My proposal is that we give every American 100 democracy dollars that you can only give to candidates and causes that you like. This would washout the lobbyist cash by a factor of eight to one. (Yang in
Since this is America, it would happen sooner than later that secondary markets for Democracy Dollars would arise in which less active / non-active voters can exchange Dollars for other goods and services. Then of course the eventual financialization of Democracy Dollars - it would be a rather safe asset class!
So, this is supposed to make democracy more 'representative', correct - i.e. to better represent the will of the people. Would that improve the governance, though? Shouldn't that be the real goal? Are you sure this more representative system would not degenerate into witch hunts with hyperinflation?
I work in finance, and every time I read popular articles about the financial crisis (you know, about the 'banksters'), I thank god we are not living in a more representative system. I'm telling you, "witch hunts with hyperinflation".
point taken. i was referring more to the bare-minimum requirements as opposed to the way it would actually play out. The reps don't all need to sit in one room to cast votes (and then take a wagon home to communicate with their constituency)
Have you ever been a member of a deliberative representative body? If you had been (I have), I suspect you wouldn't think phones and video-chat are any kind of substitute for in-person discussion and negotiation.
But you have a point re #cititzen/representative.
Perhaps the problem is more about over-centralization. If key democratic decisions were made for smaller geographical areas, with smaller populations, we could have a proportionately smaller ratio of citizens:represenstatives.
This is a terrible idea. Think about it: Republicans can spend $100 each on political advocacy. Period. Democrats can spend $100 each, plus all the free "invisible" political donations in the form of free and slanted coverage from ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, CBS, NBC, Google, Facebook, NYT, WaPo, Disney, the BBC, etc. Like all political "reforms" touted by liberals, this is stealth totalitarianism.
This doesn't washout lobbying money 8:1 because lobbying money still gets spent on concentrated low visibility niches where people who do full time research have determined that it will make the biggest difference. The democracy dollars will help some, but also mostly go towards big already visible tug-of-wars cancelling out most of itself in zero sum races for attention.
I think this is a great stop-gap measure that fits within the bounds of what a president can reasonably accomplish, but the real solution is to increase our number of representatives, not the amount of money they each get. At this country's founding, each represented just 55-60 thousand people, and that included women and slaves who could not vote. Today, its 750,000 citizens per representative. That's why they don't truly represent us, why incumbency is so prevalent.
It's 2019. Why is it necessary for them all to physically be in washington full-time? We have phones now. And video-chat.
Between having many more targets and having them dispersed throughout the country instead of concentrated in one city, this would multiply the price of lobbying by much more than 8-fold (and it would increase accountability of elected officials, and make gerrymandering a royal pain)
We have many voucher systems which mostly successfully prevent people from selling their vouchers.
Since this is America, it would happen sooner than later that secondary markets for Democracy Dollars would arise in which less active / non-active voters can exchange Dollars for other goods and services. Then of course the eventual financialization of Democracy Dollars - it would be a rather safe asset class!
My goal is more to take away excuses that now prevent sensible policies.
So, this is supposed to make democracy more 'representative', correct - i.e. to better represent the will of the people. Would that improve the governance, though? Shouldn't that be the real goal? Are you sure this more representative system would not degenerate into witch hunts with hyperinflation?
I work in finance, and every time I read popular articles about the financial crisis (you know, about the 'banksters'), I thank god we are not living in a more representative system. I'm telling you, "witch hunts with hyperinflation".
point taken. i was referring more to the bare-minimum requirements as opposed to the way it would actually play out. The reps don't all need to sit in one room to cast votes (and then take a wagon home to communicate with their constituency)
Have you ever been a member of a deliberative representative body? If you had been (I have), I suspect you wouldn't think phones and video-chat are any kind of substitute for in-person discussion and negotiation.
But you have a point re #cititzen/representative.
Perhaps the problem is more about over-centralization. If key democratic decisions were made for smaller geographical areas, with smaller populations, we could have a proportionately smaller ratio of citizens:represenstatives.
But the status quo already has that 'invisible' spending. Isn't this a gain over the status quo in your eyes?
This is a terrible idea. Think about it: Republicans can spend $100 each on political advocacy. Period. Democrats can spend $100 each, plus all the free "invisible" political donations in the form of free and slanted coverage from ABC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, CBS, NBC, Google, Facebook, NYT, WaPo, Disney, the BBC, etc. Like all political "reforms" touted by liberals, this is stealth totalitarianism.
Hence my preference for a simple system, lacking constraints.
The people running this program might decide that only some causes or candidates count as real causes or candidates.
I firmly believe that there are so, so many better ways to spend tens of billions of dollars then on campaign advertising. Holy smokes!
Of course money doesn't cancel the advantage of info, but I wouldn't want to cancel that advantage, as I want a better informed political process.
This doesn't washout lobbying money 8:1 because lobbying money still gets spent on concentrated low visibility niches where people who do full time research have determined that it will make the biggest difference. The democracy dollars will help some, but also mostly go towards big already visible tug-of-wars cancelling out most of itself in zero sum races for attention.
Disclosure: I will vote for Andrew Yang.
I think this is a great stop-gap measure that fits within the bounds of what a president can reasonably accomplish, but the real solution is to increase our number of representatives, not the amount of money they each get. At this country's founding, each represented just 55-60 thousand people, and that included women and slaves who could not vote. Today, its 750,000 citizens per representative. That's why they don't truly represent us, why incumbency is so prevalent.
It's 2019. Why is it necessary for them all to physically be in washington full-time? We have phones now. And video-chat.
Between having many more targets and having them dispersed throughout the country instead of concentrated in one city, this would multiply the price of lobbying by much more than 8-fold (and it would increase accountability of elected officials, and make gerrymandering a royal pain)