The 3/5 Compromise: How Much of a Vote do YOU Have?
by ZetaGecko | 2 Comments | Issues/Problems, Politics
I watched a presentation by Lawrence Lessig today about why we need campaign finance reform now, and it got me thinking -- the ideal of democracy is 1 person, 1 vote. But how much of a vote does each of us have?
First, here's the presentation:
Each citizen starts off with one vote. But those with the money buy control of the information that we base our voting decisions on. Optimistically, that takes 1/5, leaving the rest of us with 4/5 of our original vote.
But then the politicians waffle, weasel word, and wimp out. So optimistically, they may try to deliver on 4/5 of what they promised (I won't bother estimating how much they succeed at delivering -- that'd just be depressing!) So now your down to 3/5 of a vote.
Sadly, this time around, the 3/5 compromise means that each of us gives up 3/5 of our vote. The next 1/5 seems to be going more and more to foreign interests (which are probably controlled by some of the same big money people who took the first 1/5) through secretive trade agreements, international banking organizations, etc.
The 14th Ammendment is supposed to guarantee us equal protection under law. But how can there be equal protection when representation is so unequal? And how can we ever hope for equal representation unless big money gets kicked out of politics?
Enjoy your 2/5 of a vote. If you can. Your spouse is probably trying to take half of it! :-)
August 21st, 2010 at 6:45 am
If you could remove big money, how big would it have to be? After it was gone, someone or something would be the new big money. What then? Soon we'd be down to only people who are so poor they would vote themselves more money. Then what?
What about labor unions? Large non-profits? How about smart, engaging, people who can charm their way into a politician's office and extract favors? What of well-endowed women with low-cut blouses? Well-endowed men with tight pants? Individuals who organize multi-million dollar campaigns? (That might be OK. I think that would outlaw politicians.)
Corporations are owned by people, be they sole proprietors, partners or share holders. If you remove them from politics, how do you reconcile the fact that you are infringing on their 1st amendment rights and where do you stop each time you create a new class of big money?
The real issue is in the mirror. Most people do not participate in their own self-government. Most people cannot even take the time to vote. If we are to govern ourselves, do we not have to actually govern ourselves?
We must do our home work, stay informed, participate actively. We get what we work for. There's no free lunch and there ain't no free freedom. We get the government we deserve. If it's dominated by big money, we can only blame ourselves because we decide who will represent us.
Imagine if big money was removed from politics. All you have to do is look at the corn and sugar markets Lessig discussed. Then look at other areas that government is involved. What do you think will happen when they start designing programs to keep out big money?
I just found your blog and website yesterday. I like it. I'm still digesting most of it. I have you in my RSS. Looking forward to what's coming next.
August 21st, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Yes, corporations are owned by people. So let the individual people exercise their 1st amendment rights rather than the people controlling the corporate pocketbook presuming to speak for all of them.
One might argue that the corporation trying to maximize its profits is saying what the individual shareholders would say, so it's okay. But (according to the book Made to Stick at least) studies have shown that individuals' political opinions don't always align with their self-interest -- they align with their identities. So letting people speak for themselves would lead to better representation of the will of the people.
Programs don't have to be designed to keep big money out, and keeping out big money doesn't mean that people with lots of money don't get a voice. It means that there's a limit to how much money any person can donate to politics to ensure that the little guy's free speech isn't completely overwhelmed by the free speech of people with more money.