What are your thoughts on a political system where vote buying is legal and practiced openly? Considering that de facto vote buying occurs anyway, might legalization of the practice be preferable? Wouldn't a white market for votes be better than a black market for votes? How would politics in a representative democracy change if votes could be openly bought and sold? Would there be plutocracy - would there be any more of a plutocracy than we have currently?
Altogether, is this a good or a bad idea and why?
I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I'm interested in examining it more closely.
Bad idea in general because voting specifically is illegitimate. Can two people get together and vote your property away? How a bout ten, or twenty? I love it when I debate this issue with people who buy into democracy as a legitimate form of governing because they can never give me the 'magic' number that delineates where a bunch of people voting themselves a portion or all of someone else's property stops becoming theft and starts becoming 'legitimate' government.
To the question at hand, you can't legitimately pay someone for the power to direct someone else. Their vote, whether given voluntarily, for money, or via coersion, has no ethical or moral standing to begin with because they have no authority over you to give to anyone else to act as their proxy via 'democracy' or any other form of government for that matter. I can't pay someone else for the authority to drive your car; I have to deal with you directly or not at all. I can't employ someone else to set rules for your work product; I have to employ you directly or I have no say whatsoever in what you do.
@xahrx,
I'm not in favor of representative government either, nor any other kind of State. But that's not the point of this thread. I'm asking about legalized vote-buying given the premise of representative government - if you aren't willing to accept the premise arguendo, then this thread is not for you.
As Schumpeter would argue, the whole political process is nothing more than one big vote buying scheme anyway, the only difference is that there is no explicit market for it. What you are suggesting would lead to a much more efficient democratic process which would not change the inherent incentives of democracy, simply making it less "rule of thumb". The inherent incentives within democracy would not change.
I’ve discussed in another thread why I believe that making votes transferable could make a huge difference in the way a country is run, without changing its democratic character. It could, in extremis, give us back the best of the absolute monarchies of old, without the revolutionary risks associated. I’d try it willingly.
@Merlin,
I’ve discussed in another thread why I believe that making votes transferable could make a huge difference in the way a country is run, without changing its democratic character
Could you elaborate or provide a link to this other thread?
Accepting representative government then, it's still a bad idea. Perhaps in some ideal world it would work out, in the real world the process itself would be as political, as manipulated, and as detrimental to individuals, the market, and freedom in general as every other political process. I'm sure someone can argue, given ideal and/or unrealistic conditions, that it would be a great idea. Socialism is a great idea if you ignore reality. In reality if selling and buying of votes is allowed the process will be regulated and governed by power elites/special interests to favor power elites/special interests, just like every other proposed government program or process or political system, all of which 'could' work if we weren't living on the wrong side of Eden.
And we have a real life example to go by right in my country, the good old US of A. It's called campaign finance reform, McCain Feingold, etc. Known by a few names, legislation passed to make elections more 'fair', all it does is protect encumbents by stopping competitors from 'buying' support. In theory, if you accept the premise argumendo, regulated campaigns would asure fairness. In reality it's just another power grab. Remember Hannibal Lecter referencing Marcus Aurelius, "Of each individual thing ask, what is it, what is it's nature? What does he do, this man you seek?" The nature of government is theft and violence. That is what it is, what it does. Will the buying and selling of votes lead to more fair and equitable theft and violence? No, because there is no such thing, premise argumendo not withstanding.
Well, what do you know? Looking for the thread I found that we discussed this topic back then.
Yep, I remember, and I had that in mind actually when I posted this thread - hoping you might have more to say on the subject, as you seem to have given it a lot of thought.
One of these days I’ll post a longish post on the advantages of the transferable vote, but right now I’m not really in the mood.
Fair enough, I look forward to it.