How Much is Your Right to Vote Worth? 857
Attila Dimedici writes "Two thirds of the students at NYU would give up their right to vote in the next election for a full scholarship. Some would be satisfied with an ipod. A few would be willing to give up the right for the rest of their lives for one million dollars."
Not thinking far enough (Score:5, Interesting)
A quarter of it would go to the Ron Paul campaign, since I really enjoy how he's fucking with the status quo. Half of it would go to the campaign of whatever final candidate I like the best. A quarter would go to me, since I'm greedy that way.
"But Zorba! How could you give up your vote!" Come on, do you honestly think that the various groups I like couldn't get far more than a single vote with that much cash spent on advertising? I'm not giving up my vote by taking this deal - I'm multiplying it enormously.
I don't know what the "break-even" point would be on this trade, I'd have to think about that seriously. But if you don't mind going into advertising a little bit, pretty much everyone should be willing to give up their next vote - or even all of their votes - for a sufficient amount of money. Unless the physical action of putting a piece of paper in a box is really that important to you, I suppose.
I'm an NYU student (Score:2, Interesting)
No surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously, since voter turnout is less than 50%, over half the people in the US value the right to vote less than the amount of effort and time required to actually vote.
Consider that, from a logical perspective, VALUE(right to vote) == SUM{[IMPACT(act of voting)]/[(COST(act of voting)]}.
Only when elected government commits truly heinous acts, or actions that directly affect the person in question, does the impact of the act of voting get large enough to make the value of the right to vote very high. This is magnified by the dilution of votes -- if you are in a state with 10 million people, ask yourself -- how much does your vote really count?
If you're willing to give up the right to vote... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Frankly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless you're saying that I could easily be deported to Cuba against my will, in which case I would claim that that's an indication that we're in a police state rather than a democracy.
Re:Frankly... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Frankly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyone with power will seek to keep it. The more power they have, the more they will want to keep it, and the more easily they'll be able to ensure they can keep it.
This process has been iterating for a long time now. It's somewhat quaint that people think what they do makes the slightest difference to those in power
Re:No surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
Democracy is an AK-47 in every home.
Re:Frankly... (Score:5, Interesting)
Loan slavery? Strange twist in generation perception. No one says you have to buy this new car, when saving $200 for a tune-up on the old car will do just fine, or you fix it yourself. No one says you have to buy this new house, when the kids can double bunk in one room. And, no one says college is a right. Moreover, work 2 jobs and reap the benefits of serving in the Army to finance your way through college, like I did.
And at 0 to 8% on car to home loans, respectively, your complaining? No. The problem is you expect to have everything else everyone else has. Yes, the X and millenial gen kids never had it so good. It's unfortunate they never realized just how hard it can be, financing your way through life by their own sweat and blood. You think student loans are your shackle and chains? If you take the time, you might see yourself in the mirror wielding the whip in your own hand.
Loan slavery? Heh. You're a slave to your own devices.
I DID it for FAR less (Score:3, Interesting)
Overseas votes aren't counted, unless what? There's a tie... ok.
I still vote out of ceremony, but I know full well it is tossed into the garbage can each time.
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Without the philosophy, their would have been no economic revolution. The principles that the founding fathers brought forth also happened to be the best principles for economic development. When men are free, they prosper.
the point is we're supposed to ignore that $1 million dollars will make a much larger differences to our lives
How useful is 1 million dollars if, in 5 years, the wealth of a nation can be wiped out by irresponsible government? Without the ability to vote, someone could destroy the economic engine that makes dollars worth anything... and we'd be powerless to stop it without being able to vote. See Zimbabwe for an example of a ruined economy via government.
Re:Frankly... (Score:2, Interesting)
Lots of people still pay their way through post secondary education without racking up student loans.
Re:Frankly... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is of course another possibility. According to this clip [youtube.com]. A significant number of collage students will give up the vote for no charge at all.
I have to stop here and put on my male-chauvinist-pig's armour and wait for the feminist onslaught.
Re:No surprise (Score:4, Interesting)
Libertarianism is a well-armed sheep contesting the issue.
Re:Frankly... (Score:3, Interesting)
This may be as few as, say, 100,000 votes in a handful of critical swing states. A rough guesstimate of 500,000 votes total, or $200 per vote. My math says a vote is in the same range as an iPod. YMMV.
Re:The last group are the smart ones. (Score:2, Interesting)
There are a lot a ways that could be done: limit and audit campain financing (yes, limit it to an actual fixed number that would reduce the barrier of entry), ban paid political ads on TV & radio and replace them by debates on public TV. Allow any party representing more than a few % of a state population to participate in those debates etc.
"United States of Advertising. Freedom of expression is guaranteed... If you've got the money!"
Re:Relative value (Score:4, Interesting)
Klien bottle voting (Score:2, Interesting)
In effect, by not voting, you are saying, "I am happy with the status quo", there are no issues I really care about. In a way, that is a testimony to the wonderful job the government is doing; most of the population considers the government "background noise", irrelevant to their daily lives, which is an excellent place for a democratic government to be.
In this thread, we hear a lot about differences between leaders, either in Congress, or in the Executive branch. But the leaders are not the ones who really decide what laws get enforced, and what direction society goes in.
Kennedy Kasselbaum (HIPPA) or Sarbanes Oxley? The first spawned a nice black market in medical records for debt collectors looking to locate people, and the second was just another way for accounting and consulting firms to siphon money from stockholders. The fact is, Congress passes laws and the bureaucracy and the private sector ignore, them, or interpret them to do the exact opposite. Even if someone in congress wanted to make a real change in society, by the time it got past the hundreds of others, it would be watered down to a meaningless gesture. Look at the records of the number of bills that die before getting voted on, for example.
The same is true for the leaders in the Executive branch. Do you really think that Bush is continuing the Iraq war all by himself? Look at his approval rating. he doesn't have that kind of personal support. It isn't even Bush plus the Senators that are blocking the Iraq withdrawal bill passed yesterday. It is the infrastructure, the social network behind them that pushing the war (for entirely different reasons than the ones stated publicly, by the way). That social network is not voters, with voting percentages so low, voters are ignorable. As long as you can buy enough media time, the job is yours, is the current thinking. No, that social network is members of the bureaucracy (mostly State and Defense) and the complex network of obligations and favors they are embedded in that are the real force behind the decisions.
And, counterintuitive as it may seem, that is the system working exactly as it was designed to do, to resist short term fads but adapt to long term trends. It is obvious by now, that the US will get out of Iraq, although the exact date is uncertain. That is because it is obvious that the majority of the American public wants it, not because of a one time vote, however nationwide.
When I was young, a half century ago, many minorities did not have full citizenship; I remember how Blacks were treated, and gangs hunting Jews for sport in my neighborhood. Now we have Barack Obama as a legitimate candidate for president, and I have run into only two serious antisemites in many years.
That took decades of Americans working toward the world they wanted to become, not instantaneously upon the passage of Title 7.
And that is why votes are not important. They have no real power. The real vote is the one you make every day, to strive in your everyday behaviour as though you were living in the world you would vote to create. Because that is the only way that world is ever going to materialize, just look at prohibition for an example of what happens when a vote doesn't match what people want.
And, in the end, thats why America works, and why we should be so proud of it. Because we do not need to pull a lever in order to make a dream of a better world come true. We don't need revolutions to make changes to what we are. All we really need to do is want to make it happen, and those levers pull themselves, sooner or later.
There is no denying we, as a people, still have many flaws and inequities. But when you look at how far we have come, in so short a time, you cannot deny that we must be doing something right.
So don't worry about whether those students would give up the right to vote, worry about what sort of world they want to live in, because voting or not, thats the world they (and us) WILL be living in.
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Worth the lives of every politician (Score:3, Interesting)
*cracks knuckles threateningly*
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Therefore, only votes of people in swing states have any economic value. In 2008 the battleground states are: Arkansas,Colorado, Florida,Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,Ohio,New Hampshire,Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania,Virginia, Wisconsin.
There are several populous states on this list: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio, but overall the list represents less than 1/3 of the US population. Next, you take a state like Florida, with roughly 17.8M people; discard those ineligible to vote an you have about 11.4 million. Discard those who never vote and you have 5 million left. Discard those who always vote one way or the other, and who knows -- lets say you have about a million people left.
If that is roughly correct, and similar math plays out in all the swing states, then there probably on the order of five to ten million votes up for grabs in places that matter. Of course a candidate can't spend NO money in places that aren't up for grabs, but if he's spending $100 million on his campaign, it amounts to about $10 - $20 for every vote he is trying to swing. This is not counting proxies who are becoming increasingly important; the total amount spent to elect a candidate is probably impossible to calculate accurately, but is potentially several times higher. We might well be talking about an iPod shuffle per vote swung. We will certainly be within that range within our lifetimes.
Also, a candidate might decide attempting to sway voters is a bad investment. Instead he might concentrate on getting out more of the people who will vote for him who might not vote. He might also spend money to suppress the turnout of his opponent. This could be an effective strategy: get out your base, convince the base of your opponents and swing voters to stay home. In swing states where swing voters are not plentiful relative to the committed voters, a swift boating campaign along with a few dirty tricks is going to be a lot more effective than influencing people to vote. Doing something that is tantamount to paying people NOT to vote is probably not all that far fetched.
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
Those who have a history of putting their country's interests ahead of their own safety and well-being were those who were deemed responsible enough to have a say in running the country. The idea was that they would continue to act (read:vote) in the best long-term interests of the country, ignoring any personal benefits.
re: depends on who you vote for ... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the OTHER hand, rather than abstaining from voting (and having your "voice" be completely ignored), you could vote for an independent candidate. I know I'm casting a vote for Ron Paul, this election year, if at all possible. It's obvious he's not a candidate who advocates leaving the current systems in place and functional "the way we've always done it". Does he have a chance of actually winning? Well, probably not
Re:Frankly... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think I'd rather have the $1million, convert it to Euros, and move to Denmark.