Would you sell your right to vote?

No. It should never be allowed.
I’m not suggesting it by any means as a policy idea, nor do I think you inferred that I had.

But a billion dollars wouldn’t be tempting? Or even a million? I’d jump at a million.

I can see where everyone is coming from with fearing the implications of a place where many people could opt for this bargain. But if it were limited to just one person, and you had the option to set the price?
 
If vote buying was made legal tomorrow, I can not imagine the "market price" would come close to make me consider it.
Someone would have to offer six figures before I'd feel tempted to, and I can't see it being profitable for the buyer.
In a totally unrealistic scenario where somene would offer a billion, of course I would do it.
I would. I have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle. Having more money than I need wouldn't change it.
Even if you yourself don't have any dreams left to fulfill, you could use that kind of money for good causes. A single vote won't make a difference anywhere. A billion dollars could make a huge difference.
 
Last edited:
Up to you! I guess I think of those characters not so much now but rather at the height of their popularity in the late 1990’s. Kind of like how the Peanuts characters will always make me think of the 1960’s, probably because of when they did all those TV specials.
 
If vote buying was made legal tomorrow, I can not imagine the "market price" would come close to make me consider it.
Someone would have to offer six figures before I'd feel tempted to, and I can't see it being profitable for the buyer.
In a totally unrealistic scenario where somene would offer a billion, of course I would do it.

Even if you yourself don't have any dreams left to fulfill, you could use that kind of money for good causes. A single vote won't make a difference anywhere. A billion dollars could make a huge difference.

I'd rather use my vote to help put in place a redistributive tax system.
 
I’m not suggesting it by any means as a policy idea, nor do I think you inferred that I had.

But a billion dollars wouldn’t be tempting? Or even a million? I’d jump at a million.

I can see where everyone is coming from with fearing the implications of a place where many people could opt for this bargain. But if it were limited to just one person, and you had the option to set the price?

The money would certainly be tempting. If it was high enough, well then, I have no kids. So I could just screw over the world and let it go to hell after I was gone.

And that is what would happen. With the exception that if the vote buyers got enough power, they might just appropriate back the money they bought the votes for. Authoritarian control of the elite, by the elite, and for the elite, is always the end goal of restricting participation in government.
 
I'm still a bit confused - do I lose my vote for all time or just one election?

Because if it is just one election in an off year - all that is coming up is school board and Soil&Water Conservation board, with no crazies that need to be kept out of office- I'd be willing to sell my vote that year at a quite reasonable price.
 
Well, Amadeus was pretty clear that this was a one-off and not a widespread policy. It'd be your vote getting bought and that's it. One person would have two votes, and the person buying it isn't even in a position where he needs your vote. As Amadeus stated, it's pure bragging rights amongst the uber elite. The real-world consequence of this is almost exactly zero.

Meanwhile, what you can do with the price you've set... Money can be used for more than personal lifestyle. It's great if you already live comfortably, but the power of a dollar goes a long way in charity and philanthropy, and are you saying you really couldn't think of anything to do with a million dollars? A billion? You could set up enough investments to have yourself set for the rest of your waking life and still have enough left over to make some significant impact on a cause of your choice.

I'd figure out the minimum amount needed to have my needs and wants fulfilled. Then I'd double it. Investments for my lifestyle, and then investments for ongoing charitable donations. This amount of money is nothing to Beff Jezos, but it's an extreme life-changing amount for me and for the cause(s) I pick. So I'd be a fool, morally and logically, to turn this offer down. My charity would have better impact on policy than my vote ever would anyways.
 
Well, Amadeus was pretty clear that this was a one-off and not a widespread policy. It'd be your vote getting bought and that's it. One person would have two votes, and the person buying it isn't even in a position where he needs your vote. As Amadeus stated, it's pure bragging rights amongst the uber elite. The real-world consequence of this is almost exactly zero.

Meanwhile, what you can do with the price you've set... Money can be used for more than personal lifestyle. It's great if you already live comfortably, but the power of a dollar goes a long way in charity and philanthropy, and are you saying you really couldn't think of anything to do with a million dollars? A billion? You could set up enough investments to have yourself set for the rest of your waking life and still have enough left over to make some significant impact on a cause of your choice.

I'd figure out the minimum amount needed to have my needs and wants fulfilled. Then I'd double it. Investments for my lifestyle, and then investments for ongoing charitable donations. This amount of money is nothing to Beff Jezos, but it's an extreme life-changing amount for me and for the cause(s) I pick. So I'd be a fool, morally and logically, to turn this offer down. My charity would have better impact on policy than my vote ever would anyways.

Charity tends to have a bad impact on policy as it allows the state to evade responsibility for problems leaving it to the whims of the wealthy to decide if starving children or homeless cats deserve their largesse more.
 
Charity tends to have a bad impact on policy as it allows the state to evade responsibility for problems leaving it to the whims of the wealthy to decide if starving children or homeless cats deserve their largesse more.

If your charity amounts to airdropping rice on the poors, then sure. Ethical charity entails uplifting people, and uplifted people are particularly unamused with the failures of the state.
 
I'm still a bit confused - do I lose my vote for all time or just one election?
I thought I had specified that it would be permanent. Sorry, my mistake!

So in answering your question: you’d be forfeiting it for all of them. But you raise an interesting question: how much would you sell your vote for dog catcher for? I’d settle for ten bucks.
 
I thought I had specified that it would be permanent. Sorry, my mistake!

So in answering your question: you’d be forfeiting it for all of them. But you raise an interesting question: how much would you sell your vote for dog catcher for? I’d settle for ten bucks.

There are vastly different perspectives on "for all time." If I could sell my voting rights, which have maybe fifteen-twenty years to run, for a stake that would still be making a difference in the world fifty years down the line why would I not make that deal?
 
There are vastly different perspectives on "for all time." If I could sell my voting rights, which have maybe fifteen-twenty years to run, for a stake that would still be making a difference in the world fifty years down the line why would I not make that deal?
As a thing available to all, it'd suck. But Amadeus's hypothetical has some pretty clear boundaries that make it a no-brainer decision. I'm kind of waiting for a gotcha.
 
Charity tends to have a bad impact on policy as it allows the state to evade responsibility for problems leaving it to the whims of the wealthy to decide if starving children or homeless cats deserve their largesse more.

This kind of thought is really foreign and strange to me. It's logical, but I don't think letting the people starve until the state do something about them is a good thought.

Maybe we are living in a different world that is. Mmm, my company plan to bought 3 ton 30 ton of rice, and spread it to the poor and the needy, I think that's much better than complaining poverty and questioning about how the government use our tax and crap, you know what, screw them, if they cannot freaking move and do something, and people will do it anyway without them, I think things will change, no, things will surely change.
 
Last edited:
This kind of thought is really foreign and strange to me. It's logical, but I don't think letting the people starve until the state do something about them is a good thought.

Maybe we are living in a different world that is. Mmm, my company plan to bought 3 ton of rice, and spread it to the poor and the needy, I think that's much better than complaining poverty and questioning about how the government use our tax and crap, you know what, screw them, if they cannot freaking move and do something, and people will do it anyway without them, I think things will change, no, things will surely change.

Some people will do it anyway, most won't, and it won't be enough to make a lasting difference.
 
I'm kind of waiting for a gotcha.
No, there’s no trick here. It’s just idle chitchat, bar banter, whatever you want to call it.

The question just popped into my head as I was out for a walk today. I thought: would I take $10,000? I’m not so active in the political process anymore and 10 grand would do a lot for me in the short term. But then, how am I looking to be set up for the future? Trying to quantify it for myself was what brought me to post it. I’d easily take $100,000; I don’t see myself having such an impact on society in the future even in the best circumstances, so why not take a payout?
 
Some people will do it anyway, most won't, and it won't be enough to make a lasting difference.

Regarding what is enough, it's like Sisyphus' effort on pushing the rock to the top. It's never about the result, it's about the process and dedication.

If you looking at it from the top, everything would seems like putting salt to the ocean, what ever we do, it would seems like it never make the ocean "saltier".

But look at it from the bottom, from the close sight, surely what you do would form a story that have impact to some people, some community, some region.

Why talking about Anarchy where the community can take care of themselves without the existence of government and its apparatus? Why not just start ignoring the government and do what we think is right and what we can do, perhaps if there are enough people doing what is right and necessary, eventually the right people from the bottom would come up to the top. Sometime I see our government is the very reflection of the smallest part of our organization, fixing the bottom would eventually affect the top also.

But hey that's just me.
 
Regarding what is enough, it's like Sisyphus' effort on pushing the rock to the top. It's never about the result, it's about the process and dedication.

If you looking at it from the top, everything would seems like putting salt to the ocean, what ever we do, it would seems like it never make the ocean "saltier".

But look at it from the bottom, from the close sight, surely what you do would form a story that have impact to some people, some community, some region.

Why talking about Anarchy where the community can take care of themselves without the existence of government and its apparatus? Why not just start ignoring the government and do what we think is right and what we can do, perhaps if there are enough people doing what is right and necessary, eventually the right people from the bottom would come up to the top. Sometime I see our government is the very reflection of the smallest part of our organization, fixing the bottom would eventually affect the top also.

But hey that's just me.

I'd rather put that effort into changing and improving the government since I hope that will have wider and longer lasting effects.
I do give to charity but its more about making me feel better about something than in the hope of it having any meaningful effect.
 
Top Bottom