A Modest Proposal

(with apologies to Jonathan Swift)

 

The current format of Representative Democracy in the West is based on a number of interesting premises:

(a)  “One Man, One Vote!”  The theory that every voter ought to count for just as much and as little as every other voter.  An ignorant red-neck bigot like Archie Bunker has as much electoral influence as a PhD in Political Economy from Stanford. 

(b)  “Universal Suffrage!”  The theory that every citizen ought to be able to vote (barring exceptional circumstances).  An eighteen year old professional welfare mother has as much electoral influence as the local millionaire. 

(c)  “Representative Democracy!”  The theory that our elected representatives ought to represent the interests of the people of their district, in the manner in which they indicated they would during the campaign. But who represents the interests of those who did not elect him?  And who holds the representative to account for broken campaign commitments?  Once elected, the incumbent is largely undefeatable, and unaccountable for their representative actions.

(d) “Money can’t buy Happiness!”  The theory that money (and power) ought not exert a significant influence on the outcomes of elections, or the actions of our elected representatives.  Yet it takes a considerable amount of money and power to win any elective office.  And it is an open secret that well heeled contributors dictate the outcomes – either by funding more advertising than the opposition or by subtle (and too often unsubtle) bribery.

(e)  “Coercion is Justifiable!”  The theory that our elected representatives ought to have the right to employ force to expropriate the assets and wealth of some individuals for the benefit of others.  It is somehow morally acceptable for “the state” to do all those things for which individuals would be branded criminals – using force and the threat of violence to take peoples wealth without compensation. 

 

Some of the distortions introduced by the premises currently in vogue:

• The votes of those with something to gain or lose count equally with the votes of those without a vested interest in the result.  There is no allowance for conflicts of interest.  The poor outnumber the rich, and will always vote themselves greater benefits at the expense of those who have created the wealth.
• The votes of those knowledgeable about the issues count equally with the votes of the ignorant about the issues.  No allowance is made for the care with which people consider the issues.  Emotional reactions to 10-second sound bites counts for more during the campaign than does a reasoned analysis of the issues. 
• Vast amounts of money are expended on the non-productive enterprise of emotional and superficial appeals to voters that this candidate is better than that one.
• Vast amounts of money are expended on the non-productive enterprise of persuading elected officials that one course of action is more desirable than another.
• Candidates are always looking for the money necessary to fund their next election campaign, and are therefore always open to bribery (however covert, subtle, and discrete it may be).

 

The Proposal:

• Permit prospective voters to purchase “vote-chits” the way they currently purchase lottery tickets. 
• The price for an individual vote-chit would be relatively inexpensive – say $10 per chit.  (Or $1 per chit, if you prefer.)
• The voters would then be able to cast as many votes as they might wish to purchase for the candidates or issues of their choice. 
• There would be no limit on how many votes a voter could purchase (with the exception that direct purchase on credit would not be permitted).  Only individuals (not organizations) would be permitted to purchase votes.
• The revenues thus generated would be routed into the government’s general revenue account.
• The casting of ballots would be done in secret, by individuals, in a manner such that the votes could not be pre-determined prior to the individual stepping into the voting booth.

Advantages of the Proposal:

• “Universal Suffrage!”  Every citizen would be able to vote.  It would require very exceptional circumstances for a person to find themselves unable to purchase, or persuade someone else to donate, at least one vote-chit.
• “Representative Democracy!”  The representatives elected in each district would not have to pretend to represent all the residents of the electing district.  It would be obvious to all that they are elected by those with the most to gain economically.
• “Money Can Buy Happiness!”  Money (and the political power to persuade money) always and obviously exerts a significant and deciding influence on the outcomes of every election, and almost all actions of our elected representatives.
• “Coercion is Never Justifiable!”  Routing the revenues generated by selling vote-chits into the general tax accounts would minimize the need for our elected representatives to employ force to expropriate the assets and wealth of some individuals for the benefit of others.
• “No Conflicts of Interest!”  The freedom to purchase as many votes as one wants cures the potential ills that otherwise result from conflicts of interest.  Those with an interest in seeing the electoral decision go a particular way would return some of the benefits they would attain by purchasing sufficient votes to ensure the desirable result.
• “More Informed Electorate!”  The votes of those knowledgeable about the issues count equally with the votes of the ignorant about the issues.  Yet if those who are knowledgeable actually care, they will invest more money in purchasing votes.  On average, those who are ignorant of the issues will either care less and thus invest less in votes, or will distribute their votes randomly over the alternatives and cancel each other out.

 [Home] [Next]