Accurate Democracy 
Funding Projects.
print. translate.
| Accurate Democracy |
Legislation Systems.
Funding Projects.
print. translate. |
 |
Project SelectionEmpower Everyone |
|
Humor 6 for politicians: Who said, “We have always known that heedless
self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.”
1) FDR, 2) Boris Yeltsin, 3) Ronald Reagan, 4) Tom DeLay ?
Democracy's Tragedies and FailuresMost democracies have recognized the minority citizen's right to vote and the minority voter's right to representation. But even democracies that include Full Representation of minorities let only the legislative majority allocate funds. Minority needs are often underfunded or unmet. For too many people, representation does not lead to power.A project's funding may rise or fall abruptly when the majority shifts from one group to another. The project's administrators cannot manage efficiently on such roller-coaster budgets. Texas has a colossal example: The Super-Conducting Super Collider was a controversial multi-billion dollar project in the 1980s. This effort to build the world's largest cyclotron was supported by a majority of Congress for a few years -- then terminated. The only things left are drawings and a huge, "billion-dollar" hole in the ground. Enthusiasts might be more circumspect about starting such projects if they could not spend the opposition's share the budget. And they should have the power finish their projects with their own share the budget. Agenda rules cause particular problems for setting budgets. Of course free-rider and poison-pill amendments occur, as in policy decisions, and such manipulations waste the taxpayers' money, their potential benefits from a public good, and their respect for government in general. But in addition, the sequence of decisions is often crucial to a project's chances because the first projects funded may use so much of the budget that later projects cannot be funded. Better rules minimize the sequential agenda and let all projects have equal priority. A Democratic SolutionBetter allocation methods are now available. The tally is tedious but the job of marking a ballot is easy: Simply grade the proposals: "These are A plus efficient, those are C plus efficient, and that one is a Z minus waste of money." That gives the vote counters enough information to tally fair-share rules. (Preference ballots with grades are easier than ranks when dealing with dozens of options.)Fair-Share SpendingWe should recognize the right to equal spending power for all council members. Fair-share Spending (FS) gives all reps or voters equal power to allocate discretionary funds. It recognizes their right to funds just as Full Rep. recognizes the voters' right to representation.There are several systems for FS. The best use Movable Money Votes (MMV) that work very much like Single Transferable Votes for Full Representation. Later math pages detail MMV. Consider first the merits in any system for fair-share spending. Merits of Fair-Share SpendingFair-share allocation rules let geographic or other groups within a jurisdiction fund their own projects without new layers of taxes and administration. For example, in a city-wide vote, each neighborhood or interest group may fund a few school, park or road improvements. The city's taxes then pay for the projects as the School and Road Departments administer the contracts. Every neighborhood and interest group has its share of spending power; no one is shut out. This makes (hidden) empires less profitable.When the majority controls all discretionary spending, their last allocation adds little to their happiness. After they spend $900... on their favorite projects, the next $100... funds a low priority. But that same $100... could fund the top priority for a large minority -- making the minority much happier. In economic terms, distributing a small amount of spending power increases the utility value purchased, and it distributes opportunities and incentives as well. In political terms, a more equitable distribution promotes legitimacy, compliance, and co-operation. The organization serves and appeals to more people. Fair, efficient funding rules can increase respect for co-operative and public funding. That may encourage people to shift some spending from small private items to larger shared goods. On the other hand, a tax rebate may be one of the items on the ballot. It would let reps vote to reduce taxes and services as easily as voting to fund a project. Voters can clearly see each rep's contribution to this private good and to the public goods.
Fair-share spending helps buyers organize big purchases -- so it may increase the market power of buyers relative to producers. But it does not replace market mechanisms for competitive pricing, efficiency, innovation, and investment.
A majority that becomes a minority can still fund some priorities -- so their budgets rise and fall smoothly. Most reps help at least one project to win despite less than majority support, showing the majority are members of political minorities. A rep may discover interests shared with rivals who contribute to her favorite projects. That may lead to better understanding and further cooperation -- made easier by the assurance that FS lets no one dominate others. As now, some reps may spend public funds on political pork. But with Full Representation and Fair-share Spending, FR and FS, reps can waste only their supporters' share of money; a fact that may discourage pork projects. A project that breaks policies is subject to majority veto. Vetoes ideally occur before the funding vote. But the first group to try FS puts all proposals on the ballot then debates a veto only if a controversial item wins. This avoids many debates. If opponents win, the ballots are tallied again without the item.
A critic asked “Why would anyone want such a non-government?” One might respond "Is federalism a non-government?" It might seem so to dictators, but most people say federalism gives very effective governance. Like federalism, FS helps sub-groups fund their own projects. The sub-groups under federalism are pre-determined geographic areas; under FS they may be any big group, including ad hoc geographic areas. Say a state legislature has 100 reps and a FS quota of 20 -- meaning a project needs contributions from 20 reps to qualify as a public good. Twenty is a larger number of reps than unanimous support from 2 nine-person city councils. Twenty state reps may represent a larger population and geographic area than 20 city council reps. Thus, like federalism, FS is a tool for responsible and responsive government. Fair-share spending is unlikely to give minorities too much power. All policies are enacted by majority rules. This means all agencies spend their money supporting majority policies. Finally, most FS funds will be spent by the majority. Limited as it is, the right to spend some revenue is a major expansion in the concept of democracy, similar to earlier expansions in the right to vote and the right to representation.
Examples of Fair-share SpendingThis is the last voting method in the series using the pairwise Condorcet rule and the Single Transferable Vote. We invite you to learn more about them in the pages that detail each voting situation. The next page down looks at potential and actual uses of fair-share spending in the U.S. Congress, a cooperatively- owned media outlet and a community- owned furniture company. The tools page offers free software to show the dynamics of fair-share spending.
The next chapter shows how to give reps fair shares of power for setting agency budgets, making each rep responsible for her share of money and thus accountable to voters. Answer President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw, in the Great Depression, the results of heedless self-interest. Top |
 |
|
Yes
Yes, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw, in the
Great Depression, the effects of heedless self-interest.
No
|
Searching for more? There are only a few fair-share spending rules.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Accurate Democracy 
