[huedaanydrax]

$5. It's not like it would matter anyway.

[gomosopions]

4 dollars just to undercut kuciwalker

[Narcodran]

Much more than what you suggest.

[rojettafoxx]

The real question would be how much money it'd take to change your vote from the least of the evils to the greatest.

As a theoretical exercise, how would you design a vote buying market? The amount of money people would accept for their votes would vary, each party would have a subset of voters who they could buy for cheap. But then voters would hold out for more money.

They could have it set up so that votes could be traded right up until the election, but each person can only sell their vote once. As it gets closer to the election, the parties would be willing to pay more for votes, if they are close. But also, if someone holds out for too long they might end up not getting any money for their vote and being forced to vote for free, this would tend to lower the cost of votes as the election draws near, as people desperately try to get SOME money for their vote. And if one party should buy a majority then the value of all remaining votes would drop to zero.

The game theorist in me finds this really intriguing, as morally reprehensible as the idea it is.

[NEWyear]

probably not much, unless i had to vote for the tories

[sydramySweame]

Anything is better than what I am currently getting.

[AbeldeldepBug]

FREE!

sPEC.

[BGThomasis]

Ah, that would probably make it a no-deal to me. I don't claim to be impossible to bribe, but it takes a lot to get me to do something against my own standards. I don't even feel too strongly about voting the "wrong" way, but I feel strongly enough about it not to be easily bribed. Though I fully realize that I'd sell my vote for an unreasonable sum of money, like a million - of course, it would also effectively make me not care about whatever happens at the election.

[Blelidupgerie]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
$5. It's not like it would matter anyway.

[inilbowly]

I don't really need more money (though more is always welcome!), so the offer would have to be huge for me to consider it.

-Arrian

[daasayse]

Nice sentiment, Zkrib, but imagine for a moment that you were truely poor. And somebody offered you a million bucks. Remember, you're living in poverty. You would turn it down?

It's easy for me in my present circumstances to agree with your post and say "no, never!" I want to say that. But I thought about it, and given the right circumstances I'd have my price. Vote, or feed your family?

-Arrian

[SiM7W2zi]

I don't take it that far. But then I can afford to just go buy a candy bar. :shrug:

-Arrian

[craditc]

You're telling me that your "heritage" as you term it is more important to you than (in my hypothetical) feeding your family?

I posit that those who reject the concept out of hand do so in part because they do not want for money. Hey - my initial reaction was the same as yours. But then I thought about it some more.

You probably will never know what you would do if push came to shove, but I suspect that given the right circumstances, your "heritage" would cease to be priceless.

-Arrian

[Poohoppesmase]

That's a false choice. If I needed to feed my family, there is food stamps, there are charities, there is even...ulp...work.

Remember the old joke of the old, ugly billionaire and the young, beautiful woman. He asks, "Would you sleep with me for $20,000,000?" "Sure," she says. He asks, "Would you sleep with me for $20." "Of course not!" she snaps, "What kind of girl do you think I am?!" "We know that," he replies, "and now we're just dickering over the price."