Seeking Alpha

Bill Bonner's  Instablog

Bill Bonner
Send Message
Bill Bonner is an American author of books and articles on economic and financial subjects. He is the founder and president of Agora Publishing, and the principal author of a daily financial column, Inside Investing Daily.
My company:
Bonner & Partners
  • Get Out Of U.S. Stocks Now 1 comment
    Nov 9, 2012 4:34 PM

    down another 121 points. Gold up $12 per ounce.

    That puts the Dow down more than 400 points since the election results were announced. What does it mean?

    Maybe nothing. Maybe it's the start of the long march to the bottom that we've been waiting for.

    Unless they've got a very long-term perspective, dear readers should be out of U.S. stocks. Wait for them to get down to bargain levels before buying back in. What's the hurry?

    We spent eight hours driving down from Burlington, Vt., back to Baltimore yesterday. It gave us plenty of time to listen to the radio and catch up on the news. We listened to CNN most of the time. Depressing.

    For hours on end, the CNN team worried about the election results. There was almost endless discussion of the roles played by the outside organizations, big donors and campaign advertising.

    Experts criticized the Republicans' strategy. And most were critical of the U.S. presidential election system. The Electoral College seems to give some voters -- those in swing states -- more importance than those in other states. And looking at a map of results by county, which turned into an obsession with the CNN crew, you will see that almost the entire nation is red... while the winner of the election is blue.

    One Man, One Vote?

    Every expert, layman and kibitzer allowed to express an opinion had the same one: Something is wrong with the system. All seemed to think that every vote should have exactly the same weight as every other vote.

    But how could this be? Inevitably, a close race will give greater importance to the few voters who are still on the fence... since they will determine the outcome.

    "Everything happens at the margin," John Maynard Keynes once said. He was speaking of economics. But it is true in politics too.

    Some people will definitely and always vote for the Democratic ticket. Others will vote Republican, come what may. The people who decide the outcome are somewhere in between... capable of being swayed one way or the other, depending on the candidates' charisma, policies or bribery.

    Most commentators wanted to make the system simpler so that the winner would be chosen by majority of the popular vote.

    But we wonder: Why should one person's vote count as much as another's? What is sacrosanct about the one man, one vote principle?

    A Free Market for Elections

    Yesterday, we explained why zombies shouldn't vote at all. People who get money from the government should abstain; they have a conflict of interest.

    Naturally, the zombies vote for more of the blood of the living. And now that there are so many of them, it's impossible to stop them.

    And what about people who haven't bothered to read the paper or inform themselves about the issues?

    We admit: Such people are usually way ahead of the common, brainwashed voter. But for the sake of argument, shouldn't the informed voter's vote be worth more than the uninformed voter's vote?

    People who don't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote, either. Golf memberships... clubs... corporations -- almost all require that your dues be paid up before you have the right to vote.

    Come to think of it, how come the government doesn't operate on a "let them who pay the piper call the tune" basis?

    Why don't the people who pay the costs of government get more say in how it is conducted? Why don't they get more votes than people who pay nothing?

    You might get one vote for every $1,000 you pay in taxes, for example. If you pay nothing, you get no vote. If you pay $1 million, you get 1,000 votes. Wouldn't that be fairer?

    Or how about this: auction votes on the Internet! You just put out, say, 100 million votes. Make them available by national auction. And then voters get to decide for themselves how much they are worth... and how many they are willing to buy. You have an election every year... and give the proceeds to the government.

    You could allow for a market in votes. Vote scalpers could buy votes in blocks early... and then sell them off to desperate voters on Election Day.

    Yes... let's have an honest election, for a change!

    Article brought to you by Inside Investing Daily. Republish without charge. Required: Author attribution, links back to original content or www.insideinvestingdaily.com. Any investment contains risk. Please see our disclaimer.

Back To Bill Bonner's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (1)
Track new comments
  • tr4head
    , contributor
    Comments (330) | Send Message
     
    This was the first STOLEN election in US history.

     

    1. Fact. Romney secured LESS votes than McCain, who had minimal R support due to his love in with the leftist media. How could this be possible?
    2. Fact. With all the exposing of Obamas true politics over the last 4 years, the divisive racist beliefs, 2013 movie, etal it is almost impossible to consider that Ind. voters would sway to the far left and vote this man back in office. But they apparently moved to Obama's camp per 2012 election. How could this be possible?
    3. Fact. Obama was one of the only Presidents to have won election with LESS votes than the first time around. How could this be possible?
    4. Fact. By Election Day, the Obama team claimed to have registered 1.8 million new voters in the battleground states -- almost double the number the campaign registered four years earlier. Some counties had near 100% votes for Obama, statistically impossible.
    5. Fact. Nobody other than FDR won an election with the jobless rate of over 7.5%.

     

    Each state has a different voting system. Databases have proven to be reliably unreliable and security easily breeched. Do you know of anyone that can even remotely explain their states method of transferring and securing the election data? Why not? Cheating is as easy as cut, copy and paste.

     

    I may be a nasty battle to prove Chicago politics entered the election, but it must have and we need to expose it or the R will never win another election.
    6 Jan 2013, 10:14 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

Latest Comments


Most Commented
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.