Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Just add oughta.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                     

Money Elections

A New way to choose the next president...
  (+4, -9)(+4, -9)
(+4, -9)
  [vote for,
against]

I actually think this is better than the current way and isn't all that "half-baked". Ban all campaigns just do a public announcement about who the candidate is from each major party. In every precinct around the US, put a box for each candidate. Let people vote with money, putting money in the box of the candidate that they want. Whichever candidate raises the most money becomes president. All money from all candidates then would go toward paying off the National Debt. When you think about the millions spent on campaigning, this makes so much more sense than paying for TV, Newspaper, and radio ads...as well as those stupid debates which just showed us that both of them were idiots. So, now, soon we may have had a new president...not by a majority by any stretch of the imagination, and nothing has been done about the National Debt. Elections are bought (or stolen!) anyhow, so why not use the money to help the country out???!!!!!
Susen, Nov 28 2000

[link]






       This would lead to incredibly corrupt behavior. Even more corrupt than now. Lots more. And do nothing about the national debt. I could do a book-length rant about it, but let's just give you two points:   

       1. The people who donated big money to the winner will want something for their donations.   

       2. The winner gets to spend the entire U.S. budget, including the money to be spent on the debt.   

       What's that, you say? Weren't the proceeds from the election to be spent on the debt? Yes, they were. But nothing stops the winner from diverting money *already* paying off the national debt, or increasing the national debt further and using the proceeds to pay for it. Anyone who lives in a state where lottery funds were to be used to pay for education knows how easy it is to get around earmarking.
Uncle Nutsy, Nov 28 2000
  

       Since everyone else is treating this idea as though it were serious, I should have a turn too: As a matter of strict practicality, the amount of money involved in political campaigning is still not terribly significant in comparison with the U.S. national debt or indeed the federal budget.
Monkfish, Nov 28 2000
  

       Actually, Texas oil billionaire (three words that, when taken together, let you *know* that whatever follows is going to be bad) H. Bunker Hunt proposed weighting votes to the amount of money the voter had, and he was as serious as cancer.   

       Hunt's logic was that since the wealthy have more invested in America's success, they should get more of a say in how it's run. It would have been a more compelling point if he hadn't also backed a flat tax.
Uncle Nutsy, Nov 29 2000
  

       [Uncle Nutsy]: That reminds me of an idea I had for a device to propel the Enlightenment over the Mason-Dixon line. Maybe the time is now ripe.
Monkfish, Dec 04 2000
  

       I still stand by my original idea. I think you could make sure that the money goes to the National Debt...make it a law, put it in the hands of Congress/Senate, no diversions allowed. It doesn't matter who is president or who Bill Gates votes for. Bush went to the same schools as his father, he went into Oil because it's what his family did.... he went into politics b/c his family did...and now, look, he's president. Big Deal. The Presidency is insignificant. Let's just use it as a fund-raiser for America! Pay off the debt now!
Susen, Dec 06 2000
  

       limit the "vote" to $1 so that master Gates' vote will have the same economic weight as one less economically weighty. you might not pay off any national debt but thats GOOD beer money.
1MilesWest2, Oct 30 2001
  

       The fact that this is a poll tax in disguise is why it's a bad idea (Sorry honey, no Mac-N-Cheese tonight. Mama had to vote today).   

       Sorry Susen.
phoenix, Oct 30 2001
  

       And it will make even LESS people vote. Fish. Pay people to vote?
my-nep, Sep 24 2003
  

       Australia once had a special tax for people who DIDN'T vote. Seems like a better idea to me. Then the poor have to vote, and the rich can afford to complain about someone they didn't help put in office.
ye_river_xiv, Jul 13 2006
  

       [ye_river_xiv] we still got that system, something like a $50 fine for not voting. I just wish they'd let us vote in US elections, then we'd have some say over the people who are actually in the position of power.
greyfiend, Jul 14 2006
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle