[1246] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: Three more cents... plus clarification about the UA/US
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Batalles)
Fri Mar 15 17:23:56 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="============_-1195891565==_ma============"
Message-ID: <v04020a00b8b81b5d7c57@[18.211.0.64]>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 17:22:10 -0500
From: Alex Batalles <batalles@MIT.EDU>
To: MIT-Talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: <200203152042.PAA09608@cathedral-seven.mit.edu>
--============_-1195891565==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Currently the system Rhett and Victor have is: the first 500
>people to send them e-mails get 10$. If Rhett and Victor don't get
>elected they don't the 10$. There is no enforcement, and people who
>don't vote and send e-mails would still get the money. This is no
>different than your tax cut example. The idea that they must promise
>everyone 10$ to not make it bribery is also skewed. At events where
>food is offered, only those who show up first get the food. Not
>everyone is entitled to the food, nor does anyone believe that
>everyone should be.
I think you're onto a good point here. If they had only refrased their
campaign to:
"Vote for us! Oh, and by the way, send us your name to this email address
and we'll give you 10 bucks out of this ridiculous 5000 Bush fund that I'm
suppossed to spend on myself".
then the psychology of people voting for them would be exactly the same and
it would be hard to call it bribery. (ie, people would send them their
names, but would also vote for them because they want him to be in charge
of that Bush fund and give them 10 bucks--IF they are one of the first 500
to claim it).
Please note that the situation here is NOT like the US presidential
elections becuase "the richest people win". the fact that presidents have
been well off in the past, has nothing to do with them directly bribing
people to vote for them (I am not aware of any presidential candidate that
promised to give 10 bucks to 100 million people if they voted for
them--that, as you can see, would be quite costly). They just are able to
campaign more since they have money.
HOWEVER, the UA election is like US presidential elections in that it is
exactly what (both parties, but mainly the democratic party) do: they
campaign saying "we need more funding for this, more spending on this, more
money spent on these people", appealing to those who need/want money. Then,
once in office, they take tax revenues--note that over 90% of tax revenue
come from the richest half of the country-- and give it to that same large
population that voted for them. PLEASE understand what I'm saying instead
of immediately getting defensive about how important those programs are.
This is Income/wealth redistribution. the person who promises the most to
the biggest part of the population, more often than not will win. NOTE THAT
THIS IS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL MONEY. they take money that's there
(or raise taxes to get it) and then give it to the people they promised it
to. That's how you get elected, thats one very important aspect of
democracy and elections in the US today.
just wanted to clear that up. Feel free to destroy me in a reply, then
hunt me down, gut me, beat me and hang me up from the nearest tree for
expressing conservative views within the Massachusetts state boundaries.
(note: I do not necessarily have republican views--republicans also take
and waste too much money).
-Alex
PS: by the way, I voted for rhett and sent him the email for the 10 bucks.
The reason I did this is not because this is the way I think elections
should be run, but because he was smart enough to find a loop hole and turn
the whole election upside down. And because I was also disgusted by the
concept of the Bush fund. Plus I just think this is all hilarious. No, I
don't think this will escalate in the coming years. I think that loophole
can be closed now, but I don't think it should be done retroactively. I
also think the "spirit of the campaign" rules are ridiculous--- No thanks,
I don't want someone to have arbitrary power over me.
--============_-1195891565==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
> Currently the system Rhett and Victor have is: the first 500
>people to send them e-mails get 10$. If Rhett and Victor don't get
>elected they don't the 10$. There is no enforcement, and people who
>don't vote and send e-mails would still get the money. This is no
>different than your tax cut example. The idea that they must promise
>everyone 10$ to not make it bribery is also skewed. At events where
>food is offered, only those who show up first get the food. Not
>everyone is entitled to the food, nor does anyone believe that
>everyone should be.
I think you're onto a good point here. If they had only refrased their
campaign to:
"Vote for us! Oh, and by the way, send us your name to this email
address and we'll give you 10 bucks out of this ridiculous 5000 Bush
fund that I'm suppossed to spend on myself".
then the psychology of people voting for them would be exactly the same
and it would be hard to call it bribery. (ie, people would send them
their names, but would also vote for them because they want him to be
in charge of that Bush fund and give them 10 bucks--IF they are one of
the first 500 to claim it).
Please note that the situation here is NOT like the US presidential
elections becuase "the richest people win". the fact that presidents
have been well off in the past, has nothing to do with them directly
bribing people to vote for them (I am not aware of any presidential
candidate that promised to give 10 bucks to 100 million people if they
voted for them--that, as you can see, would be quite costly). They just
are able to campaign more since they have money.
HOWEVER, the UA election <bold><italic>is</italic></bold> like US
presidential elections in that it is exactly what (both parties, but
mainly the democratic party) do: they campaign saying "we need more
funding for this, more spending on this, more money spent on these
people", appealing to those who need/want money. Then, once in office,
they take tax revenues--note that over 90% of tax revenue come from the
richest half of the country-- and give it to that same large population
that voted for them. PLEASE understand what I'm saying instead of
immediately getting defensive about how important those programs are.
This is Income/wealth redistribution. the person who promises the most
to the biggest part of the population, more often than not will win.
NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT THE PRESIDENT'S PERSONAL MONEY. they take money
that's there (or raise taxes to get it) and then give it to the people
they promised it to. That's how you get elected, thats one very
important aspect of democracy and elections in the US today.
just wanted to clear that up. Feel free to destroy me in a reply, then
hunt me down, gut me, beat me and hang me up from the nearest tree for
expressing conservative views within the Massachusetts state
boundaries. (note: I do not necessarily have republican
views--republicans also take and waste too much money).
-Alex
PS: by the way, I voted for rhett and sent him the email for the 10
bucks. The reason I did this is not because this is the way I think
elections should be run, but because he was smart enough to find a loop
hole and turn the whole election upside down. And because I was also
disgusted by the concept of the Bush fund. Plus I just think this is
all hilarious. No, I don't think this will escalate in the coming
years. I think that loophole can be closed now, but I don't think it
should be done retroactively. I also think the "spirit of the campaign"
rules are ridiculous--- No thanks, I don't want someone to have
arbitrary power over me.
--============_-1195891565==_ma============--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation on the use of the mailing lists mit-talk, all-talk,
mit-news, housing-talk, and the mit-talk Zephyr class is available at:
http://web.mit.edu/institvte/talk/
