Always impossible! - not

Fri Jul 10 22:26:02 PDT 1998

Mr. Saari wrote in part--

Personally, I prefer a system where money is used.  With a sufficiently steep
scale ($1, $10, $100) there would actually be only a slight opportunity for
rich people to have more influence.  (A poor person casts a $10 triple-vote; a
rich person casts a $100 quadruple-vote.  The rich person only has 4/3 the
influence of the poor person.)  If all money goes into a pool which is divided
equally, the money of the extravagant voters flows in the direction of the
poorer people...)  While I still like the requirement to explain votes
(especially Oppose votes), the money system would take up people's time the
way the comment system would.

Is Mr. Saari suggesting that if 99 poor voters spend $1 each on a choice and
if 1 rich voter spends $100 to oppose such choice that the rich person should
prevail ??

I note that many former so-called civilizations have fallen when a rich
oligarchy caused major problems-- France 1789 (producing the tyrant Napoleon),
Russia 1917 (producing the tyrants Lenin and Stalin), etc. etc.

More information about the Election-Methods mailing list