What is a vote worth? The answer changes for everyone. Not because different people value a vote differently, but because from an omnisceent perspective a vote is intrinsically worth more to someone who has something to gain than from someone with something to lose. It is the means by which the poor can be subsidized by the rich. I say subsidized and not supported because any monetary benefit given out by the public for the benefit of a specific group/cause/corporation/industry is a subsidy. I dislike the word support because that infers a long term solution, whereas the current "support" is more like a child "supporting" a feather by continuously blowing it up in the air. Subsidies are specifically for the purpose of lowering prices though..... right? In fact prices are lowered, the price it costs to live for anyone subsidized is greatly reduced. The obvious flaws in the voting system reflect current and past economic policy. If this does not yet seem logically clear, take the example below, writen as a microcosm:
Suppose a society of 11 people exist on a small island as well as a small governing body that attempts to organize their productive efforts. In this society not everyone is equally skilled. They gather coconuts, and the best coconut pickers on the island manage to get 7-8 coconuts a day while the worst can only manage 0-3. The very worst coconut picker on the island mostly just relies on the charity of other cononut pickers to get by, and occasionally the second worst coconut picker does the same. The top coconut pickers end up with the most leisure time of course because they consume less than they produce and can afford to take time off. All 11 islanders are given the right to vote in an upcoming election. There are two candidates, and one promises that he will create legislation requiring islanders picking 6 or more coconuts daily to give one each working day to someone who picked 2 or less in order to win the election. Now lets suppose the generated coconut income per day of the islanders is as follows:
islander 1: 8 coconuts
islander 2: 7 coconuts
islander 3: 7 coconuts
islander 4: 6 coconuts
islander 5: 5 coconuts
islander 6: 5 coconuts
islander 7: 4 coconuts
islander 8: 3 coconuts
islander 9: 3 coconuts
islander 10: 1 coconut
islander 11: 0 coconuts
Assume that ideally one would need to consume 2-3 coconuts per day for a healthy lifestyle. The above follows a rather standard distrbution of wealth whereas 2/11 islanders are in poverty, 6/11 are somewhere between lower and upper middle class, and 3/11 are wealthy. How do you think these islanders will vote? It seems obvious that islanders 10 and 11 will support the legislation to redistribute wealth. Islanders 1-4 will likely oppose the legislation. Islanders 8 and 9 will likely support the legislation; maybe they have a bad day one day and only get 2 coconuts, the new legislation would provide them with an extra coconut, it would be like a safety net. Since 8 and 9 are also rather poor themselves than can sympathize with islanders 10 and 11. Islanders 5 through 7 are the swing votes and aren't affected either way by this legislation, but they still get to vote on it. More than likely they will all support the legislation, after all its not their money, and it feels good to help the poor. Maybe one of the middle class islanders understands economies and opposes it.... it doesn't matter, a majority still support. It is also possible that one of the rich islanders, maybe islander 1, will be feeling charitable and won't mind supporting the legislation. However, this principle doesn't work in reverse as islander 11 will virtually never vote to not give himself an extra coconut. Regardless, it should seem clear that with any income distribution similar to the above voting would favor subsidizing the poor islanders. Apart from being unconstitutional to take something earned by one islander without choice and give it to another, there are a number of defects with this type of legislation: negative incentitves are created.
- Islander 4 picks 6 coconuts a day and has to give one up so he always ends up with 5.... he could work less, pick 5 coconuts a day, and have the same benefit! Islander 4 has been incentivised to produce less by this legislation.
-Islanders 8 and 9 are in the same boat. If they picked one coconut less a day, they would qualify for an extra coconut. Either way they end up with 3 coconuts, but they don't haver to work as hard if they just pick 2, giving them some leisure time. These islanders are also incentivized to produce less.
-Is anyone incentivised to produce more??? Nope, that just seems silly. Why would islanders 5 or 6 try to pick more coconuts?, they would just have to give one away.
-The worst part is, in real life the administration of such a plan would have a slight cost as well. The government would need to take a small fraction of every coconut in order to pay for the organization of such a plan.
Now it should be clear that the island is incentivised to produce significantly less coconuts. Its possible that there won't even be enough rich islanders to pay for the poor islanders at some point... but the poor islanders have been promissed coconuts.....maybe the government can borrow coconuts from another island temporarilly to pay the poor the coconuts they were promissed and pay it back later when the economy is better? That is another story all together.
Regardless, the point here is that free voting is rarely a priveledge to those with something to lose. A vote that is free is worth nothing unless you have something to gain from it. Voting is a joke. As far as I am concerned, boycotting a vote on the premiss that it incentivises unproductive behavior is just as patriotic if not more than voting itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment