A very serious problem

First off, we shall admit that the scientific basis for this survey is a little soft, that being said, I should think that when such a high percentage of students at a school of NYU's caliber would be willing to give up the underpinnings of freedom, liberty, and democracy for so cheap that we do have a very serious problem in this country and we have far too many people that take what we have for granted. It truly boggles the mind that people could hold the rights of citizenship so cheap... Read the article in the NYU student newspaper.

Comments

cheap

Because typos are the most striking thing about this? Not 50% of college students being willing to sell their lifetime right to vote for a million dollars. And 20% would be willing to sell you their vote for an iPod touch?

[Joe Mama]

Sweet. If these idiots sell their right to vote, does that mean we won't have to hear their bitching about politics?

[anon]

Cheap? How about expensive. The odds that your individual vote actually matters (as in, changing the outcome of an election) are incredibly slim, and probably worth no more than, say $100 over the course of your entire life. (On an individual basis, of course, not as a collective right.) So the fact that it takes six-figures to yield a single vote in a single election is, well, expensive. Or even the 20% of students who'd give $500, particularly if you're living in New York, where your vote is even LESS likely to matter.

[Brendan]

I hate to say it, but I'm with anon. The odds of a single vote affecting the outcome of any election are so incredibly slim that giving up said vote for $1,000,000 is in an individual's rational self-interest. Besides which, if I had a million dollars, I could invest a portion of that money, turn it into a lot more money, and then use that additional money to influence the political process much more effectively than one vote ever could. That's a sad commentary on our system, but it's also true. The only reason not to sell one's vote for such a hefty sum is the fear that others would follow suit -- if many thousands of people started doing it, then we'd have a real problem on our hands. But for each individual person, I don't care how civic-minded you are, it makes perfect logical sense.

The iPod Touch thing is a little excessive, though.

[Angrier and Angrier]

I think the methodology is flawed because I can't imagine half the students smart enough to attend NYU would be dumb enough to sell their right to vote for $1 million. Now $100 million, that's a different matter. Sign me up and I'll move to the Bahamas while I'm at it.

[Brendan]

Angrier, why is it "dumb" to sell one's right to vote for $1 million? I can buy unpatriotic, but dumb? As I said, I think it's clearly in each individual's rational self-interest. Compare the following two things:

1) The likelihood that your one vote will ever effect the outcome of an election, and further that the changed outcome of said election will result in positive change for your life and/or society at large.

2) The likelihood that $1,000,000 will result in positive change for your life and/or society at large.

I think #2 is clearly vastly more likely, and therefore I fail to see how choosing it is "dumb." As I said, call it "unpatriotic" if you want; I have no problem with that, indeed I would agree. As a matter of principle, we should value our right to vote over any sum of money. But as a matter of everyday practicality, purely judging by individual rational self-interest, such a value judgment makes little if any logical sense.

You can also call selling the right to vote unwise and short-sighted, in the since that if the "sale" starts a trend, that trend will destroy our democracy. But unless you're advertising your decision to sell your vote from the rooftops and encouraging others to follow suit, one individual "sale" isn't going to turn the tide of the "trend" any more than one individual vote is going to affect the outcome of an election.

[jlr]

It is a simple fact, that any political science grad student could tell you, that people between the ages of 18-25 are in the least likely demo to vote.

On average, people in this demo don't tend to have a long-term view of their future. If at 18, you sell your right to vote (forever), you might regret it when you hit 30 or 40.

Then again, given that we have about 33-50% of people who vote during an election (less during an odd-year election), maybe we shouldn't worry so much about the findings after all.

[Brendan]

P.S. Angrier, our position that it's "dumb" to sell one's vote for $1,000,000 is especially indefensible because you concede that it wouldn't be dumb to sell it for $100,000,000. The only way the "don't sell your vote for a million" position can be defended is purely on grounds of principle; if you're doing an economic cost-benefit analysis, the $1,000,000 clearly wins. So if you're willing to concede the $100 million, there's no reason not to concede the $1 million as well. On the other hand, if your argument is based purely on principle, then it shouldn't matter if the amount is $1 million or $100 million or $100 billion; the principle still holds. Or to put it another way:

Man: Lady, would you sleep with me if I gave you a million dollars?
Lady: Well, I might consider it!
Man: How about ten dollars?
Lady: Of course not, what sort of woman do you think I am?!
Man: We've already established that. Now we're just negotiating the price.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"Angrier, why is it "dumb" to sell one's right to vote for $1 million? I can buy unpatriotic, but dumb?"

It's dumb from a cost/benefit standpoint. $1 million will not change your life, but losing your right to vote could (for the sake of argument, let's say enduring the bad PR and people like Rush Limbaugh screaming about you for a few weeks). On the other hand, $100 million will most definitely change your life for the better on a scale that should offset any shortcoming that could come from selling your vote.

[Angrier and Angrier]

Brendan-

The point I was making is that $1 million is too cheap.

[Mike]

"It's dumb from a cost/benefit standpoint. $1 million will not change your life, but losing your right to vote could (for the sake of argument, let's say enduring the bad PR and people like Rush Limbaugh screaming about you for a few weeks).

That depends on a lot of factors, Angrier. The average college grad in this country can expect to earn around $2.3 million of the course of his/her entire working life, or around $1.1 million for a high school graduate. Adding $1 million to that outright makes a singificant difference, particularly if it's a one time gift now such that the recipient can invest it and gain the interest on it as well. For the majority of people in this country, $1 million now *will* have a significant impact on their life: wipe out their debt, buy a house, be able to afford a family, take a job that they'd prefer which doesn't pay as much, etc.

That being said, I'd be more likely to say yes to giving up my vote for a given presidential election in exchange for a year's tuition at a high name private college--say, roughly, $30,000. It's a one -shot deal, so my ability to rationally decide the degree to which my vote will matter in this particular election cycle is higher than my ability to decide whether my vote will ever matter

However, from an economic perspective, it's also important to discount future gains and losses. I'd rather get $1 million today than 5 years from now, both because inflation would make it worth less then and because I might get hit by a bus in a year and a half. Similarly, I'd rather get cancer 10 years from now than tomorrow--we might develop a better treatment in the meantime, something else could kill me first (watch out for those busses), and even if I'm going to die from the cancer either way I still get 10 more years of being alive. As such, it can be better to get all the payoff now and take the $1 million, and pay the costs in the future by giving up votes that it's possible you wouldn't cast anyway either because you'd be dead or maybe you'd change citizenship or whatever else could come up.

[David K.]

What is the scientific basis for these numbers? Margin of error? Was it a statistically significant sample? Random? What was the exact question? Give up your vote in one instance or give it up forever? Not to mention the obvious flaw that they are showing an iPod classic and not an iPod touch, so can we really trust their accuracy?

Are these answers even reliable? Oh sure they SAY they would give up their vote for $1,000,000, but would they really? Heck, its a college campus, i bet there are people who intentionally answered ridiculously because they were annoyed at being pestered by journalism students on their way to class after being assaulted by 50 other groups throwing handouts and flyers at them.

[David K.]

It is a simple fact, that any political science grad student could tell you, that people between the ages of 18-25 are in the least likely demo to vote.

I dunno, i'm guessing the 0-17 group is pretty unlikely to vote too ;-)

[Mike's brother Matt]

This is also why pork barrel programs work. It's even easier to get people to vote for you in exchange for being handed government programs, and then the politicians get praised for doing such a good job fighting for the district's residents. And hell, it isn't thier money anyways, so who cares how much it costs or how wasteful the programs are in buying votes?

[Brendan]

Angrier, I will concede that it might be a bad choice, cost-benefit-wise, to sell your vote for $1 million if we throw in extraneous side-effects like Rush Limbaugh making your life hell. I wasn't considering that. I was assuming this "sale" is done anonymously and nobody knows about it, so the only impact of your selling your vote is simply the loss of the vote -- no side-effects.

In THAT case, I continue to maintain that there is absolutely no way the cost-benefit analysis, from a purely pragmatic, individualistic, rational-self-interest standpoint, says you should turn down the $1 million. The key point of the whole thing is that, objectively, mathematically, ONE VOTE DOES NOT MATTER. It does not affect anything, except in the exceptionally rare care of a election that's tied, or decided by 1 or 2 votes. An individual vote only matters when considered in concert with many other individual votes. So again, unless by selling your vote you are somehow materially contributing to a vote-selling trend, it almost certainly has zero impact on anything. $1 million, by contrast, certainly does not "almost certainly have zero impact on anything." Therefore the only good reason to turn down the $1 million is pure principle. And if pure principle is the rationale, then the amount doesn't matter. 10 bucks, $10,000, $1 million, $1 billion, whatever.

[dcl]

Matt, I would suggest that this is also the effect of tax cuts. Actually I would say they are a significantly more direct way of purchasing votes... Not that I would say the only way Republicans can win an elections is by buy the votes...

[Joe Mama]

Sure, except that tax cutters "purchase" the votes of those being allowed to keep more of what they earn (i,e., literally giving them their own money back), whereas wasteful pork purchases the votes of rent-seekers at the expense of others who are footing the bill. An important distinction, that.

[dcl]

given the history of deficits in this country, it would seem that the Republicans are most skilled at both types of voter bribery.

Letting me keep more of what I earn is hardly a bribe. Telling me you'll use OPM to fund whatever whimsical, ineffective program I'm feeling morally superior about on that particular day, however . . .

[Joe Mama]

That was me.

[dcl]

"more of what I earn" Umm hmm... Such a stupid argument. Either you are willing to pay your dues to society to provide the necessary services of government or your not. For example, if we decide to go to war we must pay for that decision--there is no way around that. If we don't pay for it now, we will pay much more for it later. There is also no way around that. If you want stuff you've got to pay for it. This my money thing is red herring -- in no other sector of the economy would you expect to get high quality service (be it police, fire, military, etc.) and think that you don't have any responsibly to pay for it.

Now, personally, I wouldn't mind if we covered the entire national budget off of increases to the cigaret tax and the gas tax. But that's a completely separate question from fiscally responsible behavior. This whole "my money" thing is childish and irresponsible. Either you are a part of this society our you aren't. And if you aren't go the hell away--seriously get your ass to a country that has a better tax code to your mind and see what kind of services you get for your money.

[Andrew]

I'm with Brendan, this is much ado about nothing. Not to mention, for decades, Dems have been paying for votes with much less cash than what is being discussed here, so it's not like this is a new proposition.

[Mike]

"Either you are willing to pay your dues to society to provide the necessary services of government or your [sic] not.

Reasonable people will disagree extensively about what those necessary services are, Dane. The fact that tax revenue in indeed collected from individuals without their consent and allocated by a third party for uses they may well disagree with is indeed relevant to the perception of the difference inherent in offering "I will give you x" vs "I will not take x from you, which I would otherwise do."

At the risk of this being perceived as a personal attack, Dane, your tendency to make statements like comparing proposed tax cuts to bribery is part of the reason why people like me have a harder time taking you seriously on political matters than we do people like Brendan. This post started out with something interesting to think about -- namely, the value we place on our ability to vote for President, what it would take for us to give up that right for a given election or permanently, and the philosophical implications of such a choice -- and rather than letting people debate the merits of the arguments from principles or economics as had been happening, you steered it into a definitively partisan issue. Reread what Matt said. He merely pointed out that this is why pork barrel spending is effective, but since pork barrel projects happen on both sides of the aisle it's not an inherently partisan issue. Your statement of "Not that I would say the only way Republicans can win an elections is by buy [sic] the votes..." is, and it's where the conversation was derailed. I doubt that was your intent, but it's the easily foreseeable effect.

[yea]

id sell my right to vote for far less than a million. i think most rational people would do so also. i could influence politics far more with a couple thousand dollars than i could with a lifetime of voting.

[dcl]

We have a responsibility to the government we elect. And as a society, we have a responsibility to pay our bills. In as much as tax cuts result in imbalanced budgets I fail to see how they are little more than efforts to bribe the electorate by your fiscally irresponsible behavior--even if said behavior is politicly popular. The same can be said of both pork barrel projects and tax cuts. In as much as they are irresponsible from a fiscal perspective. Anyone that would choose complaining about their tax bill at the same time we have skyrocketing deficits and debt on a National level is an irresponsible childish baby. Now if you'd like a tax cut and to cut the war -- that would be one thing. But that's often not we talk about. We all want tax cuts and we all want more pet projects. The result is that each individual in this nation is 55,000 dollars in debt before we even start counting personally debts. It is ridiculous, it is irresponsible, and it is unsustainable.

[Joe Mama]

dcl, it is your silly caricature of my argument that is stupid and childish. Of course I'm willing to "pay my dues to society to provide the necessary services of government," especially when those dues go towards supporting a war my country is involved in. Personally, I wouldn't mind if every single one of my tax dollars went to pay for our effort in Iraq. But like your tangent about cigarette and gas taxes, that is quite beside the point. No one (at least not me) said that "I want stuff and don't want to pay for it." That is the only red herring here. I'm quite willing to pay for police, fire, military, etc. as a member of society. In point of fact, I pay a helluva lot more for those things than most other people do. But what I am not willing to pay for, however, are wasteful gov't programs that result in fraud and abuse, simply because of some uninformed busybody on one crusade or another. Believe it or not, the feddle gummint wastes money, and I'm not talking about police, fire dept, military, or whatever other straw man you wish to prop up. $25 billion in unreconciled transactions by the Dept. of Treasury for which auditors cannot account because records are so bad is a waste. Unused flight tickets bought by the DoD totaling $100 million is a waste. $6 million embezzled by USDA employees is a waste. Medicare paying eight times what other federal agencies pay for the same drugs and medical supplies is a waste. Most farm subsidies are a waste. The ridiculous number of redundant gov't programs (e.g., 12 food safety agencies, 40 separate employment and training programs, 50 homeless assistance programs, 130 programs for at-risk youth, 342 economic development programs, etc) are a waste. In other words, the issue isn't whether to pay for what is "necessary," but rather what kind of spending actually is "necessary." And with all due respect, when someone like me opines about wanting to keep more of what I earn in light of how grossly inefficient the federal gov't tends to be with tax revenue and meets with a response as stupid as:

Either you are a part of this society our you aren't. And if you aren't go the hell away--seriously get your ass to a country that has a better tax code to your mind and see what kind of services you get for your money.

. . . it's rather difficult to take you seriously. Moreover, I've spent years in countries with far more confiscatory tax policies than the U.S., so I know firsthand that the kind of services one gets for their money in those countries is not what you say it is.

[Alasdair]

Not to mention the rational thought process which can easily say "I'm going to get $1 Mill for my vote, today ... sweet ... and when I use a different address, I can sell it again ... and again ... and again ..." ...

This is a 'beer-and-pizza' discussion ... sorta curious yet of no real relevance to anything important ...

Now, if those same questioners had asked the folk to sign explicit contracts actually signing away their vote, I suspect the answers would have been radically different ...

[Condor]

Two economists run into each other. The first one says, "Oh my God, I can't believe you saw me here. This is so embarrassing." The second one says, "I know. This is really awkward. It defies all rationality why I'm here. But my wife made me come." The two economists agree not to tell anyone about this, and they both casts their votes and go home.

The non-voters may not vote due to bad reasons: laziness or an Ipod. But when it comes down to it, there's no good reason to vote. Thomas Patterson wrote an excellent book on this called "The Vanishing Voter" where he argued that not voting is the most rational option given the current state of our system.

[Aaron]

$1,000,000 for my lifetime voting rights? Assuming Brendan's stipulation of anonymity applies, you bet. In a heartbeat.

[Aaron]

Condor is right. Voting is a collective civic duty, not a rationally beneficial choice for a single individual. To a new voter asking my advice I'd say, "Yes, you should vote. It's your duty. But if you decide not to vote, at least lie and say you did."