimL
02-15-2014, 07:07 PM
If money didn't equal more votes then you wouldn't see the onslaught of money being poured into the electoral process that you do. Really, its as simple as that.

Epoetker
02-15-2014, 11:03 PM
If money didn't equal more votes then you wouldn't see the onslaught of money being poured into the electoral process that you do. Really, its as simple as that.

You can waste all sorts of money on consultants simply because you've always been doing it that way. The Republicans sure did in the last election! But seriously, it had far less to do with the money spent on the election than the far greater amount spent on fighting voter-ID and immigration laws, or in making transfer payments to unproductive people (or, perhaps, to people whose only value are in their ability to pull levers for the right guy.) What's spent on elections is a pittance compared to that.