Quantcast

Voting other folks' money

Typically, those who get their own paychecks by expending a lot of time proposing, administering, or even executing such things are enthusiasts for seeing themselves as deserving OPM destinations. But this isn't an argument for full vote denial on such self-interest tainted matters.

It is a limited argument for vote weighting: specifically, that those who stand to enhance their own paycheck-from a voteable public budget question-should have their votes count for somewhat less than those who will pay full freight.

It's similar to shareholder voting-where those who have invested more in the enterprise through the purchase of, say, 100 shares, have twice the voting power of those who chose to invest less and own only 50 shares. But it's dissimilar to shareholder voting in that it doesn't deny voting to non-investors, those who get benefits from the enterprise but don't invest in it.

Even tax-minusses are entitled to a weighted vote, I'd argue, because they pay a little something for government indirectly through sales taxes and part of their rent-even though they don't ever send a real check to the IRS or the state department of taxes.

As for those whose spending and rent money comes not from real personal earnings but from real taxpayers via government (with a little skimmed off the top for "management", of course), a pure application of weighted voting would invoke the no-pay-no-play principle: those who don't support government don't get to vote.

But I'd argue for less than purity of principle on my political calculation: weighted voting is already so threatening and offensive in concept to both the voting bloc of largesse recipients and the Progressive elites dependent on their votes that only a diluted version would have a chance at survival of criticism of the Founding Fathers' Constitution.

You might call my proposal gradualism, the same practical tactic advocated in Fabian socialism where multiple tiny steps toward elite governance have better prospects for eventual success than a single fundamental transformation (to borrow a recently invoked Obamian phrase).

0
Vote on this Story by clicking on the Icon

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Sign in to comment