Thursday, 13 April 2017

Why cash-for-vote is a welcome idea

We live in a world where very few things make sense.

And in that sea of things that don't, right at the top is the self-righteous outrage that follows every time a cash-for-vote scandal erupts.

Having looked at it from all angles, it seems a splendid idea, especially if you are a citizen.

If your vote fetches you a couple of thousand bucks, what's the harm?

I hate to break it to you that your vote doesn't count anyways. The EVM is rigged and the outcome fixed. It's a funny game where the candidate you vote for will win or lose without your ballot. Relax and sit back, your vote does not matter.

Other than the mandatory selfie-with-inked-finger, it counts for nothing.

So if a political party wants to pay you a few thousand bucks for that useless thing, why not sell it?

In fact, if you slightly enterprising, you'd auction your vote and go for the highest bidder.

Once the money has reached your pocket, you can urge fellow citizens: "Be a responsible citizen, go out and vote. Trust me, it pays."

Once legalised, cash-for-vote would go a long way in drawing more and more citizen out of their drawing room and near the polling booth. Isn't it what the government is trying to achieve - to get maximum number of people to vote?

Those who oppose is are simply cuckoo. If a party wants to buy your vote, seal the deal. This is the only time a politician will actually GIVE you something, dammit! Once poll is over, his family is his constituency.

Don't be a chump. When the sun is shining, there's lot of sense in hay-making.

There's also a serious reason why you should charge for your vote. Experience tells us people don't value anything that comes free. If you expect the crook you elected would be grateful for your vote, you need to get your head examined.

It's tough for a politician to feel any such emotion towards a bunch of lambs who are nuts enough to vote for him so he can loot the exchequer.

Make it give-and-take. Isn't it at the heart of market economy?

Often, the outrage against cash-for-vote is led by frustrated people who could not sell their own vote and are now plain jealous because some other people have.

Democracy has traditionally been a case of survival-of-the-richest. It's a game loaded in favour of the richer party in the fray. My point is, if the citizens gain something in the process, where's the problem?

And don't even mention ethics/honesty. These are vague terms coined by self-pitying losers, who needed something, even if intangible, to feel good having lost the real battle in life.

Also, you can't redeem ethics/honesty at restaurants and shopping malls.

No comments: