Yes, It is often possible to improve two independant measures. But I think you understand my point.Not true. Sometimes you can design things so that all relevant components are made better and cheaper.
If the rewards are high enough, people can be trained to do almost anything.True
. All you need is enough voters who are at the margin to throw theYes. The numbers can be small. But then again, a 1% error in counting ballots is also only significant in close elections and we know that we are seeing those kinds of errors. Is vote buying anywhere close to this? (I honestly don't know). I agree with your premise that it is possible to make a system which improves both measures. My original point was that I feel the letter of the constitution (no mark) is less important than the intent (anonymity). While I think the "no mark" rule is a good guideline, I'm not personally compelled to argue against a technology based on the letter of the constitution because I can imagine systems that don't comply with the letter but do comply the the intent. I realize that other people may feel differently. I was just stating my opinion so that people who are fighting against these machines can know that there are some of us for which the constitutionality argument is not very strong and arguing against this particular technology on its own detractions may be a better argument.
election that have to be willing to sell. That's a MUCH smaller number.
And it is only in close elections that vote selling makes economic sense to
the vote buyer. It is also only when elections are close that coersion
makes any sense. (Does that make sense?)
OK, we disagree.
I don't feel all that strongly about vote buying is that I put it in a different category than vote coersion.
To me it's in the same category.
Yes, there are big differences. The first one is more cost effective, because you don't have to pay out if you lose! If I were running (and unscrupulous) I'd just promise $20M tax breaks for the wealthy, let them contribute money to 527s which could then trick people into voting for me (or against the other guy) through a series of lies and innuendos. It doesn't cost me anything up front and it's a lot harder to prove it in court. Of course, this is all hypothetical. We know that no one is actually doing that now. ; )And, Nick, there is to me a big difference between "If you vote for me, I'll cut your (i.e. everyone's) taxes (by $5)!" and "If you vote for me, I'll send Nick Bernstein $20."
You're right. I was just thinking Federal.5. The argument for uniquely ID ballots is that makes debugging easier.
18% represents federal spending. Spending at all levels is about 1/3 (28%) according to the federal government.
See http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide01.html
Unfortunately, 28% does not represent the "off budget" items like cost of compliance. For instance, the cost of compliance to the private sector to fill out income taxes represents about 12% of the income tax collected.
Businesses absorb huge costs of compliance. These are hidden taxes that are not recorded and yet must be absorbed by the economy.
I think 1/3 is fair. I've seen "real estimates" that are closer to 50% of
total GDP.