Radical Solution To Lobbying, Gerrymandering, etc...

[Meuge]

Here's something that was suggested to me by an acquaintance. I was instantly ready to strike it down... but I ran out of arguments unexpectedly quickly, so I present it here:

Since "one man = one vote" hasn't honestly worked in ages, wouldn't it be interesting, if we were honest to ourselves, and changed the electoral process to "one dollar = one vote"... with a few of very important notations:

1. The voting points come from the last year's tax return. So the more money in taxes you've paid, the more of a say you have in how the government is run
2. Only personal income counts - corporate revenue has no say.
3. All lobbying is outlawed
4. All campaign financing is publicly funded, on an even basis.

 

[sandorski]

Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

 

[EatSpam]

Very little would change, since the rich run the country and the rest of us (collectively) follow anyway.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

His personal income is not that great actually. Most likely 90+% of his worth is due to Microsoft stock. If you add up his dividend income, it's going to be very large, but not nearly as huge as you think.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Very little would change, since the rich run the country and the rest of us (collectively) follow anyway.

The vast majority of federal revenue comes from individual taxation of the middle class. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

His personal income is not that great actually. Most likely 90+% of his worth is due to Microsoft stock. If you add up his dividend income, it's going to be very large, but not nearly as huge as you think.

All he would have to do is convert his Corporate/Share holdings to personal a yearish prior to the Vote, then he'd be the Uber-Voter.

This is a bad idea all around. 1 Person, 1 Vote is the only way a Democracy has a chance of succeeding.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

His personal income is not that great actually. Most likely 90+% of his worth is due to Microsoft stock. If you add up his dividend income, it's going to be very large, but not nearly as huge as you think.

All he would have to do is convert his Corporate/Share holdings to personal a yearish prior to the Vote, then he'd be the Uber-Voter.

This is a bad idea all around. 1 Person, 1 Vote is the only way a Democracy has a chance of succeeding.

Only capital gains are calculated as income. So it would be a one-shot deal.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

His personal income is not that great actually. Most likely 90+% of his worth is due to Microsoft stock. If you add up his dividend income, it's going to be very large, but not nearly as huge as you think.

All he would have to do is convert his Corporate/Share holdings to personal a yearish prior to the Vote, then he'd be the Uber-Voter.

This is a bad idea all around. 1 Person, 1 Vote is the only way a Democracy has a chance of succeeding.

Only capital gains are calculated as income. So it would be a one-shot deal.

True, but it could be done nontheless making a mockery out of the Election process.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

His personal income is not that great actually. Most likely 90+% of his worth is due to Microsoft stock. If you add up his dividend income, it's going to be very large, but not nearly as huge as you think.

You have a point, but that 10% is a crapload bigger than most people's 100%.

 

[smashp]

F - the poor

 

[sandorski]

I find it odd that the OP couldn't argue against this and gave up so quickly. This solution wouldn't address Lobbying/Gerrymandering at all. It would merely change how it works and who becomes the focus of Lobbying/Gerrymandering.

 

[Meuge]

I was just curious to see what people thought about it.

 

[Rainsford]

I like the idea, at least parts 3 and 4 of it. One man, one vote is a fine idea, I think we should try and remove money from the equation as much as possible. I wonder how much different the current debate would be if Exxon couldn't donate to the Republicans, Hollywood couldn't donate to the Democrats, and the RIAA/MPAA couldn't donate to anyone.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Here's something that was suggested to me by an acquaintance. I was instantly ready to strike it down... but I ran out of arguments unexpectedly quickly, so I present it here:

Since "one man = one vote" hasn't honestly worked in ages, wouldn't it be interesting, if we were honest to ourselves, and changed the electoral process to "one dollar = one vote"... with a few of very important notations:

1. The voting points come from the last year's tax return. So the more money in taxes you've paid, the more of a say you have in how the government is run
2. Only personal income counts - corporate revenue has no say.
3. All lobbying is outlawed
4. All campaign financing is publicly funded, on an even basis.

I dont think that will solver gerrymadering, only increased representation and smaller voting districts will do that.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Very little would change, since the rich run the country and the rest of us (collectively) follow anyway.

The vast majority of federal revenue comes from individual taxation of the middle class. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

The top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 54% of the taxes with the top 50% paying 96%.

The middle class as we know it probably pays <10% of the tax revenues in this country.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Here's something that was suggested to me by an acquaintance. I was instantly ready to strike it down... but I ran out of arguments unexpectedly quickly, so I present it here:

Since "one man = one vote" hasn't honestly worked in ages, wouldn't it be interesting, if we were honest to ourselves, and changed the electoral process to "one dollar = one vote"... with a few of very important notations:

1. The voting points come from the last year's tax return. So the more money in taxes you've paid, the more of a say you have in how the government is run
2. Only personal income counts - corporate revenue has no say.
3. All lobbying is outlawed
4. All campaign financing is publicly funded, on an even basis.

Probably the dumbest thing I've heard on this forum....

So about 0.1% of people in this country decide the election? There are 300mil people in this country and about 50 some billionaires. Average income in this country is 40-50K, so peson making 40-50 mil annualy counts as 1000 average people. Not to mention anyone with money can move it around to make it appear as capital gains... people that are worth 4-5bil count as 1 million normal people. So people worth billion or nearly a billion can take 50-100million votes, which is more than enough to secure victory. (voter turnout is 50% or so?)

 

[1EZduzit]

A goverment of the dollars, by the dollars, and for the dollars, basically the same thing as we have now.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: sandorski
Bill Gates(not literally, but figureatively(sp)) determines everything.

His personal income is not that great actually. Most likely 90+% of his worth is due to Microsoft stock. If you add up his dividend income, it's going to be very large, but not nearly as huge as you think.

I got the impression that he donated all his dividends to charity?

 

[fornax]

Originally posted by: Meuge
Here's something that was suggested to me by an acquaintance. I was instantly ready to strike it down... but I ran out of arguments unexpectedly quickly, so I present it here:

Since "one man = one vote" hasn't honestly worked in ages, wouldn't it be interesting, if we were honest to ourselves, and changed the electoral process to "one dollar = one vote"... with a few of very important notations:

1. The voting points come from the last year's tax return. So the more money in taxes you've paid, the more of a say you have in how the government is run
2. Only personal income counts - corporate revenue has no say.
3. All lobbying is outlawed
4. All campaign financing is publicly funded, on an even basis.

There are some good (and some bad) points here. I really like (4), i.e. all campaign expenses are publicly funded at a fixed level (say, $100,000 per candidate). (1) boils down to the old poll tax that all civilized countries have discarded long time ago.

However, any restrictions on campaign donations will clash with the freedom of speech and freedom of association clauses. It's true that they have been weakened, but still apply. Still, I foresee that in the not so distant future something will be done about this because our election systems has been corrupted so much that we're the joke of many countries.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Very little would change, since the rich run the country and the rest of us (collectively) follow anyway.

The vast majority of federal revenue comes from individual taxation of the middle class. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

I'm sure you're right. Its not like the rich, who run the country, would want to pay taxes!

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Very little would change, since the rich run the country and the rest of us (collectively) follow anyway.

The vast majority of federal revenue comes from individual taxation of the middle class. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

WRRRRRONG.

the top 20% pay 80% of the income tax.

the top 1% or 2% (can't remember which off the top of my head) pay 50% of the taxes.

 

[shira]

100% (or almost that) public financing of elections, combined with a complete outlawing the current system of PACS, "funny-money" lobbying, political junkets, and all the other nonsense, is the only way around the horror we currently have.

For example, for Presidential campaigns, allocate $250 million (indexed by inflation) to any party that can garner at least (say) 30% in test polls, and provide pro-rata reduced amounts to parties that garner less support. Completely bar private contributions in excess of $1000 to a political compaign, and bar "coordination" of contributions. Back this up with stiff fines and prison sentences.

Allow unlimited political ads by private citizens/groups/companies (this is what free speech is all about), but pass strict laws against coordination of those ads with political campaigns. Create harsh penalties (huge fines, forfeiture of assets, and long imprisonment) for anyone who violates these laws.

I'm sick of our current system. Money means access and the corruption of our political process.

 

[dannybin1742]

The vast majority of federal revenue comes from individual taxation of the middle class. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

this may be true, but the vast majority, >50% of all personal assets in the country are held by the top 5%

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: shira
100% (or almost that) public financing of elections, combined with a complete outlawing the current system of PACS, "funny-money" lobbying, political junkets, and all the other nonsense, is the only way around the horror we currently have.

For example, for Presidential campaigns, allocate $250 million (indexed by inflation) to any party that can garner at least (say) 30% in test polls, and provide pro-rata reduced amounts to parties that garner less support. Completely bar private contributions in excess of $1000 to a political compaign, and bar "coordination" of contributions. Back this up with stiff fines and prison sentences.

Allow unlimited political ads by private citizens/groups/companies (this is what free speech is all about), but pass strict laws against coordination of those ads with political campaigns. Create harsh penalties (huge fines, forfeiture of assets, and long imprisonment) for anyone who violates these laws.

I'm sick of our current system. Money means access and the corruption of our political process.

How can you outlaw "coordination" with political campaigns? Don't forget that the Constitution protects freedom of association as well as freedom of speech. At least you recognize the right of private citizens to run political ads (the essence of free speech), but if I were to go to the DNC and in any way ask for advice or counsel regarding the specifics of the ads I seek to run, you'd have me arrested? How is that in any way Constitutional? This is why I don't support any politician seeking 'campaign finance reform' - the cure is usually much worse than the disease.

Money is a corrupting problem in politics, but I don't personally consider it to be as bad as generally thought. Do you think if the GOP raised another $100 million, they'd be able to convince you (meaning you personally) that voting for GWB again would be a great idea?