3 ms·
That would still maintain the illusion that citizens are choosing who represents them, though. With gerrymandering, and SCOTUS thinking money is speech, it wou
by dane-pgp 4y ago
That would still maintain the illusion that citizens are choosing who represents them, though. With gerrymandering, and SCOTUS thinking money is speech, it would be more honest to let corporations have voting power proportional to their market cap.
- DamnYuppie 4y agoWould that apply to individuals as well?
- bjoli 4y agoPeople with a lot of money already have a much bigger political influence than poor people. So to some extent it already does.
- cyanydeez 4y agoWell if we're going down this dystopia, letting corporations vote would dilute billionaires and would provide a cheaper alternative to making corporations get lobbiests.
- dqpb 4y ago> it would be more honest to let corporations have voting power proportional to their market cap That would just be a market. Instead of voting, people would bid, and whoever (collectively) wins the bid pays the money. Then at least you could use the money pay off debts or burn the money to offset inflation. Honestly, that might be better than our existing system.