Median Voting for revenue sources and approval voting provide a meaningful
combination that allows both the Federal Government and State Governments
to solve their problems without the necessary for back-door agreements
or compromises, government close downs and budget gimmicks with which
we have been plagued.
Many states are having extreme difficulty having their legislature
pass a balanced budget.
(I enjoyed reading on the bus from New York City
to Chicago,
"Coffers Empty, California Pays with IOU's,
by Jennifer Steinhauer, Page One and Eighteen,
The New York Times, Volume CLVIII, No 54,725.
"In States Still Waiting for New Budgets, the Waitign Goes On"
by Karen Ann Cullotta, Page Eighteen,
The New York Times, Volume CLVIII, No 54,725.)
And many of us are concerned about Congress passing
a balanced budget and the size of the federal budget. Also, a budget
is based upon predictions of the future. These are problematic as is
pointed out on the web page for the Canadian parliamentary budget Officer.
This web site claims that predictions are needed but as Yogi Berra
says,
"Predictions are difficult, particularly when they concern the future."
In 1981, I proposed an alternative, based upon approval voting and medians.
(Medians are better than averages for voting. One can't bias a median
by giving a very large number. If we are all asked to enter a number for
say the salary of the president, then a small minority can give a very high number
which would force it up disproportionality.
All representatives vote on
each project and expenditure. They are funded in the order which gets
the most votes until money runs out.
Thus, those projects that get 100% of the legislature vote wins.
Money will probably remain--those prjoects getting 99% of the votes
get funded, and so on.
Similarly, "entitlement" spending gets funded the same way. Lets say
100% of the legislature feels that a service person who lost all four
limbs should get a stipend of at least $30,000 a year. 99% say they
should get $33,000.00
Similarly, the entire legislature agrees that a person who worked fourty years
on a job that was covered by social security should get $10,000 per year,
99% say they should get $11,500, 98% say they should get $12,500, etc.
Each would get funded at that amount until the money runs out.
On the revenue side,
each tax rate is determined by median vote. Each representative puts in
how much tax should a person with four kids and $40,000 a year job pay,
how much tax should a person with $125,000 interest from their bank account
pay? What should be the tax rate on a pack of cigarettes, a soda,
a twinkie?
We just take the median of the percentages
(Note, if 50% of the legislators say that there should be no tax on a twinkie,
then the twinkie is untaxed.)
The famous article by Dr. Tullock, (The Journal of Political Economy,
Volume 67, Number Six, December 1959) Pages 571 to 579, "Problems of Majority Voting")
discusses the problem of voting on many roads. He gives the example of
many farmer being near one road and just voting to upkeep the one road
next to his farm. Of course, the best bill would fund all the roads, and
presumably this would get the highest percentage of voters as opposed
to any bill that only funded a few of them.
And strict majority voting on a budget can lead to places where the budget
is too large and places where it is too small.
(Problems of Majority Voting: Reply to a Traditionalist, Gordon
Tullock , The Journal of Political Economy
Volume 69, Number Two, April 1961, pages 200 to 203. I read
a very nice explanation of this in Government Failure: A Primer
in Public Choice by Gordon Tullock, published in 2002, showing how majority
voting can lead to too much expenditure.
The amount to be borrowed is also designated by median of the votes.
(Alternatively, the legislature could decide that we would borrow as much
as we can at x% where x is determined by median of the votes.)
Note, there is no budget, only priorities and revenue. Thus, we are
immune to many of the gimmicks used to get around balanced budget ammendments
or that are used by states. For a discussion on the federal level see:
Brian Riedl, Paygo is an unworkable Gimmick, Washington Times, June 23,
2009
In Florda, we can see February Third 2008, Sunday, St. Petersburg.
Times Page Two.
And Governing.com has an excellent article that lists many of
the tricks that states use.
And Governing.com's 2005 report shows how states can be both
responsible and irresponsible.
But my proposals eliminate most of the gimmicks, the government simply
spends money as it comes in from whatever revenue source that are voted
independently.