Would Democracy Work Better If You Could Buy More Votes? One Economist Says Yes

Would voting work if we had to pay?

Voters elected President Barack Obama to a second term Tuesday, with impressive turnouts across the country, an outcome that left ardent Romney supporters wondering what more, if anything, they could have done to swing the result their way. And while millions of citizens stayed home, perhaps apathetically believing that their vote wouldn't matter, many others on both sides of the question so vehemently wanted to see their candidate win that they'd have voted multiple times if they could.

So why not let them?

That's the theory proposed by economist Glen Weyl, a professor at the University of Chicago, who has proposed a plan that would allow people to put their money where their mouths are by paying to vote as many times as they'd like.

Weyl's system would require a voter to pay an increasing amount for each vote cast; the cost of each vote would be the square of the total number of votes. If your first vote costs $1, two votes would be $4 and three votes $9. Want to swing a small local election all by yourself? In this scenario, 100 votes would cost you $10,000, a pittance for men with names like Koch, Trump, or Buffet.

The crux of this proposal is that, as "Freakonomics" author Steven D. Levitt points out, "people end up voting in proportion to how much they care about the election outcome. The system captures not just which candidate you prefer, but how strong your preferences are." This, Levitt notes, turns out to create a Pareto efficiency, an optimal situation in which no one in society can be made better off without making someone else worse off. In other words, it's the best situation overall for people as a group.

Of course, what makes sense in the abstract might not work in the voting booth.

"There are many things I still would need to understand to be comfortable advocating this system in any practical setting," Weyl explained. "That being said, I am not developing it as a purely academic proposal, and if my preliminary investigations are confirmed in my continued research, I would very much advocate it being used in many practical settings."

The applications could be as wide-reaching as voting within corporate decision-making and broader elections or referenda. The money is distributed back to the participants in Weyl's system, with the contributions used for the benefit of the group. In the case of a corporation, Weyl said, the money would flow into the corporate accounts, and be allocated as dividends according to the number of shares individuals own. For elections, the funds would flow into the government's coffers, which could be used for social spending or tax reduction.

"My personal preference would be to see it used to reduce the inequality that would, in the first place, allow the rich to buy more votes," Weyl said.

Human nature being what it is, a few snags could hold up smooth execution of this system once implemented.

"I think voters might do a very poor job, at least initially, estimating how many votes they should buy because they would have a bad sense for the chance of a tied election," Weyl said. "This could lead different voters with similar preferences to buy very different numbers of votes, which would undermine the system."

To combat that, Weyl is also working on an applet that could help voters determine how many votes it makes sense for them to buy. Of course, no computer program can truly get inside people's heads and set a value on an individual's electoral motivation. But there is substantial light that can be shed.

"People's optimal votes are proportional to two things," Weyl said. "A) How much they care -- or in economist-speak, the maximum amount they would be willing to pay to switch the election outcome for sure, and B) the chance that they will be pivotal -- that buying an additional vote will switch the election."

In Weyl's app concept, people would be able to plug in A, and to compute B. If A and B were then multiplied together, the resulting number would help people figure out how many votes to buy.

The obvious potential criticism of such a system rests in the fact that the rich would have more influence over the outcomes of elections -- but given the current state of campaign financing, dark money and super PACs, don't they already?

We're a long way away from swapping our current one-person-one-vote democracy for a buy-your-vote system, but who's to say that Weyl's idea isn't a more elegant solution than the electoral college?

Maybe it's time to resurrect and rehabilitate an old saying from more politically dicey eras: "Vote early and vote often."

(Note: This article was first published on Nov. 6, and updated on Nov. 7 to reflect the outcome of the 2012 presidential race.)

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

How much house can I afford

Home buying 101, evaluating one of your most important financial decisions.

View Course »

Introduction to Retirement Funds

Target date funds help you maintain a long term portfolio.

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

wow. this philosophy should land you directly on the Supreme Court, Individual super pacs!!!

November 07 2012 at 8:33 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

This is exactly what we fought against and won...rich people trying to buy an election...1 person 1 vote...just because you have money does not mean you are better than me, or more valued or have more of a voice in government....

November 07 2012 at 6:36 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Ridiculous article.. The dems.. our social safety net is the biggest vote buy scam ever created.. The Dems use it every election cycle..

November 07 2012 at 4:39 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

LOL In medicine they would call this guy a quack.. It does not bode well for Chicago U.... Here is is Just plain Sillyness... It seems like a ruse to make a point about the Electoral College ...

November 07 2012 at 3:07 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

WOW! This sounds like a typical republicon solution!

November 07 2012 at 2:52 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Bill's comment

Bill I always wonder what is your point ...You post a message of Hatred for every person that every voted Republican ... What would you have the world do with them ...What is it that fuels this hate speak on every subjet ,topic or article .... It is a totally stupid concept and of course the guy that spouted it knows so ......Why is it that instead of seeing that you choose to bash Americans with your hate speak .... Think about it anyone can pull up all of your comments ,,,They all say the same thing!!!

November 07 2012 at 3:16 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to thomgrisso's comment

Geesh! I don't even know what you're talking about!

November 07 2012 at 3:30 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down

When the Government has added 17 million on the food stamps rolls
and 8 million on to disability over the last four years and has added
several other programs and government departments...what do you
call that. I call it buying votes....because they sure do not want any
of the cash flow to stop so who do they vote for??

November 07 2012 at 2:20 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

This is not a good idea. What we need is to require a picture ID that is easily checked on computer and if not there no vote period. I would like to see a literacy test applied as well. We have too many takers getting resources from us payers who dont even know who their state office holders are and only vote because someone pays them to vote that way. Also racism goes both ways we must start arresting both black and white problem people in this area equally.

November 07 2012 at 1:38 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Weren't elections bought anyway?

November 07 2012 at 1:37 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

I'm curious about how the group dynamic would affect this proposal. I agree that currently the situation is a complete wreck, with corporate and wealthy interests exerting as much influence as they want anyway, so this would probably do little to further undermine democracy. But say 600 people, as an independent interest group, each with some wealth, decide to band together to purchase 2 votes each. This puts them above the average voter in influence, but compare that to, for example, Sheldon Adelson, who buys that same 600 votes personally at a much higher price per vote. Then imagine Sheldon using his influence to pressure 600 of his employees/acquaintances to use money he gives them to purchase those 600 votes at the reduced price so he gets the same deal as the 600 voters who banded together as a sort of independent interest group. Suddenly a flaw appears in the system, whereby the super-rich can get discounted vote prices by having others buy the votes for them in smaller increments. I'm curious how the researcher, whose idea seems not to stand up to 30 seconds worth of scrutiny by this measure, would presume to prevent that. As it stands, the proposal seems not to take into account an easy method of avoiding the increased cost per additional vote.

November 07 2012 at 12:40 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

You can only buy 100 Senate votes and 400+ Congress vogtes - they are for sale every day. Try outbidding Wall Street.

November 07 2012 at 12:02 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply