If you gave $52 toward an election, would you vote?

Question

I remember writing a paper in college about a journalist who came up with a "buck-a-week plan", whereby voters could give $1 a week to put towards public financing of an election.

1) This would remove the lobbyists and special interests from the political game.

2) It would generate more than enough money to finance the elections ($11 billion based on 221 million people voting in 2004) for every candidate nation-wide.

3) It wouldn't give one party the advantage over the other in raising money.

I understand some details would have to be worked out (who would be eligible to draw from the pool of funds, etc.), but would you be more inclined to vote if a system such as this were in place?

Answer 1

I would be in favor of some type of system as you suggest. Anything to level the field. As it is, the one with the most money usually wins. Does that guarantee the best person as our leader, or someone who is good at raising money?

Answer 2

I vote regardless...

As to your idea, I don't agree with it. You neglect to account for the fact that there are more political parties in this country than you can shake a stick at. How would that money be distributed - as they would **all** have a legitimate claim to it. And why should a "fringe" party, who have no funding because their platform, or views, or candidates are so abhorrent (else why are they fringe), have access to monies they would otherwise have no way of getting?

Personally I would not like to see even my minuscule but mandatory taxation (and that's what it would be by the way) going to groups such as the American Nazi Party, or the Greens, or the Democrats for that matter.

If I choose to contribute - and I do - it is because I agree with the party or candidate that I'm contributing to.

Answer 3

I vote anyway. I haven't missed a general, special or primary election since 1960 when I first became eligible to vote. We need to get rid of all the campaign finance laws because it only gives job security to "experts" who can figure out loopholes in those laws. They were a knee-jerk reaction to the financial improprieties of Nixon's re-election committee and campaigns have just gotten more corrupt since then. We also need to convince the major parties to do away with all of the primary nonsense for selecting their candidate for President. It's reduced the quest for the job to a beauty pageant and left the professional political people out of the decision-making process at the conventions.

Answer 4

Paying to vote seems somewhat undemocratic.

Answer 5

yes i have