Vote Sizing Institute Real change from within.

In this website we’re going to discover a lot of places where vote sizing remedies the overall patterns of corruption; for now let’s just go over a few specific concrete examples of how vote sizing can tackle single problematic issues:

Vote Buying

Outright vote buying plagues many countries around the world and is probably the best example of how wealth can, but shouldn’t, interfere with the political process. Vote sizing is the solution to this age-old tit-for-tat by throwing a sizeable monkey wrench into the vote buying machinery. How? It would seem that increasing the size of poorer people’s votes would simply amplify the problem; but in fact vote sizing overcomplicates the negotiation process by varying each person’s vote uniquely to their income. So in place of fixed prices, everyone will demand that candidates competitively bid for each of their specific votes! Here we see how vote sizing so efficiently puts in place barriers between wealth and power that it will be exceedingly difficult for vote buyers to weave them back together again.

Electoral Oversight

The process of holding elections needs to be as simple and transparent as possible (as we explain on our feasibility page). So to eliminate the threat posed by ballot rigging, vote sizing fully endorses its use only through paper ballots. In addition (as we’ll see on the formulas page) there are many ways to implement the desired vote sizing reforms, and for each variation there’s the additional possibility of integrating the familiar one-person-one-vote along with the component that’s been weighted. Even if we don’t use this 1+x method, we can still tally it in the background to compare its results to the new / real election outcome - giving us an exceptionally clear look at just how much skewing (off of the traditional results) happens due to weighted voting.

In addition, there is nothing to say that vote sizing has to be used all the time, in every election. Perhaps there are certain kinds of elections − like some referendums where the corrupting influence of wealth does not play a part (although I can’t think of any) − which would work better using the traditional one-person-one-vote method.

Capital Flight

Gee, do you think that maybe in response to the vote sizing proposal some people in the business community will charge back with the threat of en masse capital flight? Sure! However, these threats are empty, because once vote sizing proves that wealth and power can function very nicely simultaneously without being held together in the same hands, investors and budding entrepreneurs will come flooding in, not out. Add to this the ability to prove itself in the real world, a lower tax burden and a productive, happy workforce ... and you have the recipe for a really vibrant economy. (In this aspect, vote sizing appeals to the radical right, for it allows the people to pull government out of business and gives each its space to grow.)

Environmental Destruction

The one thing that rich and poor have in common, is that both eventually depend on their environment not to choke, flood, bake, disgust or poison them. However, the wealthy have more of it to use, kick around, and surround themselves with - so it doesn't look like they're going to be too interested into leading the way towards using less; which is the only solution. We simply can't consume our way out of our negligence toward the planet's limited resources; and fellow life-forms.

By giving those people who out of necessity have learnt to get by on less; vote sizing is the most efficient way we can collectively slow down and appreciate what we have. It also gives them a way to participate in society, rather than just a large extended family, clan, cult or tribe; so hopefully the birth rate can be reduced, just as our dependency on needing more things.

Tax Cheats

Tax cheaters (including national and multinational corporations) provide a double-whammy setback to vote sizing. First is the expected hindrance of their undermining the tax base and shifting the burden of paying for necessary services onto the shoulders of law-abiding taxpayers. Secondly, since vote sizing depends on the accuracy of tax records, cheaters not only pilfer from the public coffers, but also from the people’s right to hold fair elections. (Some would go so far as to say that vote sizing offers an added incentive to these crooks to fudge their tax forms in order to get a larger vote; but whatever increase in size to their singular vote this offence might provide, it’s just not a reasonable motive when considering the risk of possible fines or criminal conviction they face ... they’ll only continue to cheat for the money.)

Right now, we’re stuck in a cycle of bad government rewarding tax disobedience: The less people see their government acting in their interests, the more they’re inclined to understand and tolerate cheaters, which then deprives the government of its life blood. On the other hand, this means that with a really representative vote sizing government, taxing fairly and only when needed, allowing people to prosper on their own − many more citizens will be more amenable to handing over the money they legitimately owe government, and will focus their energy on more productive things, like how to make things better, not worse.

Also, vote sizing gives the means to the poorer and middle class people to put in place policies that make them less dependent on others. Such policies could include: efficient public transportation; a healthier environment; more free time to associate, relax and exercise; public healthcare that works for the people instead of the pharmaceuticals and hospitals; a safer workplace; a robust education; and high quality long-lasting goods. None of these requires higher taxes, and most likely the tax burden will drop across the board as people are able to make much better use of their time without needing handouts.

Terrorism

 As we’ve all seen in recent years, terrorism poses a unique threat to unlawful regimes, those struggling to restore peace, and most especially the moderates and oppressed masses. But since vote sizing so efficiently cross-references wealth and power − it will be exponentially more difficult for these terrorist organizations to find the necessary support base of mass frustration from which to operate, and their violent ways will wither in the light.

All of the Above

Who would be responsible for making sure that this oversight is put in place? As with all reforms derived from vote sizing, it would be in the hands of those with the most voice to lose if the votes are not added up correctly: the poorer and middle class people.

In all the above situations we find that vote sizing puts those most (not least) disadvantaged by elections riggers, tax shifters, terrorists, and investment deniers in charge of overseeing (among other things) the tax and electoral system, the free expression of dissent, and the economic infrastructure in a fair and reasonable way.

... so hopefully some of the first jobs the reformers would take on would be severing tax loopholes, counting every ballot, stamping out violence, and guiding trade and banking. As we said above, the vote sizing vision is first and foremost a political vision.