You are free not to concur, thumbs, and I'm fine with that, but Lincoln couldn't sniff today's Republican Party, and while that is a nice saying, money can buy the process, absent controls. Money can reduce turnout, while pumping up the turnout of the minority who support their agenda, whatever that agenda is. We've seen that time and time again in Texas. The current redistricting battle in the courts regarding Texas is exactly about that. This idea may have sounded good to you when you read it, thumbs, but reality means that it could not work. How many people actually vote in this country? What percentage of that number do you need to influence towards your agenda? A fraction of your 200 million. A fraction. And what do they understand of the complex issues affecting society in America today? Many couldn't find Costa Rica on a map. Don't know a stent from a tube of toothpaste. Yet they would be making decisions on a budget, and items in it, that they haven't a clue about. Except for one aspect, which I've already mentioned, the "education" that Big Money would give them.
Voting is voluntary. Filling out an IRS tax form is not. Checking the boxes would be a lot easier to determine the will of the people. Just as in political campaigns, proponents and detractors of the checkbox subjects would present a more balanced information attack, especially if we required balanced advertising. If one side wanted to spend x amount of dollars on an ad, the other side would be forced to spend the same amount or be subsidized by the opposing lobby so the ads would appear with equal time one after the other in each medium.
BTW, what makes you think I read this anywhere? As I said, rhadamanthus inspired my thinking. However, considering the merits of the plan, I could easily see that someone smarter than me came up with the idea first.
Unless you pay taxes more than once, each voter would get one vote. Even if a corporation could vote like a person, it would still have only one vote regardless of its size.
My point being is that you can't rely heavily upon everyone to vote according to what they think is best for the country. You'll have rockets fans voting for Lowry and you'll have T-Wolves fans voting for Rubio and you'll have the mob mentality who vote for "flavor of the week" Jeremy Lin. Too few will vote for the Battiers, the Duncans, and the Josh Smiths.
Btw, you could sorta generalize this methodology and just offer a "tax refund" if you vote in elections. Offering this monetary reward would result in high voter turnout which would more accurately reflect the will of the people.
I can't wait to see how this would impact our television viewing experience. "Tonights Liberty Bowl is sponsored to you by the same great minds that brought us Prop 13 in California!"
Offering a monetary reward for voting? Really? That wouldn't really reflect the will of the people more, you'd just get a bunch more idiots who went to vote for the money and just voted for the easiest ones to pick. Straight ticket D! Straight ticket R! Ones with the coolest names! There's no reason to encourage more of that at a cost to the taxpayer.
My point is that the forms, because they are submitted to the IRS as an attachment to your tax return, are not voluntary. One taxpayer, one form. Voting is voluntary. Tax forms are not.
The ultimate question you have to have to ask is why you want to put more power in the hands of people who are uneducated about how and why money is being spent? We all may not like Congress, but their full-time job is to understand this stuff. The whole reason we elect them is to make those big decisions. Regular citizens have other roles and responsibilities in their lives, and the majority are not well informed about the details of government spending. Yet you're suggesting that we'll get a better outcome by having those people be making final decisions? I don't want people who know nothing about air or water quality issues making decisions as to whether the EPA gets funding to protect our air or water. And I don't want the EPA spending tax dollars convincing people to support their mission. This is all around a disaster waiting to happen.
Just a thought, but perhaps if people had *direct* control over where their money went, they'd care a little more and put a little more thought and effort into civics and whatnot. Can't be any worse than what we've got going, where I'd venture to say only about 5-10% of Congress doesn't have their head completely up their ass or their hand in someone's cookie jar. (and that's being generous) Sounds like what we've got going on right now. Even worse, we have people making these decisions who have a vested interest in their success/failure. At least with this model, you'd actually get some say in the matter. More say than you have right now, at least. Your arguments don't sound like a criticism of this system, they sound like a criticism of stupidity and corruption.
What an elitist stance! I obviously have more faith in the run of the mill citizen. If you believe they are the great unwashed, it is your duty to wash them, i.e. educate them about all the outcomes and import of each box checked or not checked.
Another thought on this topic. Representative democracy was developed out of a different time with different needs. Back in the day when information traveled at a snails pace and staying alive was a daily chore, representative governance was pretty much the best way to go. Now we live in a day and age where information is plentiful (almost too plentiful) and people die from eating too damned much. People are stupid, yes, but they're still smarter than they used to be. I'd say participatory governance will be the next step forward. Perhaps on a local level, and then growing forward from that.
I don't consider them the "great unwashed" as you said, but I agree with Major. I consider myself pretty politically in-tune (like most on this BBS we are more informed on most political issues than the average voter) and I wouldn't want MYSELF responsible for voting on a lot of issues. There's just no way the majority of average Americans can dedicate the time necessary to understand issues well enough to cast a meaningful vote. Congress has staffers who do a ton of research for them and help them make decisions (outside of the ones where money has bought them off. grrr...) which is a luxury most Americans can't afford.
Double edged sword, information moves faster but the growth of the world and the complexity of the issues has led to there being a dramatic increase in the number of issues that need solving. It's easier to get information but it's just as hard to stay informed with all the different issues that are out there and the speed at which they change.
I know a Texas legislator and he has a staff. It is small (one paid employee and three volunteers) but that is still better than the average American could put together to inform them on issues.
We may *discover* new issues (i.e. the march of science, inevitable conflicts, etc)... but we've also gotten smarter and more capable as time has gone on. And it's not like the root of each choice/dilemma has ever been that drastically different.
