If you had to pick one, you'd rather cause all US political elections over the next ten years to only register votes from people from the _____ 15% of (US) net worth.
Conversation
Replying to
The US political system is closer to the second option: policy changes are highly responsive to the preferences of the top 10%, but hardly at all to the the rest of the population:
cambridge.org/core/journals/
1
1
16
Show replies
Replying to
Kind of the same group there, you have either the hopelessly corrupt or the hopeless followers.
I still voted bottom, however if I were all powerful I'd say bottom 50% would give things a fairer shake.
11
Replying to
Every poll lately:
Do you prefer (unhinged, extreme option that sounds leftist but ends up with regressive and terrible consequences) or
(more mainstream option that results in more progressive outcomes, but only because it's less unhinged)
3
1
14
Replying to
Remember that either way, politics will be dominated by the elite. But top 15% voters are highly ideological while bottom 15% are much less sorted and more random. Seems like the top 15% scenario rewards ideologues while the bottom 15% scenario rewards flexible pragmatists.
1
Replying to
The bottom 15% of net worth would be a much larger slice of the pie, no? At least in terms of how many people get a ballot?
8
Replying to
If only counting votes from:
BOTTOM 15%: The top would be greatly incentivized to improve conditions at the bottom.
TOP 15%: The bottom 15% would probably see little change, conditions worsen for those in the middle, and the wealth gap between the top 15% would likely grow.
2
15