Replace Voting With Spending

"Your argument is that it's bad for rich people to have more influence than poor people."That's not what I'm saying. It's not that rich people are bad or their influence is too great, but they can easily be abused to win an election if we replace voting with spending. Whether because the rich are friends with the person, or that the person forced the rich to fund. A system where everyone gets 1 vote is harder to abuse."But, for some reason, you seem to believe that your argument is only applicable to the public sector. I don't see any logical explanation for your double standard. I asked you to provide one but you failed to do so."I don't know what a public or private sector is... but I've said already that a funding system can be abused."Earlier this year the Libertarian Party used the BMD to choose its convention theme..."Alright, but did this system get abused by rich people?"Donors used their donations to rank the potential themes. Obviously a rich donor would be able to have more influence on the order of the themes than a poor donor. Is this a bad thing? Well, according to you, it isn't. Why isn't it?"Did I? Well anyways, it's not the influence itself that's what's bad, it's the ability to get said influence via blackmailing or ransom. You're trying to strawman my argument, avoiding the actual problem at hand (at least that's what it feel like)."Let's say that you want a video game. You exchange your money for it. Now you have it. Now you own it. But your money didn't just allow you to acquire the video game, it also helped to improve the ranking of the video game. The more money that's spent on video games, the higher their ranking."Could you provide a link that says good products gain more profit? If it takes lots of resources to make, it's usually more expensive. Also, sometimes bad products get money."The higher their ranking, the more of society's limited resources (ie brainpower) that's used to produce them. The more of society's limited resources used to produce video games, the less resources available to produce everything else."So because they're high rank, they use resourses? Using the resourses must come first so the product could even be judged to begin with. And what does resources have to do with electing a president anyways, let alone any voting? We don't use resources for elections."In the private sector consumers use their money to rank things. That's what we all do when we spend our money. We rank things. We don't perceive that we do so, but this doesn't change the fact that we do so."People can pay for things, but end up not liking it. Heck, The Emoji Movie made lots of money, despite everyone hating it Day 1! http://www.boxofficemojo.com... think they even made a profit!"It's a logical fact that a rich person can buy more video games than a poor person. Therefore, a rich person has more influence over the ranking of video games, and everything else in the private sector, than a poor person."Why would someone buy 5 copies of Super Smash Bros? That doesn't mean it's amazing (though it is), it just means this one guy really likes this one game (or planning on a giveaway). And all products can vary in price. A watermelon could sell for $5, whereas an apple can cost $7. The apple costs more, does this mean the apple's better? It also makes more profit, must the apple be better? In general, it's all a matter of opinion. Money or profit does not necessitate higher quality."You seem to think this is a GOOD thing. You seem to think that we all BENEFIT from the massive disparity in their influence over the ranking of video games and everything else in the private sector."Could you quote me? Like I keep saying, products are irrelevant to the debate. What's important is that people can abuse rich people to get a high score in a funding system instead of a voting system."Even though you think it's a GOOD and BENEFICIAL thing for a rich person to have more influence than a poor person over the ranking of video games and everything else in the private sector, you also think it's a BAD and DETRIMENTAL thing for a rich person to have more influence than a poor person over the ranking of environmental protection and everything else in the public sector."You could also say apples or hotels or movies, I really don't mind. But you're completely avoiding my argument. The system can get abused, and likely would if it were to take effect. It doesn't matter what I think about rich people and influence, what matters is the fact that if I wanted to be president using the funding system, I'd kidnap the wife of a rich man and ask for a $1,000,000 deposit for me. (okay, I wouldn't, but someone probably would if they're desperate/evil enough)"Our current system has absolutely nothing to do with science. There aren't any experiments that prove that politicians chosen by voting are better at ranking wars, infrastructure, healthcare and education than politicians chosen by spending."But would the spending make them better at said subjects? Not really, spending just has greater influence that can be abused."You perceive that using voting works to rank things like wars and healthcare. Maybe you can also perceive that we use spending to rank things like video games and food. The question is... would voting work better than spending to rank things like video games and food? If so, then we should replace spending with voting."Spending does not mean good. If something is voted as good, then people believe it's good. Profit isn't a measurement of what's good or not. If it made profit, that's what matters in the economy. If I set up a shop, if they don't like it, they probably wouldn't come, but if I manage to make profit, that's enough. You're acting like it has to be either all voting or all spending. If money was no object, then that'd mean we get everything for free. If we get things for free, then resources get used just for enjoyment. That's another debate, though. Let's stay away from the subject of whether money should be a thing."Nobody benefits when we incorrectly rank things. Nobody benefits when too many resources are used to produce video games and too few resources are used to produce food."1) There's no such thing as an incorrect rating. It's all opinions. Spending money just overshadows the lesser's opinions even more. 2) As long as people keep the necessities in mind, people will live. Economy only cares about profit. Buy low, sell high."In my opening argument I made the case that this website, Debate.org, should replace voting with spending. If it did so, it would be the only sizable social website using spending rather than voting to rank things. All other websites... Reddit, Youtube, Netflix, Facebook and Twitter use voting to rank things."Well, there's no one really to fund on debate.org. The parent company, Juggle, abandoned this place long ago. But the system can still be abused, even with a website."What would happen if Debate.org used spending, rather than voting, to rank the debates? Would the ranking by spending be inferior to the ranking by voting? If so, HOW COULD THIS ONLY BE TRUE FOR DEBATES? Why wouldn't it also be true for computers, food and video games?"I mean, it would be interesting if this was a real job, but people would probably spend money on more important matters, like an electric bill. It also takes no resources to speak, other than maybe time. Video games spend lots of time, as well as technology. I don't know the specifics, but making games is hard, so companies want compensation for all the work, so they sell the games for money."I challenged you to come up with a coherent story to explain our dual system. But the fact of the matter is that it's an impossible mission."Not really. This debate is just about whether we sahould replace voting with spending. I already said the system can be abused, and even the worst products can still make profit, therefore it's not an infallible way to determine quality. Ultimately, people have different opinions, so we have to judge whether a product is "good" by saying what the community thinks of it. Of course, this doesn't mean it's better, but it might as well be.But I think that's enough for tonight. To repeat my argument, a funding system can be abused not only by rich people, but people who are willing to blackmail or ransom for a higher ranking. Money isn't a way to determine if something's better (or one that I've actively heard), as sometimes bad products can get profit. So why is it alright that we have a system that can get abused?