|
On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math.
The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.
You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives.
1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars.
|
On June 26 2012 02:38 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 02:08 Gummy wrote:
Not sure why you can't keep this discussion civil. I believe the same principle should be applied to local elections too, but that would create some legal issues with states rights. I don't vote in local elections not because they don't matter, but because I haven't been able to call a single place home since I turned 18 and, therefore, do not feel obliged or qualified to vote in such elections in a location I just happened to be when I turned 18, and the effect of my decision may effect other peoples' lives. what is uncivil about what i said? you were misrepresenting the facts and i called you on it. you may not have been misrepresenting them on purpose, but you were doing it and people outside the country or people who haven't voted may not be able to realize that you were. you (and anyone else) not voting has nothing to do with the cost of driving and waiting. so you don't vote at all? okay, then where do you get off asking for someone to pay you to vote? and if you don't vote because you don't live in the area long enough, then why should we pay you to vote...? the reason you aren't voting has nothing to do with a cost-benefit analysis which means the cost-benefit is completely irrelevant. for other people who do not vote, they cannot claim a cost-benefit analysis as their reason, as local/state elections are plenty important and voting gives plenty of benefit to account for a fifteen minute drive and a wait in a line. cost-benefit has nothing to do with why people don't vote. people don't vote because people are lazy. it's that simple. that's not an insult, it's just how it is. edit: basically, it's not legit to separate local/state voting from national voting, because they are not separate actions. and for that reason it is not legit to claim a cost-benefit reason for not voting in national elections, because the benefit of voting in local/state is high enough to account for the drive and the wait, and voting in the national elections takes no effort if you vote in local/state elections.
What is uncivil is that you are first and foremost claiming that I am misrepresenting facts without pointing to any particular statements as being misrepresented. A very large number of local and national elections do not coincide as you readily admit.
Even if every election coincided, you are still failing to address the 2 key points here:
1.) Incentivizing voting results in increased voter turnout.
2.) That the net benefits of increased voter turnout is worth the cost of this incentive program.
Your argument is basically, if I am understanding it correctly:
People who care vote in local elections, and if they care enough to vote in local elections they will by default vote in a large number of national elections. "People who don't are lazy" with the implication that these people shouldn't have a voice in government.
A valid criticism I can take from your argument is that "because voting in local elections and voting in national elections are often the same action, the effect of your proposed measure on voter turnout will likely be less significant than you suggest" but you seem to have more interest engaging with the person making the argument than the argument itself.
|
Imo a major problem with democracy isn't that people don't vote. It's that stupid (to be less crude "uninformed") people vote. No need to aggravate an already defunct system ruled by passion and ignorance rather than reasoned choice. Why would we want to flood the ballot system with even more votes based on absolute ignorance?
They should put an easy multiple choice test related to the vote on every item. It'll be 3 questions that anyone informed of the issue can answer. If you get less than 2/3, then your ballot choice for the tested vote is automatically voided.
Obviously I'm joking with the above suggestion, but to get back to OP paying people to vote won't fix democracy. Even disregarding the stance that it's a "right", this payment measure will basically undermine the very thing it's trying to protect. Let's get disinterested people to vote solely for remuneration instead of genuine interest in the substantive issue. I'm sure that won't skew results at all.
|
On June 26 2012 04:11 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives. 1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars.
I see what your saying but the way you're calculating it is overly complex and largely incorrect. When you multiply the median by the number of items you don't get the total. You're thinking of the mean.
A simpler and more precise model would be the following:
Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program.
Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m).
|
On June 26 2012 04:24 PassionFruit wrote:
Imo a major problem with democracy isn't that people don't vote. It's that stupid (to be less crude "uninformed") people vote. No need to aggravate an already defunct system ruled by passion and ignorance rather than reasoned choice. Why would we want to flood the ballot system with even more votes based on absolute ignorance?
They should put an easy multiple choice test related to the vote on every item. It'll be 3 questions that anyone informed of the issue can answer. If you get less than 2/3, then your ballot choice for the tested vote is automatically voided.
Obviously I'm joking with the above suggestion, but to get back to OP paying people to vote won't fix democracy. Even disregarding the stance that it's a "right", this payment measure will basically undermine the very thing it's trying to protect. Let's get disinterested people to vote solely for remuneration instead of genuine interest in the substantive issue. I'm sure that won't skew results at all.
I agree with this totally. I'm starting to wonder what the OP's political views are.
|
On June 26 2012 04:24 PassionFruit wrote:
Imo a major problem with democracy isn't that people don't vote. It's that stupid (to be less crude "uninformed") people vote. No need to aggravate an already defunct system ruled by passion and ignorance rather than reasoned choice. Why would we want to flood the ballot system with even more votes based on absolute ignorance?
They should put an easy multiple choice test related to the vote on every item. It'll be 3 questions that anyone informed of the issue can answer. If you get less than 2/3, then your ballot choice for the tested vote is automatically voided.
Obviously I'm joking with the above suggestion, but to get back to OP paying people to vote won't fix democracy. Even disregarding the stance that it's a "right", this payment measure will basically undermine the very thing it's trying to protect. Let's get disinterested people to vote solely for remuneration instead of genuine interest in the substantive issue. I'm sure that won't skew results at all.
It may very well skew the results. But it will certainly skew the rhetoric of national political campaigns.
Overall, I believe you are overestimating the value of "genuine" interest. Material interest is enough for many if not most.
On June 26 2012 04:27 ninazerg wrote:
I agree with this totally. I'm starting to wonder what the OP's political views are.
My political views are basically irrelevant, and I don't think my political views affect my defense of this proposal. But fyi, I would consider myself a limited libertarian. I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative, though I do believe certain infrastructure investments and services are better for everybody if they are either financially supported or mandated by the federal government.
|
On June 26 2012 04:26 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:11 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives. 1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars. I see what your saying but the way you're calculating it is overly complex and largely incorrect. When you multiply the median by the number of items you don't get the total. You're thinking of the mean. A simpler and more precise model would be the following: Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program. Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m).
The amount of oversight required to run such a program would create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for a frivolous program where people pay themselves to vote.
Furthermore, the way I'm calculating the expense per person is essentially low-balling, because the average per capita income of persons in the United States are higher than 22,000 dollars. The average median income is even higher; about 45,000 dollars per year.
|
On June 26 2012 04:38 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:26 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 04:11 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives. 1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars. I see what your saying but the way you're calculating it is overly complex and largely incorrect. When you multiply the median by the number of items you don't get the total. You're thinking of the mean. A simpler and more precise model would be the following: Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program. Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m). The amount of oversight required to run such a program would create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for a frivolous program where people pay themselves to vote. Furthermore, the way I'm calculating the expense per person is essentially low-balling, because the average per capita income of persons in the United States are higher than 22,000 dollars. The average median income is even higher; about 45,000 dollars per year.
The layer of bureaucracy would be unfortunate. The actual calculation of who gets what, however, is entirely trivial as I have just provided a concise algorithm laying out per-person revenues and liabilities for the program. You are misinterpreting your statistic in a very obvious way. One of those is for households, for example, which on expectation include strictly more than a single person.
Furthermore, your statistics are entirely irrelevant and such an approach is just not correct when estimating the income and dues of a particular government program.
Plug in some numbers for m n and p in my model and see how it works out:
Let p = 1/2, m = $10 and n = 1000
Total liabilities = $(p * m * n) = $5000
Net cost per nonvoter = $5
Net benefit to voter = $5
Add a factor of 30% for bureaucracy.
You now get:
Total liabilities = (1.3)* $5000 = $6500
Net cost per nonvoter = $6.5
Net benefit to voter = $3.5
|
On June 26 2012 04:50 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:38 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 04:26 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 04:11 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives. 1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars. I see what your saying but the way you're calculating it is overly complex and largely incorrect. When you multiply the median by the number of items you don't get the total. You're thinking of the mean. A simpler and more precise model would be the following: Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program. Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m). The amount of oversight required to run such a program would create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for a frivolous program where people pay themselves to vote. Furthermore, the way I'm calculating the expense per person is essentially low-balling, because the average per capita income of persons in the United States are higher than 22,000 dollars. The average median income is even higher; about 45,000 dollars per year. The layer of bureaucracy would be unfortunate. The actual calculation of who gets what, however, is entirely trivial as I have just provided a concise algorithm laying out per-person revenues and liabilities for the program. You are misinterpreting your statistic in a very obvious way. One of those is for households, for example, which on expectation include strictly more than a single person. Furthermore, your statistics are entirely irrelevant and such an approach is just not correct when estimating the income and dues of a particular government program.
Plug in some numbers for m n and p in my model and see how it works out: Let p = 1/2, m = $10 and n = 1000 Total liabilities = $(p * m * n) = $5000 Net cost per nonvoter = $5 Net benefit to voter = $5 Add a factor of 30% for bureaucracy. You now get: Total liabilities = (1.3)* $5000 = $6500 Net cost per nonvoter = $6.5 Net benefit to voter = $3.5
From which magic hat do you pull these numbers?
|
On June 26 2012 05:12 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:50 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 04:38 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 04:26 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 04:11 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives. 1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars. I see what your saying but the way you're calculating it is overly complex and largely incorrect. When you multiply the median by the number of items you don't get the total. You're thinking of the mean. A simpler and more precise model would be the following: Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program. Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m). The amount of oversight required to run such a program would create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for a frivolous program where people pay themselves to vote. Furthermore, the way I'm calculating the expense per person is essentially low-balling, because the average per capita income of persons in the United States are higher than 22,000 dollars. The average median income is even higher; about 45,000 dollars per year. The layer of bureaucracy would be unfortunate. The actual calculation of who gets what, however, is entirely trivial as I have just provided a concise algorithm laying out per-person revenues and liabilities for the program. You are misinterpreting your statistic in a very obvious way. One of those is for households, for example, which on expectation include strictly more than a single person. Furthermore, your statistics are entirely irrelevant and such an approach is just not correct when estimating the income and dues of a particular government program.
Plug in some numbers for m n and p in my model and see how it works out: Let p = 1/2, m = $10 and n = 1000 Total liabilities = $(p * m * n) = $5000 Net cost per nonvoter = $5 Net benefit to voter = $5 Add a factor of 30% for bureaucracy. You now get: Total liabilities = (1.3)* $5000 = $6500 Net cost per nonvoter = $6.5 Net benefit to voter = $3.5 From which magic hat do you pull these numbers?
They're arbitrary. That's the nice thing about a model. You can plug in values and see what comes out. See my quoted post to see the precise model.
|
I just like that the people who don't vote lose money. That just seems like the right way to fix Democracy.
|
On June 26 2012 04:50 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:38 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 04:26 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 04:11 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:54 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 03:51 ninazerg wrote:On June 26 2012 03:01 Gummy wrote:On June 26 2012 02:53 ninazerg wrote:
I cannot possibly see how this could ever be abused by politicians. This plan is just so perfect that it can't fail, because elections are like ESPORTS - the more money you pump into them, the better they get! We should also pay people to not commit crimes and obey the law! OH MY GOD, GENIUS. THINK ABOUT IT. People would be motivated to uphold the statutes of the law because they'd have an incentive to do so now! Your sarcasm is misplaced. There are already incentives not to commit crime. A carrot and a stick are the same thing, with regards to game theory, minus a constant. I suppose there are psychological differences involved, but that's missing the mark. The majority of violent crimes or theft occur as a result of desperation, passion, or psychosis. Other crimes, such as insider trading, drug trafficking, tax evasion, etc... are committed systematically with the knowledge that enforcement is lax enough such that the probability of getting caught does not outweigh the payoff. The process of logical analysis is often one of simplification, but you need to be careful not to simplify out the most salient characteristics of the problem. I disagree, and maintain that my sarcasm is placed appropriately. Paying people to vote would not "fix" a democratic process, because the monetary incentive probably wouldn't be substantial enough to motivate people to vote, and this line of thought is especially flawed by thinking that adding numbers to the active electorate would somehow improve the way politics functions. People don't go to the polls often because they feel like their individual vote is not significant enough to have any influence over an election that is largely predetermined during the race, and having a monetary incentive would not change this point of view. They would still view their vote as insignificant, regardless of the pay-out they would receive for voting. Additionally, if more people from lower socio-economic backgrounds were added to the voting pool, this would add to the number of misinformed and uneducated voters. Also, consider this: Let's say your idea works, and 200,000,000 people vote in the next election. To pay each person $5 would cost a billion dollars. No problem, right? The average American makes about 27,000 dollars per year. The average tax rate is about 22%. 22% of 27,000 is 5,940 dollars. A billion dollars is one one-thousandth of a trillion dollars. $5.94 is one one-thousandth of $5,940 dollars, so I would be essentially paying myself to vote. In fact, I would be losing money. Your calculations, first of all, are grossly misinformed. 27 is an estimate of the median, not a mean, for one. Secondly, you introduce the number "1 trillion" out of thin air. Then you make a conclusion that does not follow from your math. The federal revenue from income taxes in 2012 was $1.14 trillion dollars.You would be spending about 1/1000th of that on election incentives. 1/1000th of the average tax payer's income taxes is more than 5 dollars. I see what your saying but the way you're calculating it is overly complex and largely incorrect. When you multiply the median by the number of items you don't get the total. You're thinking of the mean. A simpler and more precise model would be the following: Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program. Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m). The amount of oversight required to run such a program would create an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy for a frivolous program where people pay themselves to vote. Furthermore, the way I'm calculating the expense per person is essentially low-balling, because the average per capita income of persons in the United States are higher than 22,000 dollars. The average median income is even higher; about 45,000 dollars per year. The layer of bureaucracy would be unfortunate. The actual calculation of who gets what, however, is entirely trivial as I have just provided a concise algorithm laying out per-person revenues and liabilities for the program. You are misinterpreting your statistic in a very obvious way. One of those is for households, for example, which on expectation include strictly more than a single person. Furthermore, your statistics are entirely irrelevant and such an approach is just not correct when estimating the income and dues of a particular government program.
Plug in some numbers for m n and p in my model and see how it works out: Let p = 1/2, m = $10 and n = 1000 Total liabilities = $(p * m * n) = $5000 Net cost per nonvoter = $5 Net benefit to voter = $5 Add a factor of 30% for bureaucracy. You now get: Total liabilities = (1.3)* $5000 = $6500 Net cost per nonvoter = $6.5 Net benefit to voter = $3.5
Help me to understand the algorithm. What do these variables mean?
|
A simpler and more precise model would be the following:
Have a voter credit of $m for the (p*n) people who decide to vote in yearly national elections, where p is the proportion of people who vote and n is the total population of eligible voters. Raise $(p*m*n) of revenue across n persons to fund the program.
Each of the n persons pays $(p*m). If you vote, you get a net benefit of $(1-p)*m. If you do not, you are out $(p*m).
|
On June 26 2012 04:23 Gummy wrote:
What is uncivil is that you are first and foremost claiming that I am misrepresenting facts without pointing to any particular statements as being misrepresented. A very large number of local and national elections do not coincide as you readily admit.
i repeatedly stated exactly which fact you were misrepresenting:
, the probability that my vote will influence the outcome of an election multiplied by the realized differences on my way of life (whether it be social or economic) is never worth the time it takes to drive out, wait in line, and vote, nor is it worth the money I would have paid somebody to fill out a form for me.
if you are already driving out to vote in the state/local election than this has nothing to do with federal elections. furthermore, you are now misrepresenting both what i said and the facts. federal elections ALWAYS, without exception, will coincide with local/state elections.
Even if every election coincided, you are still failing to address the 2 key points here:
1.) Incentivizing voting results in increased voter turnout.
2.) That the net benefits of increased voter turnout is worth the cost of this incentive program.
you have not shown how $5 in the form of a tax break would incentive anyone, especially those who do not pay taxes. yeah, you would probably incentive people to go vote the stupid bill (and any politician that supported it) out, but that's it.
furthermore, there would be absolutely no known benefit to having uninformed people voting.
Your argument is basically, if I am understanding it correctly:
People who care vote in local elections, and if they care enough to vote in local elections they will by default vote in a large number of national elections. "People who don't are lazy" with the implication that these people shouldn't have a voice in government.
no, my argument is: local/state elections have a benefit that is worth the cost and federal elections are had in the same place as local/state level elections. therefore, a cost/benefit analysis has nothing to do with people not voting. i don't care why they vote, or if they vote, or how they vote. lazy people or not, if they don't vote, i don't care. there is no implication that lazy people shouldn't have a say in government, though i'll tell you this right now: if you are too lazy to vote, you won't have a voice in government no matter what anyone wants. my whole argument was that you are kidding yourself if you think there is any reason not to vote in a federal election other than laziness, or that you're doing something else that day.
A valid criticism I can take from your argument is that "because voting in local elections and voting in national elections are often the same action, the effect of your proposed measure on voter turnout will likely be less significant than you suggest" but you seem to have more interest engaging with the person making the argument than the argument itself.
there is no real argument here. people who will not vote now are not going to go out and vote because you promise them $5 in tax benefits. most of them don't even pay taxes, so what does a tax break mean to them? furthermore, the reason they are not voting has nothing to do with cost/benefit. furthermore, there is no known benefit to having uneducated and uncaring people walk down to the voting booth and cast a vote for someone they don't know about and for positions they haven't researched. furthermore, there is no reason to penalize (which is what you're doing) the people who already take the time to go out and vote without needing papa-government to pay them for it. furthermore, you have not shown that the voting population would support this measure at all (they wouldn't)
yeah, i find it annoying when people pull stuff out of thin air as justification for their not voting. especially when there are plenty of young people and people in foreign countries that have no clue how the system works and can be convinced by the stupid cost/benefit analysis argument that is put forward by either 1) liars who know better or 2) people who don't know better and are just repeating something they heard. obviously you are of the latter, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't try to educate people that it has nothing to do with cost/benefit. the benefit is already there in the form of local/state elections and propositions. if the daily working of your government is not enough incentive for you, than why would $5, which is a much smaller incentive than what you already have, do it? and why the heck should i have to comp you with the $5 when I'm the one who actually goes out and votes because i'm not lazy?
|
On June 25 2012 17:50 SCPlato wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 12:01 DigiGnar wrote:
Why not just combine all forms of government in one? They call that Tyranny.
I guess democracy isn't a form of government. I guess a republic isn't a government. People should actually learn to read, lol.
|
On June 26 2012 06:24 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 04:23 Gummy wrote:
What is uncivil is that you are first and foremost claiming that I am misrepresenting facts without pointing to any particular statements as being misrepresented. A very large number of local and national elections do not coincide as you readily admit.
i repeatedly stated exactly which fact you were misrepresenting: Show nested quote +, the probability that my vote will influence the outcome of an election multiplied by the realized differences on my way of life (whether it be social or economic) is never worth the time it takes to drive out, wait in line, and vote, nor is it worth the money I would have paid somebody to fill out a form for me. if you are already driving out to vote in the state/local election than this has nothing to do with federal elections. furthermore, you are now misrepresenting both what i said and the facts. federal elections ALWAYS, without exception, will coincide with local/state elections. Show nested quote +
Even if every election coincided, you are still failing to address the 2 key points here:
1.) Incentivizing voting results in increased voter turnout.
2.) That the net benefits of increased voter turnout is worth the cost of this incentive program.
you have not shown how $5 in the form of a tax break would incentive anyone, especially those who do not pay taxes. yeah, you would probably incentive people to go vote the stupid bill (and any politician that supported it) out, but that's it. furthermore, there would be absolutely no known benefit to having uninformed people voting. Show nested quote +Your argument is basically, if I am understanding it correctly:
People who care vote in local elections, and if they care enough to vote in local elections they will by default vote in a large number of national elections. "People who don't are lazy" with the implication that these people shouldn't have a voice in government. no, my argument is: local/state elections have a benefit that is worth the cost and federal elections are had in the same place as local/state level elections. therefore, a cost/benefit analysis has nothing to do with people not voting. i don't care why they vote, or if they vote, or how they vote. lazy people or not, if they don't vote, i don't care. there is no implication that lazy people shouldn't have a say in government, though i'll tell you this right now: if you are too lazy to vote, you won't have a voice in government no matter what anyone wants. my whole argument was that you are kidding yourself if you think there is any reason not to vote in a federal election other than laziness, or that you're doing something else that day. Show nested quote +
A valid criticism I can take from your argument is that "because voting in local elections and voting in national elections are often the same action, the effect of your proposed measure on voter turnout will likely be less significant than you suggest" but you seem to have more interest engaging with the person making the argument than the argument itself.
there is no real argument here. people who will not vote now are not going to go out and vote because you promise them $5 in tax benefits. most of them don't even pay taxes, so what does a tax break mean to them? furthermore, the reason they are not voting has nothing to do with cost/benefit. furthermore, there is no known benefit to having uneducated and uncaring people walk down to the voting booth and cast a vote for someone they don't know about and for positions they haven't researched. furthermore, there is no reason to penalize (which is what you're doing) the people who already take the time to go out and vote without needing papa-government to pay them for it. furthermore, you have not shown that the voting population would support this measure at all (they wouldn't) yeah, i find it annoying when people pull stuff out of thin air as justification for their not voting. especially when there are plenty of young people and people in foreign countries that have no clue how the system works and can be convinced by the stupid cost/benefit analysis argument that is put forward by either 1) liars who know better or 2) people who don't know better and are just repeating something they heard. obviously you are of the latter, but that doesn't mean i shouldn't try to educate people that it has nothing to do with cost/benefit. the benefit is already there in the form of local/state elections and propositions. if the daily working of your government is not enough incentive for you, than why would $5, which is a much smaller incentive than what you already have, do it? and why the heck should i have to comp you with the $5 when I'm the one who actually goes out and votes because i'm not lazy?
You're failing to put together a cohesive argument here. You just seem to be pressing no other point than that "People already have all the incentive in the world to vote. No other means of increasing voter turnout are worth discussing." Unfortunately, so far as I can tell, this point of yours is supported only by circularity.
|
Gummy, you're trying to get people to vote by offending them (eg calling them lazy) and
funnily I'd say that that is a better way of motivating people to vote than a $5 penalty
the fact of the matter is, voting just doesn't have enough tangible benefits. you may say those people are lazy,
but I assure you those lazy people will be running to the polls if they offered $1,000 for voting. what does it all mean?
the perceived benefit of voting is certainly less than $1,000. if they weren't voting because they were
lazy, wouldn't they not vote even at the face of such financial incentives?
and besides, the $5 penalty would never work because then people would perceive voting as a way of not paying a penalty
not a way of being patriotic, defending democracy, being american, etc etc etc. the better way of motivating people to
vote would be to have start a campaign that sends the following message: "giving up your vote is unamerican"
I'd say "people who don't vote are communist" would've worked fine in the 60s too. that oughta create an atmosphere
where people go around telling everyone they voted and anybody who doesn't vote don't deserve x and y and z
that would be a much better incentive for people to vote
|
You're not voting for democracy these days. You're voting for the crook that'll be the face of the people ripping you off your whole life.
|
Sometimes I wish that there was some sort of test that would earn you the right to reproduce and to vote.
|
On June 26 2012 14:54 dongmydrum wrote:
Gummy, you're trying to get people to vote by offending them (eg calling them lazy) and
funnily I'd say that that is a better way of motivating people to vote than a $5 penalty
the fact of the matter is, voting just doesn't have enough tangible benefits. you may say those people are lazy,
but I assure you those lazy people will be running to the polls if they offered $1,000 for voting. what does it all mean?
the perceived benefit of voting is certainly less than $1,000. if they weren't voting because they were
lazy, wouldn't they not vote even at the face of such financial incentives?
and besides, the $5 penalty would never work because then people would perceive voting as a way of not paying a penalty
not a way of being patriotic, defending democracy, being american, etc etc etc. the better way of motivating people to
vote would be to have start a campaign that sends the following message: "giving up your vote is unamerican"
I'd say "people who don't vote are communist" would've worked fine in the 60s too. that oughta create an atmosphere
where people go around telling everyone they voted and anybody who doesn't vote don't deserve x and y and z
that would be a much better incentive for people to vote
Your first two paragraphs are agreeing with me. The money involved is simply an incentive engine. Its precise quantity isn't particularly relevant except to extremes.
Also you believe the proposal in the OP won't work because you define a system as "working" only when people patriotically defend American democracy. I define working as substantively changing the goal of political rhetoric from mobilization to persuasion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
