October 29, 2005

Constitutional evolution

I've been mulling over an idea in my head for about a month now. It's a radical change to the constitution that might restore some semblance of order to what remains of the American political system. I think it's far too late to stave off the coming disaster, but that doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

I short, I think people should be allowed to sell their votes.

Not sell them to politicians: politicans would be prohibited from doing this. But private citizens would be able to pay a predetermined fee to the government, which would in turn forward that fee to an individual citizen that has elected to give up their franchise for that election cycle. The fee would determined with a Dutch auction, with the minimum being set at poverty level plus some percentage (probably something like 15%). All money spent buying votes would be in place of other taxes. Then, the person who bought the votes would vote for the candidate of their choice and have all their purchased votes automatically go there too.

So the rich can buy for themselves a vastly disproportionate voice in the political system, but no one can complain that the underprivelaged aren't cared for, since they're being given a subsistance level income at minimum, and possibly more if enough people are willing to pay that much for the political power.

I'd suggest that this would only be in play for electing the President. The House should still be universal suffrage, and the Senate should go back to the original way of doing things: state appointees.

Benefits to this system: those who govern would no longer have to pander to masses of uneducated, unintelligent, self-interested, short-sighted idiots. People are stupid. A person may be smart, but people, no matter who they are, are stupid. This would, in turn, probably move politics way back from the public view, where it can do the most harm. It's time for politics to be the concern of those who actually have something intelligent to say about it. We could probably do away with the damnable polarization of American politics if we didn't have to mobilize vast quantities of plebians to get anything done.

I don't care if this makes me sound elitist. I am elitist. I'm not elitist like Lenin or Che, in that I'm all about letting a system of rules emerge from a pattern, and am not too keen on imposing rules on a system to achieve a desired end. But I believe that balancing political power with social burdens makes sense, and that our current system is deeply unequal. Those who give nothing have as big a voice - or even bigger, when taken en masse - than those who give 50% of their income. It's time that those who live on the fringes of the largesse of the productive minority started acting the part and showing some deference.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Posted by ryan at October 29, 2005 04:24 PM | TrackBack
Comments

"Such a voter qualification is not that far-fetched. Colonial and revolutionary Americans believed that a man’s independence, manifested by land ownership or having paid taxes, earned him membership in the political community and hence the right to vote. His economic stake in the society, it was thought, would encourage him to act in the public interest."

Who Should Vote?
By Walter E. Williams
http://fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3944
The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty - January 2002
Vol. 52 No. 1

Posted by: nick at October 29, 2005 09:18 PM

I'm not talking about voter qualification. Anyone who wants to can vote. But anyone who wants to can trade that vote for a substance-level income. Anyone who wants to can buy political power, but at the cost of providing for the physical needs of those whose votes he takes. The rich thus don't need to act in the public interest, only in their own interest, because the mechanism that enables them to do so is the mechanism that feeds the hungry.

Ready to slash welfare rolls?

Posted by: ryan at October 29, 2005 11:33 PM

It's so crazy it just might work...

I might see what Dr. Fikkert thinks about this. He's the only economist I know...

Posted by: Evan Donovan at October 30, 2005 01:04 AM

Wealth equals intelligence to you? How blind you must be. I only hope that you are joking. This would of course make a mockery of the entire voting system, you do realize that I hope.

Posted by: James at October 30, 2005 02:02 AM

Dude: the voting system is already a mockery. we're letting the franchise open to resturant-servers who let Howard Zinn, Michael Moore, and Mtv feed all there values, which together add up to.. umm... nothing. These kids will feed themselves federal-icing all day freaking long, and then file complaint when their stomachs hurt and their teeth get cavities. something needs to be done about it. besides, he's not saying that a poor person can't vote, just that the vote can be sold if he/she chooses.

Posted by: jCave at October 31, 2005 04:44 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?