When asked who we are planning on supporting in the presidential election, our standard response is to avoid this query. It's a trick question premised on a mass delusion according to which people believe that one politician is better than another. We're pretty sure that the next president will be the worst in history, regardless of who wins.
Perhaps less importantly, we know our votes count for almost nothing. Less than nothing, really. The costs incurred in voting--risking jury duty by registering to vote, having to trek to an out of the way public building we'd otherwise never know existed, standing in lines around people who we do not especially enjoy being around, witnessing the self-congratulatory grins of people who believe that they've performed some great democratic duty by voting for one scoundrel or another--are great. The rewards are few. They don't even serve lunch or whiskey at polling places anymore, we're told.
In New York State, where the DealBreaker editors live and work, voting in presidential elections has been folly for decades. The majority of New York's voters will cast their ballot for whoever the Democratic party nominates. A vote cast either for or against this nominee is just wasted. It would be far more efficient if we would all agree not to vote on election day and just allow Hillary Clinton to cast the one deciding vote in favor of Obama. (Presumably she can be trusted to vote in the desired direction.)
The certainty of outcome means that it's not just the individual votes of New Yorkers that are wasted. Our huge amount of votes in the Electoral College--thirty one last time we checked--are also largely wasted. Politicians of both parties ignore New Yorkers, as well as voters in dozens of other states whose outcome is well-known before the election. Despite it's large amount of electoral college representatives, New York is unable to secure the kind of promises and political largesse that the so-called "swing states" receive.
It seems a shame that this great political asset of electoral college votes should go to waste. Wouldn't it be better to allow New York to find a way to use the votes in a more profitable way? As usual, the deeper problem here seems to be that New York lacks a market for the assets it cannot use. Perhaps New York should be allowed to sell-off its electoral college votes to the highest bidder. True this would disenfranchise New Yorkers but, as we said, the politicians ignore us anyway. At least if, say, Florida and Ohio were bidding for our electoral college spots we'd recoup some value.
We imagine electoral college votes would work like shares in a limited partnership, with a limited group of accepted transferees. So General Motors would be prohibited from buying votes but Michigan would not. You'd probably want the sales to be conducted according to blind auctions, so that political considerations--such as a governor hoping to get a cabinet seat--do not interfere with the transfers. Other details will have to be worked out.
Now many readers will probably be shocked at this proposal. It depends, we admit, on our assessment that too much value is placed on who gets elected president. That mass delusion about one politician being an improvement over another is hard to shake. We'd be far better off, however, if we asked not what these candidates can do for our country but what these elections can do for us.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 4:54PM
First post:
carney sucks the big one.
too fucking long..
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 4:54PM
Mass delusion? Huh?
Carney did not get the memo:
Obama was sent down from the mountain to deliver us.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 4:58PM
I'm thinking about filing a greivance with FEC over Obama's plan to stroke a $1000 check to 90% of American's if he's elected (or whatever the fuck his vague plan is).
Isn't that buying votes with the taxpayers money?
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 4:59PM
too long.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 4:59PM
too long.
Posted by Anal_yst , Sep 03, 2008 5:02PM
@ #3
Bingo.
Also, carney, you've seriously got WAY too much time on your hands
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 5:07PM
Obama's plan isn't vague silly.
He will be taking money from people that did something morally reprehensible to acquire the money in the first place, you know, like work for a living and give to the people that deserve it and were somehow the unwitting victims of this vast conspiracy.
Very clear.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 5:14PM
Too long. Read anyway. I agree.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 5:21PM
Why limit who can buy them? It would be a lot more efficient and transparent to let all comers bid. GM having to funnel the money through Michigan political hacks just makes the market less efficient.
Posted by Rex Bannister , Sep 03, 2008 5:29PM
Nobama!
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 5:40PM
Since when is 8 paragraphs that take 5 minutes to read too long?
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 6:15PM
#7 said, "Obama's plan isn't vague silly.
He will be taking money from people that did something morally reprehensible to acquire the money in the first place, you know, like work for a living and give to the people that deserve it and were somehow the unwitting victims of this vast conspiracy.
Very clear."
I say, better that we borrow the money and give it to people, a la the most recent stimulus checks. That way, nobody ever has to pay for it.
Posted by diablo , Sep 03, 2008 6:37PM
I believe that it's about time for Carney to do us a favor and move to Alaska.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 6:41PM
wWuld only work until the corrupt Illinois politicians got in on the action and found a way to double their state's electoral votes.
We'd be right back to equilibrium again in 12 years.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 6:46PM
@12
good point. Barry should just have helicopter Ben print a bunch of new money and he can hand it out like he is Rockefeller.
then he would not have raise taxes at all!!
awesome.
yeah, yeah, hyperinflation, yadda yadda
just think about all those happy smiling idiot faces with worthless paper.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 6:48PM
Sell off Lehman to the Koreans, then pay the stimulus checks with the proceeds. Then the Koreans will have paid for our foodstamps. Suckers!
-K
Posted by FigJam , Sep 03, 2008 6:56PM
Carney hits bottom...digs deeper.
"Other details will have to be worked out." Ya think???? Little "details" like the constitutionality of it...
Unadulterated idiocy, in a season of idiocy.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 8:01PM
Free lunch for votes is a great idea. All college kids will vote. Bring it.
Posted by redpandot , Sep 03, 2008 8:22PM
And we could just feed the poors with unwanted childen... that's the ticket!
Posted by John Carney , Sep 03, 2008 8:37PM
@17: The constitutionality of the plan will obviously have to be worked out, either through an amendment or perhaps creative and cooperative activity of the legislative, executive and judicial branches.
Posted by redpandot , Sep 03, 2008 8:54PM
"creative and cooperative activity of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches"... and monkeys might fly outa my butt
Posted by diablo , Sep 03, 2008 9:13PM
redpandot
Carney is just pulling our chain or has jumped the shark, finally. Or he had to get totally drunk to watch the convention tonight.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 9:22PM
I love it when people who obviously haven't read the Constitution bring it up. Please quote the relevant section of the Constitution that prohibits choosing presidential electors via auction. In fact, you'll find that Article 2, Section 1 leaves it up to state legislatures as to how they select their state's electors.
Posted by guest , Sep 03, 2008 10:05PM
@diablo--nah, he definitely thinks this could happen.
Posted by Lowly Assistant , Sep 03, 2008 10:50PM
If Carney doesn't start going by "O' Catharnaigh" then, my friends, the terrorists have not won.
Stay gold, Carney beau. Stay gold.
Posted by merkin capital partners , Sep 03, 2008 11:24PM
Since the first stimulus was technically a tax rebate, does that mean Barry (who obviously got a tiger woods looking boner about stimulus) actually acknowledges supply side economics...you know that we do better when we actually get to keep our money? Just don't tell him about that Reagan guy.
Posted by guest , Sep 04, 2008 5:27AM
NY's number of electoral votes impacts it's number of congresspeople. Guess you didn't know that.
Posted by guest , Sep 04, 2008 10:01AM
So, say this were to happen, wouldn't the states with the most money be able to buy up all of the electoral votes? Thus, possibly producing the same outcome because the state may be truly blue or red?
If all states were allowed to buy/sell their votes, wouldn't one state buy up the majority and then wouldn't we always have a democratic/republican president/congress?
I'm no political science expert, so I could be totally off base here.
@ 18 - Why would you want all college kids to vote, unless you are a democrat?
Posted by guest , Sep 04, 2008 1:43PM
Your vote and electoral vote are worthless. One should not even care about politics because there is not a d*mn thing one can do about it unless one is:
1) Very weathly
2) Has wide influence at very high levels
3) Can control a good portion of the public/sheep
If you qualify under items 1 through 3, then your vote and opinion might matter.
Otherwise, shut the h*ll up.
Hope this helps.
Posted by guest , Sep 05, 2008 2:47AM
@27: Um, no, you have it backwards. Population determines number of congressmen which determines number of electors.