As for the fact that the person who raises the most money often wins. Well, with our current fund raising laws, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, with a cap on the amount an individual can give the politician with the most money generally has the most supporters.

Are you talking about America? If so, you are forgetting about soft money. IMO a soft dollar is probably worth 90% of a hard dollar due to the effectiveness which you can use it in broadcast advertising.

*shrug* Thats all...

Don't worry, I won't. That was the whole point of my post - that voting is useless because every politician once elected completely discards his or her conscience on the altar of reelection. So instead of standing up for what's right, they focus on two things: raising enough money for the next campaign (basically, accepting bribes), and making sure they keep the support of the biggest voting blocs (generally, by casting votes according to polls, when they don't contradict the bribes they've taken).

This is a crock. I won't vote until meaningful reforms are implemented; namely, one-term-only for all offices, the prohibition of lobbying, of political contributions by corporations (for-profit or not) and of total political contributions exceeding $1000 per individual in any given year, and life in prison at hard labor for anyone who violates these terms. Yes, I realize that in many jurisdictions these changes would require constitutional amendments. So what? The current system in this country (and most others) is a farce. I don't expect integrity from politicians because not one this century has ever demonstrated knowledge of the concept.

I fail to see how believing as I do means I have no integrity, but if that's what you choose to think, I won't try and stop you.

Our FIRST Constitution was the Articles of Confederation, linking 13 independent states into a broader Union, while maintaining local sovereignty. That principle remains in the current Constitution of 1787. . . .add to that the fact that several sovereign nations voluntarily joined the US: the Republic of Texas and the Kingdom of Hawaii come to mind. . . .

These are NOT superficial differences. . .

It's not illegal and the rich do own the government.

The only difference here is that the money is going straight to the people rather than the current sysmtem where the corporations pay (buy) the media to brainwash the voter.

Voters involved in the Voteauction.com program will vote by mail-in absentee ballot. The completed ballots will be mailed to voteauction.com, where they will be counted, verified and then sent to the appropriate election district. In exchange for voting for the chosen candidate and following the Voteauction.com procedure, the voters will receive an equal share of the winning bid for their state. Voteauction.com will not receive any money from the auction. The starting bid for each state is $100, with a minimum bid increase of $50.

Actually, I think you're highly underestimating the effect of one vote. It turns out that it's a tiny chance at a very big change, sort of like a lottery that pays off more than 100%.

In one of my philosophy courses, we read that some researcher (I forget who) had estimated the odds of one single vote affecting the outcome of a US presidential election to be about 1 in 200 million. But then, that outcome makes a difference to the entire US population, which at the time of the research was about 200 million. So using a risk analysis, the expected benefit of one vote is roughly the benefit of the preferred outcome to one person. Given those odds, I vote.

Don't fall into the trap of confusing "negligible" with "zero". (Negligible) x (big number) may no longer be negligible.

"Greetings Citizen:
For the next two years you will serve as your district's Federal Representative. You have until November 8 to report to the Capitol, Washington D.C. Failure to report will result in your being found AWOL and in deriliction of duty..."

And as for the other bits keeping people from declaring themselves as dictator, just put the appropriate controls in the Constitution. Heck, we'd have to get a few amendments made just to put the system in operation anyway...

--Fesh
"Citizens have rights. Consumers only have wallets." - gilroy

Maybe you need to learn what sarcasm is too. ;)

Let me guess, now you're going to claim you were being sarcastic. :)

Now, it could be claimed the post I responding to parent's post was set up in a deliberate manner to trick people, i.e., a troll. In which case, my original post would have been wrong, as it wouldn't be sarcasm anymore, but a lie.

-David T. C.

Some good examples of this sort of hacking can be found at the Idiosyntactix Culture Jammer's Encyclopedia - especially in their Guerrilla Hacks and Modest Proposals sections.

Along a similar line, who do you think destroyed Clinton's health care package? Member of the government? No, the people who purchased and produced the Hellen and John (or whatever there names are) ads.

Do you think that the producers were repersentative of the general population? Probably not.

Were they elected? No.

Did they represent the wealthy interesets of the insurance companies and drug manufacturers? Yes.

That said, I'm voting for Brown on the Libertarian ticket regardless of the ability to make a few bucks by voting for someone else.

What do Libertarians really believe?

Don't complain unless you know what you're talking about. The US system is called a "democratic republic" because we elect our representatives and do retain some democratic powers.

Athens was not only the first true democracy, but the last one of any real size.


My mom is not a Karma whore!

So I will.

The site claims:

Spending money to influence voters is protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Recent Supreme Court decisions have equated freedom of spending money with the freedom of speech.

This is not controversial. It takes money to get airtime, buy ads in newspapers, etc. On these grounds, much of the law was invalidated which was being challenged (the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA), as amended in 1974, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act).

The Court also found that restrictions on political speech could only be justified by an overriding governmental interest, and that the "appearance of impropriety" in elections was one such interest. And on that basis (badly decided IMO, but WHATever), we have the campaign finance restrictions of today.

The selling of any vote, or even the appearance of selling a vote, would almost certainly pass muster as the reality or appearance of impropriety. And therefore the government has a compelling interest to stop it, which is the interest embodied in the current laws against selling votes.

So, this site and anything like it will never be able to hide behind first amendment considerations, rightfully so. And thus the equation made on the site between buying votes and spending on campaigns is fundamentally flawed; as a critique of our society it is juvenile.

This is different, VoteAuction isn't asking you to send them a blank ballot, they're simply going to make a suggestion of who you vote for and then will send money to anyone who can demonstrate that they have voted for them. They're not buying a vote, just offering a reward.

Analogies:

• eBay: A guys about to enter the voting station so I walk up and tell him I'll give him a dollar if he votes for BushGore.
• VoteAuction: I stand outside the voting station with a sign that says "if you're voting for BushGore, I'll give you $1".

The trick is, in order to make this look better, VoteAuction has to offer the same reward to voters who weren't previously registered with them.

At least this would be much more up front and honest than the current system.

Obviously (I hope) I'm being absurd.

The whole basis of voting for a leader is that everyone gets an EQUAL opportunity to influence the final decision.

Wow, somebody actually believes this. I'm flabbergasted.

If this wasn't illegal, the rich would control the entire government until some of the middle class and most of the poor realize that a vote is more important than any dollar amount you can put on it.

The rich don't control the entire government already? Haven't you been paying attention?

When I skip sections on the ballot, it's because I don't know the issues, and can't make a stand on them. I like the idea of one person, one vote. Imagine what Microsoft could do with sort of thing.

If the selling of votes isn't already illegal, it should be. It could cause so much corruption, and it goes against everything we hold democratic.

-----

Probably one of those EMAC people.

(and as stated in first reply, it stands for Master of Fine Arts).

And we prefer "Rensselaer", the same as they preferred "Digital" to 'DEC'. Don't ask why . . .

--

Under rational choice theories of political behavior (see, for example, Downs' An Economic Theory of Democracy), it is irrational to vote if the expected benefit of voting is negative. Since the universe is highly uncertain, and there are tens of thousands of voters in most democratic elections, the gross expected benefit of voting is damn close to zero already, and the net benefit rapidly turns negative when you incorporate the hour it takes to go and vote, the gas for your car, the forgone income or quality time with your family, etc. (Ego satisfaction may have some positive impact, but that's usually offset in most people by the other factors.) It is particularly irrational to vote in the United States, since Democrats and Republicans basically do the same thing once they are elected (take your money/freedom and spend it on their favored groups, without making any real societal changes).

Exchanging money for a vote changes the equation. People who don't otherwise care will vote because the net benefit of voting will be positive. Smaller groups in society benefit from this arrangement because they can "buy" support from apathetic (or even slightly opposed) voters, if they can translate their passion into money.

Imagine the following scenario: homosexuals in Colorado want to defeat an "anti-gay" state referendum (this actually happened). Under "non-vote-buying conditions", you get something like:

• 10% - Adamantly support gay rights
• 10% - Adamantly oppose gay rights
• 10% - Somewhat oppose gay rights
• 70% - Ambivilent; they probably split 35-35

• 10% - Adamantly support gay rights
• 10% - Adamantly oppose gay rights
• 10% - Somewhat oppose gay rights
• 70% - Ambivilent; maybe split 50-20 since they get $10 for supporting gay rights (but $0 for opposing them).

When ignorant foreigners comment on American politics, it is almost as annoying as when ignorant Americans comment on American politics.

The last tax cut the Republican leaders pushed for in an election year was a 10% cut. They held their majority in Congress, but actually lost seats, which means they really did not have a clear popular mandate for their reforms like they did in 94. They proposed the cut anyway; it failed to pass. Even if it had passed, a Clinton veto would have prevented it from being adopted.

This year, Bush (the GOP Presidential candidate) has yet to offer any specific tax cut proposals, beyond a repeal of the so-called "mariage penalty" (the part of the tax code which pushes joint-filing couples into higher income brackets), and a partial privatization of Social Security.

What's further, it would be a grass roots effort if the candidates were to purchase the ballots directly from the individual voter.

It's probably not the best thing for democracy, but nothing new to the US government.

3. RULES AGAINST BUYING VOTES(10)

It is useful to distinguish two types of vote markets: the market for the votes of legislators and the market for the votes of the electorate. The first refers to a legislator's vote on a law. A legislator's vote may be valuable to someone who stands to benefit or to lose from the law. The second refers to a member of the electorate's vote for a political candidate. This vote may be valuable to the candidate herself or to others who believe they will benefit if a particular candidate is elected. We begin by discussing the market for legislators' votes since this market is more common.

The Market for Legislators' Votes

Members of a collective would oppose the buying and selling of legislators' votes. The reason is more complex than it seems. Actually, some members of the collective may anticipate gains from allowing legislator vote-buying because they would expect it to make them better off. Consider a bill in the legislature that would give cash payments to a special group of people, say military veterans. The cash payments are financed by taxes on all citizens. Suppose that the veterans expect that by buying the votes of some legislators, they can cause the bill to pass. Then they might favor a system where legislators' votes can be bought and sold.

This kind of vote-buying is most likely wasteful. The net effect is to take money away from one group and give it to another group. So there is no net gain in money. Yet resources are likely to be wasted both by the supporters of the veterans' benefit bill and by its opponents. However, buying legislators' votes need not be so clearly wasteful. The bill may be intended to finance an environmental cleanup and the damaged environment may threaten otherwise clean groundwater or be a spawning place for contagious and deadly disease.

To see why most people would want to outlaw vote-buying, we must put ourselves in the shoes of the people who are likely to lose when others buy votes. Suppose that you expected to be part of the tax-paying group in either of the above cases. To defend yourself against having your wealth taken away, your group would have to bid a higher price for the legislators' votes than others.

There is a virtual infinity of bills that may benefit some groups at the expense of others. If vote-buying were allowed, many people would want to buy votes to support such bills. In order to defend themselves against losing their wealth, the prospective losers would have to bid against them. We can imagine competitive bidding for legislators' votes on thousands of bills. The result would be a needless waste of resources during the bidding process and, of course, substantial benefits for the legislators.

If we had some reason to expect that the benefits from the laws that resulted from such bidding would exceed the harm, we might investigate further. However, the main effect seems to be that the legislators would get rich at the expense of members of the collective.

In short, allowing legislators to sell votes reduces citizens' protection against external costs of collective decision making. Members of the collective hire legislators to help administer the monopoly over force. They expect and want the monopoly to be used only to help supply public goods. To allow legislators to sell their votes would give them a greater incentive than otherwise to use that monopoly over force for other purposes.

In some countries, vote-buying is not outlawed in the constitution but by ordinarily legislation. Even though legislators would seemingly prefer to allow vote-buying, they have passed legislation outlawing it. The apparent reason for this paradox is that if they did not pass such legislation, voters would vote them out of office.
--

In sports they do this because it makes gameplay more exciting. With a straight points system, most of the time each point is boring. Only sometimes is it close, and then every point is exciting. With a series, or electoral college type system, there are many more exciting points. Translated into politics, exiciting points means votes that can turn the election, which means more power to the voters.

-----

My God man, how old are you? 5? Wake up and smell the money, jeezus. You really think this isn't already what happens? That major corporate and lobbying organizations don't already control more or less everything? The only difference here is that votes are being sold earlier in the process than they traditionally have been.

Quite frankly, I find the concept of buying individual votes to be inefficient. It's much cheaper, and quicker, to simply buy the politicians once elected. Since this is what's been going on all along, it's surprising that anyone would be willing to change it.

There's no such thing as justice. There's no such thing as freedom. There's no such thing as integrity. The concept of reelection threw those out the window right from the start.

I for one believe votes are worthless and you might as well use it to make a statement. NOT voting is a strong statement. It is saying you do not wish to participate in a failed/flawed/corrupt system. By voting, even in this manner, you are further legitimizing this failed/flawed/corrupt system.

And to ward off those civic republicanisms who jump up on their patriotic high horses whenever they hear me say these things: I'm not moving. I love the country, I hate the politics. There is a difference.

I saw Andy Roonie (that's gotta be spelled wrong) on 60 minuttes a while back, and he had a proposal for the american political system that I think sounds sensible:

Each of the candidates get an equal amount of money for campaigns from the government. This amount is all they are allowed to use for their campaign. If a candidate use more than this, they are disqualified. Federal (or UN?) inspectors make sure that the rules are obeyed.

That would remove the "richest-gang-wins" problem from the current election process, and probably cut a lot of crappy political commercials.

I still doubt that it would make the american people get of their butts and go vote though.

30% PRI members
30% PAN or PRD members
40% undecided; these split 80-20 for the PRI due to free washing machines, televisions, and other gifts provided by the local PRI boss.

This year, the Mexican public voted No to this arrangement and elected the opposition leader, Vicente Fox.

Money != passion. Money == pre-existing power and influence. Allow vote auctions and you entrench those in power, particularly because they typically have more $ to give out, mainly because they've extorted it from their corporate supporters, just like the parties do now.

sulli

Politicians of all stripes make campaign promises, including tax cuts or entitlement increases to influence voters to vote for them, which could be construed as logically equivalent to buying votes, but I don't really think it is. Selling a vote would entail voting for a politician for direct personal gain, but voting in favor of a politician who promises a tax cut is a statement on public policy; I doubt many voters calculate out "If I vote for X, I will get 1/280,000th of a 10,000,000 tax cut over 7 years, whereas a vote for Y only gets me 1/280,000 of 5,000,000 over 3 years", and then votes for the politician who is offering to "pay" more.

I live in Washington, DC, and have watched Congress at work many times. I really believe that most Congressmen are honorable and doing their best at a staggeringly hard job.

I'm starting to wonder about some of the citizens, though.

How could you pocket some bucks? Either consider paid holidays like extra cash, or be the first to come up with a non-counterfeitable receipt and sell it to the government. Either way you're on top.

Of course the details would have to be figured out, but I know that I'd be more inclined to vote.

A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.

Isn't this where we get "Vote Early, Vote Often" from?

As an aside, this points to perhaps a more interesting idea- sell out for corporate money to your favorite cause. What I mean is, if you agree to vote in a way that supports a "special interest" for which you have no special love or hatred, they agree to donate some amount of money to a cause you love. For instance, I agree to Microsoft's request that I vote for Bush on the condition that they donate $20 to the Free Software Foundation. Well, maybe that's not the best example, but hopefully you get the idea. What do you think?

Sausage King of Chicago

I used to live in Lima, Peru, where they force everyone to vote by fining non-voters. And my naive former self used to think that this was a good idea, but I don't think so anymore.

You see, in Peru everyone voted, but not everyone took the time to become educated about the issues. Because of this they were easily taken in by the most transparent of lies. After all, the average Peruvian doesn't have the education necessary to make complex economic value judgements. And the average American doesn't either. That's why factors like how tall the candidate is actually matter.

The secret of the US system is that the fanatics don't have more votes than you do, they simply are more likely to vote. That's why the senior citizen vote is so important. Senior citizens have been around long enough to know that their vote is worth casting. They read up on the issues, and they go out to the polls en masse. Educated people also tend to vote.

The rest of the populace assumes that their voice can't be heard, and so they whine and complain, but don't vote.

As for the fact that the person who raises the most money often wins. Well, with our current fund raising laws, this shouldn't surprise anyone. After all, with a cap on the amount an individual can give the politician with the most money generally has the most supporters.

My personal observation is that Americans that get involved in politics generally realize that they do have a voice, and the people that complain generally don't take the time to vote. The few exceptions to this rule are those that hold opinions that are so unpopular that we all should be glad that they don't win. Even the far out loonies have an influence that is far greater on politics than those that don't vote.

So vote before you complain.

Every vote that is cast, even if it is invested in a 3rd Party candidate (don't believe anyone who says a vote is thrown away, those 'discarded' votes got the Reform Party 12 million dollars of government matching funds), is the citizen saying, 'Hey, this system works for me so I use it.'

It is a lot like going to a restaurant even though the service is bad because the food is wonderful.

By not voting, you are saying you are not legitimizing this system. You are refusing to accept the fact that you have been given a limited choice in a vital decision. Vote turnout is decreasing and it isn't because people are apathetic, it is because they don't want to be responsible for putting a Bush in the White House, or backing a lame-ass like Gore.

I give this site major kudos for laying the issue right on the line. I hope some of the major news sources pick up on it and let it shake out some commentary from the pundits.

---
I'm not just a Political Scientist, I'm also a Philosopher. Now who has a toilet that needs to be cleaned?

I'll elucidate my statement.

Students (alumni): it's RPI (I guess that's been shown already)
(sad thing is that a rather large number, at least claim, to have trouble spelling 'Rensselaer')

Admin (but not most of the other faculty, eg. profs): Rensselaer. Just like they are called "Residence Halls" and not "Dorms". Look at the website, 'Rensselaer', the course book? 'Rensselaer Catalog.' I don't know, they think it sounds more prestigious?

You're right though, they have tried to get everyone to call it 'Rensselaer' instead of 'RPI' with little luck (much like the GNU/Linux 'problem'). I can't see it ever catching on though, as everything is referred to by an acronym (eg. CII, VCC). It's just easier to write and say. 'Sides, it's tradition

--

When we have true universal access to the Internet, then this could work, but not until then.

How ridiculous is it that we still use electoral votes? My representatives no longer need to ride a horse and buggy to Washington, D.C. to cast their vote!

Living in the DC area, I can tell you that on many, almost most occaisions, a horse and buggy would be FASTER. . .

As for "direct democracy", nice idea, except for a few minor facts. Structurally, the US is a confederation of 50 smaller political units. The real reason for the Electoral College is to insure the votes of smaller-populated states aren't washed away by the swell of votes of a few highly-populated states. That's why we admit States to the Union, and why the Constitution prevents the sub-division of States into smaller States. . . .

Pleae encourage people to be informed voters. I know I'm preaching to the choir...
----------

Is it just me or does anyone else feel uncomfortable about fanatics having more votes than the rest of us. Just because they are more passionate about their beliefs doesn't make them any more likely to be right.

Remind me for a second, where does the current campaign money go. The media perchance? Do you think that CNN might get a fraction of this and might just be a little biased. "

So are you saying CNN is lying and its not illegal? Yes CNN gets money and all media is biased, but as close as I can tell you are infering that CNN said that it is illegal when it is in fact not. Or are you just saying never trust CNN?

What made Daley-era machine politics so successful was the elegance and simplicity inherent in the method. No one bought or sold anything - those kinds of transactions could be tracked. It was the vague and ephemeral influence that did all the magic.

So before you call anyone a schmuck, pony up references that The Boss was actually indicted, lest you defame one of this city's legends. That he got away with it all is one of his biggest achievements.

Side note: when he died, all the Chicago Public School kids (myself included) got a day off in mourning. Hopefully that will clarify his stature and prominence at the time - he was far from disgraced.

-Sharv

They should add more criteria to the right to vote than just coming of age. For example, you have to be a tax payer before you can influence any of the tax legislation.

Founder's Camp

It's much cheaper, and quicker, to simply buy the politicians once elected

Also, if you think this is the "Most disgraceful thing on the web" you're seriously deluded. I'd easily put hate sites and child porn ahead of this.

And before you say this is impractical, what if each locality has a secure (I know, I know) website where issues up for discussion were listed up to a month before the decision was to be made. Voters could skim through the list and simply check yes or now -- it would take maybe 30 minutes a month and could be done from any PC.

What monetary amount, donated appropriately, would you estimate is about equal in efficacy to your one vote?

Good question, I have no answer.

Now, I'm just pulling there numbers out of my ar.. hey hey! but I reckon that every $100 you donate to an organisation you support will help them gain 1 vote in the direction they'd like.

However, if someone actually comes up with some justifiable figures I'm more likely to make donations (based on the figures) to groups I agree with than sell my own vote.

So what's to prevent me from offering my vote up for sale, taking the money and then voting any damn way I please? I'm not a US citizen but in my country elections are by a secret ballot. If I'm unscrupulous enough to sell my vote, I'm probably unscrupulous enough to be disloyal to the money I've just taken.

What advantage does an interest group have in buying votes from citizens who vote for representatives anyway? Isn't it a lot more reliable to just buy the damn representatives?

All you are doing is weighting ballots in favour of the rich a lot more transparently than it happens now.

While I don't believe additional restrictions should be put on who can vote, it is a real problem when people who pay little or no taxes have no reason to vote against more expansive government spending; after all, it (seemingly) costs them nothing. The solution is to have firm limits on what government is allowed to do; the Constitution was supposed to accomplish this, but it has been increasingly ignored.

sulli

No way! I would be very surprised if they actually accomplished the stated goal (selling a large block of votes), but I sure hope that their REAL goal (to point out the ludicrosity of the current American political system) is achieved. They WANT some court to make a big stink about it, since publicity will drive their message home to the masses.

Besides, I think www.backstreetboys.com would qualify for the "most disgraceful thing on the web"... ;)

The entire argument breaks down when you consider the fact that politicians spending their vast war chests aren't assured of anyone voting for them because of it. This website, on the other hand, is like a legally (or illegally) binding contract to pay you $X for your vote.

Does our current political system pander to the rich corporations and special interest groups? Yes. Is that wrong? Maybe. Does it have to? No. How much does it cost to setup bushcheney2000.com and list a few pages stating where you stand on the top 20 issues of our time? Not much. How much does it cost the average citizen to visit that site (and gorelieberman2000.com) and make an informed decision? Not much--maybe a trip to the local library at most.

But are politicians going to objectively list where they stand? No way! Someone might actually--God forbid!--vote with their mind instead of their gut feeling if they did that. *gasp* So instead they build up massive amounts of campaign cash and flood your every aural and visual sense with their propoganda. The current system is where it's at because the voting populace is stupid and politicians cater to their stupidity.
--

Well as someone who lives in the midwest, if it were just a straight-up popular vote, then we'd never hear hide-nor-hair of the president because he/she would just pander directly to california and the boston-ny-dc areas.

That said, I think the idea of the electoral college was something that in less informed times was necessary, but I think that it's a middle step that is just ripe for abuse. Just think of instead of buying a person's votes (each person's vote just influences the electoral college...not directs it), you could buy an electoral college vote. Sure it'd be more expensive, but it would also be more effective -- although if you could buy those, the person selling their electoral college vote should be dragged out into the streat and shot for treason...

So basically, I'm saying that the electoral college shouldn't be another vote -- it should be turned into a popular vote with each state weighted by the number of electoral college votes.

Hey, while I'm overhauling politics, let's kick out the legalized bribes (lobbyists), too!

I think the problem with lobbists aren't lobbists in general, but corporate lobbists. In fact, if the politicians would have to report every cent of what they take in, you'd see a lot less vote-buying going on :) ...and then you're just left with the plain old illegal bribes.

Wait a second...

In short: like hell there's not. You're free to argue that you have no sense of justice, no freedom, would not give others freedom, and that you have no integrity. I believe you, I do! Now please go play somewhere else- and for God's sake, don't vote! You would not legally be allowed to vote in Vermont as you'd be asked to agree to a statement that contradicts your philosophy completely and demands that you have integrity. Here's hoping you're not allowed to vote anywhere else either, unless you get a clue.

Don't worry, though. I'd say you're still more up on American politics than your average American. :)

You know what it's really called? It's called rationalization. If you really don't want to legitimize the system, vote for Han Solo, vote for Clyde Barrows, or vote for the paper doll you have cut out of a newspaper and taped to your ballot. Not voting in 'protest' has exactly the same effect on society as being a lazy bum and sitting on your butt.

-David T. C.

Yeah, that plan really works. I'm sure the little known 'If lots of people don't vote in the election, no one gets elected' clause in the constitution will kick in any time now.

-David T. C.

A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.

...Vote early and vote often. We already do this. It's called the electorate (at least at the federal level), and so far the electorate only went against the popular vote once. This sounds too much like applying votes directly to the electoratal instead of winning delegates to me. This is the difference between voting for the electorate to vote for your guy and picking an elector yourself. While I prefer direct representation myself, I cannot see this as another realm in which an "e"-solution would help much.

The people get all worked up in a tizzy and "demand leadership on the issue".

Then the soft bigotry of the 30 second spot begins. In "old media" such as newspapers, it's commonplace for the papers to announce to all their readers who they support in an election. This allows the reader to regard the content they read with a better understanding of the papers point of view and 'take it with a grain of salt'. There is little such disclosure on the part of the local and national television media.

When the politicians team comes to town and wants to buy up every other 30 second advertisement on "CBS Action 4" in the first week of november (the last week of the election) the sales manager makes a decision that effects his or her viewers without disclosing the why and for how much. Are you watching wall to wall Quayle 2000 adds because:

1) The local station was on the verge of chapter 11 and this sale saved the station?

2) Nobody else offered to buy the spots and without this sale, they would have been filled with PSAs?

3) Quayles apposeing candidate offered twice as much money to run her adds in those same spots but, the station sales manager is banging that hot chick who works for the quale media team?

4) The station owner plays golf with a lawyer who made a mint off of quayle?

5) Everybody at the station just likes that quayle guy?

In the process, the media makes millions off of campane financing (ever notice how television reports of campane finance reform talks about how they raise their money and never on how they spend it?) to show you adds you don't want to see and to further suppress voter turnout in the country.

So there you sit, getting "educated on the issues" by anoying adds in the middle of The Simpsons. So somebody brought up the idea that the same 'media team' comes to town and gives the money directly to the people casting the votes? If it means cutting out the media middle man, I'm all for it.

Anyway, it should be spelled "poughtaightteaux".