eBay The Vote

Internet Voting writes "Voters in Argentina's upcoming presidential election have found an interesting solution to their political apathy: eBay. 'New and unused' votes are being posted from $0.30 to $95. Electoral authorities say they're powerless to stop it. 'Argentine electoral authorities say they can do little to stop the practice because it falls into a legal vacuum. One of the voters, Martin Minue, a doctor from the northern province of Rioja, told a newspaper it was his way to protest against useless politicians. Mr Minue, 33, told the Clarin paper he felt powerless to change the country's situation. The doctor, who works in the city of Chilecito, posted his vote on an auction website with a price tag of 20 pesos (US$6).'"

none of the above

[User 956]

One of the voters, Martin Minue, a doctor from the northern province of Rioja, told a newspaper it was his way to protest against useless politicians.

I've always felt that a better way would be to add a "none of the above" option to the ballot. Right now, either you like Candidate A or Candidate B, and if you don't like either one, you might as well stay home, or vote the lesser of evils. If you could actually record your sentiments, we might get better candidates.

Forbidding this is not part of a democracy

[Bragador]

In a democracy, you have the right to vote and the right to be heard. You also have the right to democratically select a dictatorship. If the citizens want to be bought voluntarily and sell their freedom, a democracy should let them do that. If not, it's not a true democracy.

this happens a lot in the philippines

[circletimessquare]

during elections, it is joked that 200 peso notes become scarce because they are all being used for paying for votes

my own point of view is that a government is no better than its citizens. so a lot of people will point at how helpessness to elicit change brings them to the point of selling votes (or not voting), but this is a poor scapegoat of their own failure in ethics. learned helplessness is not so much helplessness as perpetuated upon you, but the perpetuation of helplessness in your own condition by your own actions

just because you feel powerless does not actually mean you are. if you are in a country with a vote, you count. end of story. anything you believe contrary to that fact is your own self-perpetuated myth of victimhood, to let yourself off the hook, when really your actions (selling your vote or not voting) makes you more culpable than anyone else.

of course, when you say this to some people, you immediately run into a strong negative reaction. see boring and typical responses to my comment below: how dare you blame me for my helplessness!, blame [insert your favorite bogeyman]!

blaming people who don't vote or sell their vote for the sorry state of the world runs counter to the myths such people tell themselves that are so vital to explaining away their own personal responsibility. there are plenty of people in this world who do bad things and who blame their won victims or the devil or society, or any other random bogeymen when they ar ein fact the ones who have committed the crime. it is exactly the same with not voting/ selling your vote

people who don't vote, and people who sell their vote, are more responsible for the sorry state of the world than any elected official ever could be. if you don't vote, or you sell your vote, you are the source of evil and corruption and suffering in this world, no one else

to those in argentina, and the philippines, and elsewhere, who don't vote or sell their vote and have a problem with something in this world: look in the mirror. you're the source of it. those who do bad things in this world COUNT ON YOU NOT VOTING/ SELLING YOUR VOTE. your whining inaction and self-learned helplessness and no sense of personal responsibility is perhaps the number one hurdle to progress in this world on almost every issue you can think of

I quit voting

[nate nice]

I used to believe that my vote mattered and that there were "issues" being decided. But I eventually got smart and figured out it's all BS and it really doesn't matter how you vote. Politics are more or less an illusion created to distract us while we are more or less put into servitude by the elite. You're in essence given two polarizing choices and you pick a side. Suddenly the world is black and white. Right and wrong and nothing in between.

People site and listen and watch their party blare propaganda to them and they get angry and fed up with the other side who is evil of course. Meanwhile, both sides are laughing all the way to the bank as they receive payoffs from special interests funding their propaganda machine.

I stopped voting awhile ago and don't plan on going back. I wish I could sell my vote for market value.

Proof of vote?

[noidentity]

How does the buyer of the vote verify that it was actually cast as paid for?

Re:This is HIGHLY illegal in the US

[KingSkippus]

How is this not like Presidential candidates promising tax rebates and such during campaigns? They are affectively buys people's votes with their own money.

The word you're looking for is "effectively," and that's the word makes all the difference.

There's a huge difference between buying votes with money and buying votes with promises. I know, this will probably get modded flamebait, but it's directly relevant to the comment.

The most blatant vote-buying scheme in recent history that I can remember was the Bush "tax rebate" scheme that he rode into office on in 2000. It basically worked like this: "If you elect me (Bush), I'll send you a check for up to $600." Unfortunately, that was perfectly legal, people got their checks from the government, and because of that and other foolish financial decisions, our country went from having a budget surplus to having more debt than it's ever had in history, over 9 trillion dollars [brillig.com] and counting.

I'd love to see all elected politicians charged some percentage of the debt that the policies they enact rack up. If they rack up a few trillion dollars in national debt, they should rack up a few million in personal debt. If they end up with a surplus, they should get a bonus based on that same percent. If we could pass something like that, then and only then I think we would start seeing the start of real fiscal responsibility.

Re:I quit voting

[jdigriz]

The reason you think voting doesn't matter is that you're voting at the wrong time. These two candidates don't just pop into existence! They're selected during the primary process. If you were involved during the primary elections (unlike 91% of voters) your vote would count for much more and you'd have a broad field of choices. It's because people are apathetic and uninvolved in Party politics that they keep being handed two weasels to choose from! You get the candidates that someone is willing to put effort into, and if the broader public doesn't care, small groups with pet agendas certainly do and will dominate the underattended primaries and the political parties as well.

Re:none of the above

[MobyDisk]

In the US, there is a very good "none of the above" option: Vote for a party other than Republicans or Democrats.

In most states, your party needs 5% of the votes to be acknowledged as a political party, given federal funding, and invited to all the debates. In the last presidential election, about 50% of the people voted. That's enough votes that if the apathetic 50% just voted COMPLETELY RANDOMLY then we would have 10 new full-fledged political parties. Can you imagine what an immense shake-up it would be to have 12 political parties given federal funding and invited to the debates? Given equal air time? It would completely change the political climate in the U.S.

Or if only 2 other parties get onto the ballot: let's say Green and Libertarian. Then the apathetic majority just gave these two groups 25% of the vote. Enough to win the presidency!

So do yourself and your fellow American a favor, and vote "none of the above" in the next election.

Re:Forbidding this is not part of a democracy

[Arterion]

It's not a true democracy if there are elections anyway. In a true democracy, the people would rule, by either voting directly on issues, OR instead of elected representatives, the representatives would be chosen at random [wikipedia.org]. Anything else, and you will eventually end up with an plutocracy -- which is what's happened in the U.S.