Some hypothesis of voting system

When there is an election, we usually vote ourselves that whether we should buy some politicians’ ideas or not. The word we use ‘buy’ does not mean we use our money to en charge for this politician idea; however, can we really use our money to buy politicians’ ideas? My answer for this question is YES.

I believe when people have immediate costs, they will act more rationally and sensitively; therefore, if people choose different amounts of credits that they are willing to pay for one political party, they will carefully judge how much more they can get from this party compared with other parties, and they will pay the amount which is equal to this different to support their political party. We also need to set a maximum and a minimum for the contribution people can pay for their supporting parties in order to achieve equity as we might know in the near future, the top 1% will be richer than the rest 99% of the population.

Different groups of people are treated differently in the election:

1, the group below the minimum income will gain free credits which equals the difference between the minimum income and their actual incomes. As I believe that the government is responsible to help them achieve the minimum income level. If any party can achieve this goal, this party should gain the credits. Even if they choose not to vote, their credits will still be counted in the election.

2, the group whose income is below the taxable level, but above the minimum income level is free to choose if they want to participate.

3, the group whose income is above the taxable level is compulsory to involve in the election by pay at least the minimum contribution, even if they choose not to vote.

If a party wins the election, it can hold a dominated numbers of seats in the parliament for a period of 5 years; however, it can be challenged by the opposite party after 3 years in a “challenging election”. The dominated party will be in an advantageous position, meaning if people choose not to vote (people are indifferent), all the credits will go to the dominated party, as a political stability is assumed to be socially benificial. If the dominated party wins, it will have 3 more years (the seat number will be changed) instead of 2 more. If the opposite party wins, the opposite party will start its 5 year period, and can also be challenged in a 3-years time. If one party finishes its 5 year period without being challenged, then a fair election will hold, the credits coming from people who are indifferent will be equally split between the parties.

The cost of propaganda should be subtracted from the total credits earn, as propaganda might make policies be overestimated. Each party will gain a proportion of the credits earned as income, the ratio of their income will be the ration of their seats won in the election. Party with the most credits will gain a bigger proportion of the credits earned compared to the other parties. This can ensure the winning party gets a dominated numbers of seats, so policies can be passed smoothly.

The maximum contribution should not be higher than the median income. If someone gets benefit which is above the median income from the government should be concerned as annual benefit which does not benefit the equity.

The income of the political parties can increase the independence of the parties from the sponsor from the minor super-wealthy groups.