Making Elections Profitable

[Rob Lister]

I know that some of this is done in this state or that, but I think all states should at least consider it.

State Advertisment

WE have 15 POSITIONS on our ballot for the upcoming X Election.

We are starting the bid for these ballot positions at $100,000. Top bid gets top position, bottom gets bottom, etc.

All others, bidding or not, are relegated to being a write-in. Sorry, but that's the law.

I like it. I figure most states/counties/cities/towns/etc could easily fund all of their elections through this. Top ballot position for a senate seat would easily exceed a mil in most states.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I know that some of this is done in this state or that, but I think all states should at least consider it.

State Advertisment

I like it. I figure most states/counties/cities/towns/etc could easily fund all of their elections through this. Top ballot position for a senate seat would easily exceed a mil in most states.

I might support such an option for propositions. I'm less inclined to for positions. I do think canidates should be able to make legally binding promises about refusing or reducing their own pay on the job, and maybe even show those promises next to their name on the ballot.

You might be able to perswade me to accept the whole of your proposal, but it would need additional reasons than budgetary.

Aaron

 

[Cleon]

Well, you'd only make $200-300,000 per election--Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. (Greens are bigger than Libs, but don't have that kind of money.)

Instead, why not charge people for the privelege of voting? Not much, maybe $20. And just so we can make sure that the state-sanctioned parties remain successful, we only charge $10 if they vote Republicrat.

 

[csense]

WE have 15 POSITIONS on our ballot for the upcoming X Election.

We are starting the bid for these ballot positions at $100,000. Top bid gets top position, bottom gets bottom, etc.

All others, bidding or not, are relegated to being a write-in. Sorry, but that's the law.

I like it. I figure most states/counties/cities/towns/etc could easily fund all of their elections through this. Top ballot position for a senate seat would easily exceed a mil in most states.

Let me see if I understand this.

If I want to run for the Senate, and I fulfull the Federal Constitutional requirements, i.e., 30 years of age, citizen of the United States for at least 9 years, citizen of the state I am applying; and whatever State Constitutional requirements there are...I also have to pay what amounts to a hefty bribe just get my name on the ballot?

Legal or not, I think this is f'd up. Not only for the candidate, but for the citizens who have to deal with such a chaotic ballot.

 

[Katana]

Let me see if I understand this.

If I want to run for the Senate, and I fulfull the Federal Constitutional requirements, i.e., 30 years of age, citizen of the United States for at least 9 years, citizen of the state I am applying; and whatever State Constitutional requirements there are...I also have to pay what amounts to a hefty bribe just get my name on the ballot?

Legal or not, I think this is f'd up. Not only for the candidate, but for the citizens who have to deal with such a chaotic ballot.

I have to agree with csense, but you're not just paying a hefty fee to get on the ballot. You have to outbid everyone else to get the top spot, which some feel can actually make a difference. How much of a benefit? Who knows? But, if there is one, I'm not sure that being the wealthiest should put you there (nor should being the incumbent).

Dominant party no longer guaranteed top ballot spot

Would a reasonable alternative be to have a certain percentage of each candidate's campaign contributions go to fund the election?

 

[Dave1001]

Well, you'd only make $200-300,000 per election--Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians. (Greens are bigger than Libs, but don't have that kind of money.)

Instead, why not charge people for the privelege of voting? Not much, maybe $20. And just so we can make sure that the state-sanctioned parties remain successful, we only charge $10 if they vote Republicrat.

Colbert had the brilliant idea of charging people if they want to NOT vote. Makes perfect sense to me -I think we should also charge people who want to get out of jury duty but don't have a valid family emergency reason.

 

[Dave1001]

Let me see if I understand this.

If I want to run for the Senate, and I fulfull the Federal Constitutional requirements, i.e., 30 years of age, citizen of the United States for at least 9 years, citizen of the state I am applying; and whatever State Constitutional requirements there are...I also have to pay what amounts to a hefty bribe just get my name on the ballot?

Legal or not, I think this is f'd up. Not only for the candidate, but for the citizens who have to deal with such a chaotic ballot.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. Also, we could simply auction 1/2 the ballot spots, and have traditional selection processes for the other 1/2. As it is, more than 1/2 the folks more or less buy their way on anyways, paying professional petitioners and buying TV ads. This way more of the money goes to actually subsidize the costs of running the election.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Colbert had the brilliant idea of charging people if they want to NOT vote. Makes perfect sense to me -I think we should also charge people who want to get out of jury duty but don't have a valid family emergency reason.

Oh, heavens no!

WAY too many people vote already.

My advice, as always, if you don't understand the issues pertinant to the election, don't vote. Uninformed/underinformed voters don't help make good policy.

I'm all for a return of poll tests. Just a few random questions that are covered in all high school civics classes, such as:

1) How many Supreme Court Justices are there? Name two current ones.

2) What article of the Constitution covers the Legislative Branch?

3) Name two of the liberties protected by the first amendment.

4) How often is the census taken?

Aaron

 

[Mycroft]

I do think canidates should be able to make legally binding promises about refusing or reducing their own pay on the job, and maybe even show those promises next to their name on the ballot.

Wouldn't that favor the independently wealthy as office holders? I don't think that's a good idea.

 

[Tmy]

Why dont we just enslave all poor people.

 

[csense]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. Also, we could simply auction 1/2 the ballot spots, and have traditional selection processes for the other 1/2. As it is, more than 1/2 the folks more or less buy their way on anyways, paying professional petitioners and buying TV ads. This way more of the money goes to actually subsidize the costs of running the election.

But none of those actually gaurantee that any given person will sign their name to a petition. From the perspective of citizen X, all candidates are equal in their solicitation.

Yea, some people are filthy rich and their money can do the work for them, while others, who aren't so filthy rich, have to pound the pavement. Them's the breaks kid. If you want the seat, then you do what needs to be done, and you don't cry about it.

 

[HeavyAaron]

I have to ask, Rob, is this a despirate move on your part to get highly placed on the Connecticut Senatorial ballot in November? You have to admit, you haven't been polling well recently.

Aaron

 

[csense]

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea.

It's an awful proposition.

In addition to the obvious problems, I would say that the law of unintended consequences would have a field day with such a system.

This way more of the money goes to actually subsidize the costs of running the election.

Or, it might go to bloodscuking lawyers who inevitably will have to defend the state from the barrage of lawsuits to follow.

 

[Tmy]

Why should elections be profitable anyway??

I have a plan for increaseing voter turnout. A $100,000 voter lottery!!! Everyone in the state who votes get puts into a lottery. one lucky voter wins $100k tax free!!!! You can make a whole big deal about it in the press. It promotes future voting and rewards those who care. The money could come from voter registration budgets.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Why should elections be profitable anyway??

I have a plan for increaseing voter turnout. A $100,000 voter lottery!!! Everyone in the state who votes get puts into a lottery. one lucky voter wins $100k tax free!!!! You can make a whole big deal about it in the press. It promotes future voting and rewards those who care. The money could come from voter registration budgets.

It's being considered (or implimented, not quite sure at the moment) for $1mil in AZ. I hate the whole notion. (See above.)

Aaron

 

[Tmy]

It's being considered (or implimented, not quite sure at the moment) for $1mil in AZ. I hate the whole notion. (See above.)

Aaron

Why? You dont want more people to vote.

 

[Tmy]

Oh, heavens no!

WAY too many people vote already.

My advice, as always, if you don't understand the issues pertinant to the election, don't vote. Uninformed/underinformed voters don't help make good policy.

I'm all for a return of poll tests. Just a few random questions that are covered in all high school civics classes, such as:

1) How many Supreme Court Justices are there? Name two current ones.

2) What article of the Constitution covers the Legislative Branch?

3) Name two of the liberties protected by the first amendment.

4) How often is the census taken?

Aaron

Oh I didnt see this post. I dont see how those questions are relevent to someone voting.

But I would like to eliminate party designations from the ballot. Thats one way to get people to vote for a candidate they know about rather than an R or D.

 

[HeavyAaron]

Oh I didnt see this post. I dont see how those questions are relevent to someone voting.

But I would like to eliminate party designations from the ballot. Thats one way to get people to vote for a candidate they know about rather than an R or D.

It's the best proxy I can come up with to determine the degree to which the voter is at least informed about the political process to which they wish to participate.

If you have a better one I am all ears (or, in this case eyes.)

But the assumption that more votes = better government I find to be seriously backwards.

Aaron

 

[Rob Lister]

I see nothing wrong with the idea as stated. Cleon seems to think it would yeild only 2-300k per election. I suppose in ND that might be the case but everywhere else, I figure the top position would go for 10...maybe 20 mil.

My view is that if you are running for such a popular seat, you should have the wherewithall to muster the funds from your supporters. If you can't raise money, you have no business in congress.

Still, even the most poor of the poor can be elected through write-in...worthless dirtbags that they are.

It's fair to all.

 

[Tmy]

It's the best proxy I can come up with to determine the degree to which the voter is at least informed about the political process to which they wish to participate.

If you have a better one I am all ears (or, in this case eyes.)

But the assumption that more votes = better government I find to be seriously backwards.

Aaron

I think people get the gist of the process. "I vote for this guy, and hell try to get the things done that I would like to see done."

I could get a polysci majot to pass your test wh flying colors. But if hes never seen a commerical or read a paper, he be clueless about the candidates hes voting for.

People vote because of all sorts of motive. Many of which are not all that noble.