Would You Buy This Candidate?

One of my strongly-held beliefs, for which I tend to attract supporting evidence and repel contrary arguments, is that markets process information more effectively than does the political process. Perhaps it as an exaggeration to refer to the market as the "world of truth," as Tim Harford does in The Undercover Economist. However, it strikes me that it is easier for market forces to drive a bad firm out of business than it is for political forces to extinguish a policy that fails to meet the objectives that purportedly drive its enactment..."Two Strategies for Avoiding Truth," Arnold Kling, TCS Daily, 1/5/2007

In this engaging article about the problem, inherent in democracy, of competing fictions, those of the elite, and those of the electorate, this paragraph suggested a radical alternative to voting as we do now. I would call it an immodest proposal.

What if, in the next national election, instead of voting, voters, that is, citizens who've bothered to register, were required to pay for the candidate of their choice? Here's a slate:

Hillary Clinton, $100
John McCain, $100
Rudolf Giuliani, $100
Condi Rice, $100

Make the price point $50 for Vice President, $20 for Senator, and $10 for a US Representative. What would the results be if the voters had to consider the potential market value of a future President, Senator, or Representative? In this plan, the money would go to the winning candidate to defray campaign expenses, with the remainder distributed to a charity of the winner's choice, including the winner.

What would candidates do to win in this fashion? Would candidates offer discounts? Rates of return? I think this would open up a whole range of possibilities.

Be sure to tell us what you think.

Luther