3 ms·
This conflated two things as equivalent, and they are not equivalent. Buying almonds is a market exchange with good transparency around what you’re getting and
by no_wizard 2y ago
This conflated two things as equivalent, and they are not equivalent.
Buying almonds is a market exchange with good transparency around what you’re getting and how much it’s going to cost.
Elections are not open market exchange. For starts, you aren’t buying a good. Another is that this discounts a lot of other election adjacent activities like all the party volunteers who are unpaid, for example. Those don’t count toward spend but if it did I imagine the totals would get much higher.
Not to mention, we are talking about someone getting elected who very well does have influence over citizenry. Buying almonds is just buying almonds. Getting elected is a transference of power.
Honestly elections are surprisingly cheap for what is gotten in return, but they couldn’t be more different
- nine_k 2y agoI'd say that by spending money on elections, both as donations and as taxes, we do buy a good: good governance (preferably) and peaceful transfer of power. The problem is that the market is not efficient: only 2-3 offers, mostly from the same two brands, each brand with its own known serious problems. The process is actually an auction of sorts (first past the post), and returns are not accepted! IMHO, the cost is the least of the problems here.
- Sabinus 2y agoUSA should eliminate first-past-the-post voting, and replace it with something like ranked choice voting. Allows for more brands in the election, as people can preference minor parties and not 'throw away their vote' if they didnt get enough votes in total.
- lazide 2y agoShould == I wish. Why do you think the current power structure would encourage that?
- nwellinghoff 2y agoI think most of us agree that this would be vastly better. Problem is how to get it done with the establishment in place.