Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Redness

(18 posts)
22. Cutting Off the Right to Spite the Alienability
Wed May 4, 2016, 07:30 PM
May 2016

The law makes it harder to sell votes by making it easier to steal them. The insanity of such a policy is still clearer when one considers that vote-selling is at worst a (benign) symptom of an undemocratic system. Just as the sale of organs does not create the dire situation in which one's organs are less useful than their price, but rather marginally improves while shockingly revealing it, exploitative vote-selling (in a true democracy, votes would sell for GDP/population, but presumably we're taking about America) exposes a fraudulent democracy while fully compensating the seller's loss of electoral power with an increase in purchasing power (the purest form of obedience to "It's the Economy, Stupid&quot .

Ironically, the vote's anonymity, which prohibits not only selling but also trading, is one of the reasons electoral votes are so worthless in the first place. The elected face no such restrictions. They trade votes all the time (without which even less would get done than what currently does) and have far greater incentive to sell them. If Gore and Nader voters had traded (the honor system doesn't count), Gore would have won. Instead, Gore voters in safe states and Nader voters in swing states only realized their vote's negligible use-value. Even outside of Electoral College peculiarities, some's political interests are more local than others', and the inability to trade replaces democracy with randomocracy as indifferent votes are weighted equally with others. Compromise candidates, too, would fair better, promoting stability.

Another problem with anonymous voting is that it enables people to harm each other (by proxy) without the natural consequences, and denies them the social benefits of proof that they voted in a socially responsible way. But some call that "coercion", as if to vote were not to select a coercer.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It is meant to keep people from selling their vote. Renew Deal May 2016 #1
When voting in person? elljay May 2016 #3
This doesn't belong in LBN. PSPS May 2016 #2
As I said elljay May 2016 #6
I want to thank you for posting this here. It was important to see it. Judi Lynn May 2016 #10
Thanks elljay May 2016 #12
Why not? It's an article from this morning and it's news to me?. lostnfound May 2016 #8
Wouldn't pictures not including the person rock May 2016 #4
I think they were trying to be "trendy" elljay May 2016 #5
Ha! rock May 2016 #7
If you are in a private booth who is going to stop you taking pictures unless someone is in kimbutgar May 2016 #9
Let's imagine elljay May 2016 #11
It's going to take numbers to crush this stupidity. The masses ignore the law, have proof of vote nc4bo May 2016 #14
Ok, let's say it's a crime cannabis_flower May 2016 #18
That's what I would do elljay May 2016 #19
Where I vote there is no private booth. Lars39 May 2016 #16
Another legalizing Election Fraud ALEC law Dont call me Shirley May 2016 #13
This has been the law in CA for as long as I've been a poll worker, at least. LeftyMom May 2016 #15
They Put Those Outside The Place In Illinois Too ProfessorGAC May 2016 #20
I took a pic of my primary ballot this year bigwillq May 2016 #17
There shouldn't be selfies. If there are, then you could potentially sell your vote. nt silvershadow May 2016 #21
Cutting Off the Right to Spite the Alienability Redness May 2016 #22
Your first sentence says it all! elljay May 2016 #23
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»No selfies in voting boot...»Reply #22