Full Version: Sell my vote for Cash
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
Wow. Here's a provocative question.
Before we can answer completely, we need to know exactly what you mean. Do you mean some voter just says "Whoever gives me the most money gets my vote?" Openly? Well, any candidate for any office would have to be an utter fool to go along with such a deal. First of all, the vote wouldn't be worth the bad publicity. Secondly, how would the candidate know that the voter would actually vote as paid for? The voter might just take the money, then vote the other way just for laughs. The only way to prevent this would be to get rid of secret ballots, which would be a very bad idea indeed.
So, if this is what you mean, the effect on elections would be . . . zero.
Or do you mean some sort of under-the-counter deal, where nobody hears about it? Well, the candidate would have to trust the voter not to spill the beans, and the candidate would still have to trust the voter to vote the right way, so it would still be a lousy deal for the candidate. It would be foolish, and this kind of bribing would seem to violate laws against political corruption.
The effect on elections would be . . . zero.
I can only assume you might mean voters choosing to vote for candidates who will indirectly benefit them in a financial way. Well, this already goes on to a great extent. And it's already legal.
The effect on elections would be . . . zero. Because it's already going on.
I suppose the reverse of your question would be "Should people vote for reasons other than their own financial beneift?" Of course, many people already do. So, I suppose the only real questions left is "Is it good for people to vote only for their own financial benefit?" Well, it may not be very nice to be so self-centered -- and I doubt that very many people vote only on this basis -- but I see no way to avoid this. Some people are always going to vote for lower taxes for themselves. (Many will vote this way on the basis of sincerely held principles, of course, but others will do it strictly for the money, and to heck with the taxes on other people.) It's no secret that this goes on all the time, and there is little that can be done about it, unless the voter and the candidate violate laws against political corruption. (Bribes and the like.)
Before we can answer completely, we need to know exactly what you mean. Do you mean some voter just says "Whoever gives me the most money gets my vote?" Openly? Well, any candidate for any office would have to be an utter fool to go along with such a deal. First of all, the vote wouldn't be worth the bad publicity. Secondly, how would the candidate know that the voter would actually vote as paid for? The voter might just take the money, then vote the other way just for laughs. The only way to prevent this would be to get rid of secret ballots, which would be a very bad idea indeed.
So, if this is what you mean, the effect on elections would be . . . zero.
Or do you mean some sort of under-the-counter deal, where nobody hears about it? Well, the candidate would have to trust the voter not to spill the beans, and the candidate would still have to trust the voter to vote the right way, so it would still be a lousy deal for the candidate. It would be foolish, and this kind of bribing would seem to violate laws against political corruption.
The effect on elections would be . . . zero.
I can only assume you might mean voters choosing to vote for candidates who will indirectly benefit them in a financial way. Well, this already goes on to a great extent. And it's already legal.
The effect on elections would be . . . zero. Because it's already going on.
I suppose the reverse of your question would be "Should people vote for reasons other than their own financial beneift?" Of course, many people already do. So, I suppose the only real questions left is "Is it good for people to vote only for their own financial benefit?" Well, it may not be very nice to be so self-centered -- and I doubt that very many people vote only on this basis -- but I see no way to avoid this. Some people are always going to vote for lower taxes for themselves. (Many will vote this way on the basis of sincerely held principles, of course, but others will do it strictly for the money, and to heck with the taxes on other people.) It's no secret that this goes on all the time, and there is little that can be done about it, unless the voter and the candidate violate laws against political corruption. (Bribes and the like.)
QUOTE(christopher @ Jan 1 2006, 07:45 AM)
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
Not much, because if people were paid for their vote too many people that don't vote already would come out to sell their vote. And the payoff would be very small for someone's vote because of the amount of people that would want $$$.
The only problem is that you could never verify that the vote had been cast the way you were paid unless the law allowed one person to go into the booth for another because they were paid. That would compromise the voting system in many ways for people who did not want a payoff.
I agree with the prior post. People already vote for the maximum payoff. And it's really not an issue of paying the voters, because there are not enough real choices in a US election that the voters even make a difference.
The real issue is, paying off the politician which is very common right now.
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
I'm not a fan of the idea of vote buying either. I would rather have the politicians do the vote buying with their own money rather than with taxpayers money.
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
Assuming that the Government legalized it and figured out how to make the vote purchasers hold up their end of the bargain, the ordinary taxpayers will probably be too smart to fall for it. Just imagine a political campaign worker coming to your door, tells you about all the tax cuts that the politician will give you, and on top of that offers you money to vote for the candidate. The politicians of course would oppose the idea of buying votes outright because they would have to explain to the customer where they got the money from in the first place.
I'm not a fan of the idea of vote buying either. I would rather have the politicians do the vote buying with their own money rather than with taxpayers money.
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
Assuming that the Government legalized it and figured out how to make the vote purchasers hold up their end of the bargain, the ordinary taxpayers will probably be too smart to fall for it. Just imagine a political campaign worker coming to your door, tells you about all the tax cuts that the politician will give you, and on top of that offers you money to vote for the candidate. The politicians of course would oppose the idea of buying votes outright because they would have to explain to the customer where they got the money from in the first place.
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
No, and it might be illegal, though i'm not sure of that. Even if its not, as previous respondents on this thread have pointed out, verification would be impossible.
A related idea, might be to pay people to vote, but not pay them to vote for any person in particular. This might increase participation in the electoral process, though it would be expensive (5$ pay per vote, 250 million people who can vote, means up 1.25 billion dollars used per election, to coerce people to vote), and do we really want people who evidently don't care, to vote anyway?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
In a swing state, it might make a difference. But people who are already your supporters, will likely try to sneak a pay check from you, and as we said, verification would be impossible.
No, and it might be illegal, though i'm not sure of that. Even if its not, as previous respondents on this thread have pointed out, verification would be impossible.
A related idea, might be to pay people to vote, but not pay them to vote for any person in particular. This might increase participation in the electoral process, though it would be expensive (5$ pay per vote, 250 million people who can vote, means up 1.25 billion dollars used per election, to coerce people to vote), and do we really want people who evidently don't care, to vote anyway?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
In a swing state, it might make a difference. But people who are already your supporters, will likely try to sneak a pay check from you, and as we said, verification would be impossible.
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
As stated by Victoria, even if this practice were legal, the problem here is verification. How would the bidder know that that purchased vote was in fact cast their way? A couple of ways I could see the verification problem being solved:
Proxy voting: if the law would permit "proxy" voting, then a purchaser could purchase the right to cast another's ballot by proxy. Edited to add: It occurs to me that an absentee ballot would work here. You could sign your absentee ballot and then mail it to the proxy center to be filled out and voted for you...
Statistical counting: A vote purchaser could offer a "pot" for a block of votes to be cast their way. A vote seller would receive payment if it can be determined that the net block of vote went the purchaser's way. Since there's a margin of error for determining this, only a percentage of vote sellers would receive payment.
Regardless, I believe selling votes is illegal. I know that during the 2000 election there were a number of vote trading sites: see Wired article. Ahh...those were the days, weren't they
....
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
Well, I could see a similar effect to how the California proposition process works. It takes signatures from 5% of the number of people who voted in the previous election to get an initiative on the ballot AND the signatures must be collected within a 150 day interval. There were ~12.5 million votes in California in 2004. That means for a prop to get on the ballot one would need to collect ~4100 signatures per day. Thus, you need an army of people to collect signatures. The only way to do this is to pay them. In other words, only the special interest lobbies with a lot of money can afford to get an initiative on the ballot in California.
Thus, I conclude that, for vote selling, the net effect on elections would be roughly the same as today. Special interests still determine the course and debate of the electorate. But hey! At least the voters can get a piece of the action and not just the politicians...
As stated by Victoria, even if this practice were legal, the problem here is verification. How would the bidder know that that purchased vote was in fact cast their way? A couple of ways I could see the verification problem being solved:
Proxy voting: if the law would permit "proxy" voting, then a purchaser could purchase the right to cast another's ballot by proxy. Edited to add: It occurs to me that an absentee ballot would work here. You could sign your absentee ballot and then mail it to the proxy center to be filled out and voted for you...
Statistical counting: A vote purchaser could offer a "pot" for a block of votes to be cast their way. A vote seller would receive payment if it can be determined that the net block of vote went the purchaser's way. Since there's a margin of error for determining this, only a percentage of vote sellers would receive payment.
Regardless, I believe selling votes is illegal. I know that during the 2000 election there were a number of vote trading sites: see Wired article. Ahh...those were the days, weren't they
.... How much of an effect would that have on elections?
Well, I could see a similar effect to how the California proposition process works. It takes signatures from 5% of the number of people who voted in the previous election to get an initiative on the ballot AND the signatures must be collected within a 150 day interval. There were ~12.5 million votes in California in 2004. That means for a prop to get on the ballot one would need to collect ~4100 signatures per day. Thus, you need an army of people to collect signatures. The only way to do this is to pay them. In other words, only the special interest lobbies with a lot of money can afford to get an initiative on the ballot in California.
Thus, I conclude that, for vote selling, the net effect on elections would be roughly the same as today. Special interests still determine the course and debate of the electorate. But hey! At least the voters can get a piece of the action and not just the politicians...
QUOTE(christopher @ Jan 1 2006, 06:45 AM)
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
1.) Free nation, people should be allowed to vote for whomever they choose and have it determined in any way they deem acceptable.
2.) I predict minimal at best, while some people would leap at the chance (and it would certainly boost vote turn-out) it would probably not have a wholly one way or another tip to either party. People (call me naive) tend to follow their personal opinions or morals towards a candidate, I imagine status quo would weather the storm if paying for a vote were permitted.
Should a person be allowed to sell their votes to the highest bidder?
Good Lord, lets hope not. Could you imagine the people that we could have in office if vote buying was a legal and widespread act? P Diddy would be president.
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
For certain elections, ones with a smaller voting populace, it could have a huge effect.
Good Lord, lets hope not. Could you imagine the people that we could have in office if vote buying was a legal and widespread act? P Diddy would be president.
How much of an effect would that have on elections?
For certain elections, ones with a smaller voting populace, it could have a huge effect.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.