If I don't get a dollar, I'll vote my principles

[Ralph Shnelvar <ralphs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Nick:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:42:58 -0600, you wrote:

>
[snip]
>
>>.  All you need is enough voters who are at the margin to throw the
>>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?)
>>  
>>
>Yes. 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.

Uh, care to elaborate?  This might be relevant to Bob's attempt at a
lawsuit.

>Is vote buying anywhere close to this? 
>(I honestly don't know).

I don't think vote buying is currently a problem.  It is hard to measure an
illegal activity.

But there were points in history where vote buying was rampant.
Unfortunately, I can't point at a resource but I remember, for instance,
that this was a major problem in the Tammany Hall administration.

If you have information about vote buying through American history, I'd love
to see it.

But I do have the following amusement from
http://www.apsanet.org/PS/sept96/stone.cfm
- - - - -
A "floater" was hanging around waiting for the district leader to pay him
for voting the machine's ticket. As Kent recounts: 

There was not much interest in the election and there 
was no use in spending money, but the district leader said, 
	'Hello, Ben, have you voted yet?'
	'No, Mr. Carey, I ain't voted.' 
	'Well, Ben, here's fifty cents. Go on in and vote.'
	'No, Mr. Carey, if I don't get a dollar, I'll vote my principles' 
- - - - -

>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.

It is far easier to comply with the letter than with the intent as any
government bureaucrat will tell anyone.  As such, complying with the letter
maintains both the purity of the system (adhering to the constitution) as
well as maintaining a minimum standard of vote integrity.

>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.

The constitution is there to protect us all.  When we say "Oh, well, the
constitution shouldn't apply now because it is not politically expedient" we
undermine the rule of law and make it easier for "the opposition" to use the
same argument when it suits them.

No, constitutions need to be strong so that everyone is protected.
Prevarication is an invitation to tyranny.

We see this immediately in the courts ignoring constitutional safeguards.
See, for instance, the Colorado courts kowtowing to the DEA on arresting
medical marijuana patients even though there are supposed to be Colorado
constitutional safeguards.


>
>>
>>>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.
>>  
>>
>OK, we disagree.

Hey, Nick, no need get nasty.  :-)

>
>>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."
>>
>>  
>>
>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. ; )

At some point, Nick, I'd like to sit down with you an convince you that what
we have now is going to destroy democracy in the U.S..

>
>>>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.
>>  
>>
>You're right. I was just thinking Federal.
>

You're a reasonable man, Mr. Bernstein.

Ralph Shnelvar