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
Sugar and spice and unfettered insensibility.

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,


         

progressive monacracy

1 vote for the natural logarithm of how much money you have
  (+1, -2)
(+1, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

in a future world where cash is digitized and biometrically identified to your person on a global new world order basis,

would we not have a more just society where billionaires could not so easily control everything?

i propose a progressive democracy where instead of the farce of democracy we have now , we actually give EVERYONE a vote regardless of citizenship.

as it stands now, voting is a farce and billionaries control everything with their money behind the scenes. their monye is much more powerful than voting. because it controls who gets nominated.

i suggest in the future we simply eliminate all campaign funding , prohibit it, and prohibit expenditures upon elections and simply allow people to vote with their money.

i don't mean by 'spending their money', i mean each dollar you have id'd in your possession entitles you to vote in an amount weighted by the monacracy progressive function/algorithm.

think about it, black market dollars can no longer have influence until given to someone with an ID. no more worrying about identification, if you have an ID on your money, you can vote.

people who don't want identification of their money will obviously opt for silver, gold, or bitcoin or other digital whatever. paper fiat is going the way of the dodo by 2200. by 2100, not a single OECD country will be using paper fiat.

the catch is ITS PROGRESSIVE. so using a function like the natural logarithm, the more money you have , the less votes you get for each dollar in your possession.

the bonus side to this is that real property doesn't count, so that billionaries will have to stop buying things and properties to have influence and they will have to start suffering the effects of inflation progressively more intensely as they get more wealthy.

whereas , the less money you have the more your votes count (despite you having an absolute number of votes lesser than those with more money) .

the real question is what kind of function to use to weight the money voting.

i propose a natural logarithm.

teslaberry, May 01 2015

[link]






       I only have a buck on me at the moment. How much voting power do I have?   

       If I'm in debt, do I get to vote at all?   

       Billionaires don't buy that much, to be honest. They don't need to.
RayfordSteele, May 01 2015
  

       At least it's not in...oh. [-]
MaxwellBuchanan, May 01 2015
  

       At least it's not in culture:game.   

       Perhaps it should be...
normzone, May 01 2015
  

       What might actually make a little sense is to have it proportional to the taxes paid. Kind of goes along with the "no taxation without representation" slogan. Though I think the end result of that would be bad as well...
scad mientist, May 01 2015
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

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