This is the second devil's advocate argument that I hope to lose. Frenchy defeated me on the first one by giving the best counter argument. The argument didn't move the gun control issue either way, but it did justify the need for jails, which was challenged in the opening of the thread. Here's the link for those who missed it.

So, here is the next one:

Every dollar is worth a vote. Those who make the most money, are the most influential, and therefore deserve the most say. It's not the way most of us would like it to be, but there is no point in trying to change it. Resistance is futile.

What? No challenges? Does this mean everyone agrees, or nobody knows how to challenge the logic?

You guys are scaring me.

Every vote is worth a dollar

Most people are content until it is their dollar that is having problems
(those not highly political.)
When the gas goes up, then they start to get concerned

The rich can buy some votes, unless someone richer comes along, or someone with better ideas comes along and the public likes the other ideas more

However, these days if Osama tried to run for congress and had trillions, to run in say Indiana,how many people would vote for him?

All the money in the world wouldn't get Bush to change his course of action either

(I can do this longer tomorrow lunchtime.)

You don't need to get elected when you can buy a puppet politician.

That's because Bush is trying to control all the money in the world.

One Man One Vote was the 1776 response to this issue. In order to vote you had to own land which meant white male land owner.
Politics is like life, we continue learning the same lessons but at different levels.
So lets name it the voting game:
who are the players?
What is the issue?
Where is the power?
How to defeat the power?
what is won?
What is the next level?

I realized I just described a computer game!


So I guess the broader the base and the more voters you get to the polls. This is the issue for computer voting or paperless ballots.

I'm not sure if these are the types of answers you are looking for or if they are too general. But since the devils advocate statement applies to voting in general, here goes.

Anyone with an opinion.
Who gets to have the most say about everything in everyones lives.
The power is the one with the most money.
Overthrow the money system.
Human Rights and some Liberty.
More Liberty until it violates others human rights and the cycle repeats.

In this theory, it's not the voters that are counted. It's the dollars back into the system that matter the most. If one voter put a million dollars in the system, it's worth a million votes. A voter that puts no money into the system doesn't get to vote.

When someone is so wrong, the people will vote him out no matter how many billions he has

Grey Davis is the most recent example
Add Bush to the list

That is why Lamont one. He is only a vessel for our anger
I would bet most people have no idea who the man himself is

Much like noone knew Clinton or Bush

Again, this is not the arguement.

It's not that the richest man gets elected. It's that the richest man has the most say. You don't have to be in charge to have the most say. In fact, selfish greedy people don't want the responsibility that comes with being in charge. They just want the most say.

Money buys the most say with the least amount of liability for those decisions.

Then its what I have said

Bush41
He never really wanted to be President, he didn't want a 2nd term, he got Bill Clinton to do it for him (without letting on that it was a set-up), and they will get Hillary to take over

all under the guise of change. Without being the front man with the public (but being in the loop)

(this does fit with the topic).

But this argument then can't be won, nor has it for years.

Sounds like you are agreeing with the devil.

That's where CGCS comes in. We need to find a way to win it.

You don't like me saying it, but this one can only be won if it isn't connected with a bush or a clinton or someone on their payroll secretly financed.
There really is no other way

because bush41 is the devil, so in this case he is just about impossible to beat

OK we have 4 Rich Americans. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Streisand.

It is not the rich individual but the rich corporations that are the devil.

So the one dollar one vote is defeated by combining dollars and coordinating the vote.

If these rich people are using money to change the political landscape, the one dollar one vote dynamic still applies. If they are not using their money, it's just like a citizen not showing up on election day. The one dollar one vote dynamic applies even if the rich are using their influence for good. Dollars can cancel out other dollars just as easily as paper ballots.

What makes the one dollar one vote dynamic live is not what the vote is for, but how much influence the dollar has on an election in either direction. The only way to defeat the one dollar one vote dynamic is to diminish the dollars influence in an election in either direction.

Bush 41 serves money more than money serves Bush 41.

I've been thinking about this notion that our votes don't count for some time now. I actually believe our votes frequently don't count or never count. But somehow public opinion trickles up. I'm still not sure how that happens. How public outrage transmutes into political policy changes. But it seems to do so. And it's not all based on money, although it mostly is.

Why are politicians so tied to public opinion polls if there's no coorelation between public opinion and political direction?

I think there's something more than money involved, but most of it is money. And I believe most elections are appointments - especially on the national level.

Opinion polls matter, but only to the extent that money can or can't influence them.

There are other factors that are reflected in opinion polls, general elections and the spending of money. The green paper ballots just so happen to be the ballots they count the most. The cash registers and ATMs are official the polling places.