[ExI] public funding of election PR

spike spike66 at att.net
Tue Jun 30 05:12:45 UTC 2009


> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
> ... 
> Interesting! Traditional US ward politics, sounds like.
> <He has never before supported a U.S. politician and, not yet 
> a citizen, he is barred from voting. But when Fujianese 
> community leaders asked him to donate to Clinton, he said, he 
> eagerly contributed $1,000. Immigrants who have permanent 
> resident status can legally make campaign contributions.
> Coming up with the money was hard, Lin acknowledged, adding: 
> "The restaurant is really small." >
> Using the names of the vanished or dead is also traditional, 
> but more deplorable.
> It's lucky the other guys never get up to this sort of trick.
> Damien Broderick

Ja point well taken.  There was no need of my singling out Sen. Clinton.
They were all doing it, and actually it isn't clear to me that it is
illegal, nor should be.  It would be extremely easy and legal for a really
rich guy or a criminal with a ton of cash to go into Chinatown and offer
random strangers 1100 bucks in exchange for their donating 1000 of it to the
candidate of choice under their name.  I don't even see that any law was
broken there.  Likewise it would be simple to funnel foreign money into a

These are all B-level corruptions that I need not get too concerned about,
until after we solve the A-level stuff.

Here's one for you.  In Taxifornia at the polling places the voter is not
required to show any ID.  Every time I vote, I hold out my driver's license.
I am prepared for anything they say.  Often it is "We are not allowed to ask
for that."  My ready reply, "You didn't.  How can you verify the voter's
ID?"  Their ready reply. "We cannot."

This is a little game I play with them every time, for I want them to hear
themselves say that, and everyone around me to hear it said by the poll
workers.  In Taxifornia the margin for error on any election is probably
about 5%.  

Well now.  In that case, what if we had a close national level election?
Taxifornia alone accounts for over 10% of the electoral votes, so imagine
the maaany possible cases where an election comes down to Taxifornia.  If
one candidate is behind by 54 (out of 538), that candidate is still
theoretically in the running until Taxifornia reports. We saw in Florida in
2000 a case where it was decided by a few hundred votes out of millions, a
state where they carefully verify voters with photo ID required (a
requirement which in itself most likely tipped the entire election.)  If the
vote is very close in Taxifornia, a state which does not verify voter ID, we
could be thrown into a constitutional crisis.  We could have a case where
the leading candidate won by a thousand plus or minus a million votes.  

We have intentionally set up the rules to create a slightly fuzzy outcome,
so what if it comes all the way down to that?  Then what?

Damien, do tell me what it looks like from the point of view of one from Oz,
a stranger in a strange land.  It must be rather scary.  It is easy to see a
clear and present danger in what we like to think of as a politically stable
nation.  But what if the above scenario plays out?  Regardless, half of a
very well armed populace will be most dissatisfied.   


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list