Proxy Voting

[Zvezda]

One of the things I liked best on DC was the idea of large corporations being legally able to take away the votes of the poor. Though there were not many rules and background information regarding this it has always been a key element to DC. Based on this idea we came up with some other stuff, like naming you children after corporations to receive money or have the corporate logo tattooed on you. Marcus’ post in the Real World section sparked the idea that there also should be some violent ways to take away the votes of people. Private run prisons for example could have the votes of the inmates transferred to their account for the time the persons are in jail. This could also cause some scandals in case that people tend to be locked away when ever election time comes near. There was one problem which frequently came up in our games. Who is allowed to receive a proxy vote? Are companies like GAWAG the only ones who are able to take proxy votes? Or can votes be soled on an individual basis? How is the church, which always had the infrastructure to provide help to the needy reacting to this opportunity? Is the right to transfer your vote connected to welfare? I mean can you sell your vote and still work in your job as a police officer or office clerk? Even today less then halve of the population in the western world exercise their right to vote. If you don’t vote anyways why not get some extra money from GAWAG to finally finance your car? Which levels of government and administration are infested by proxy-voting? All? Only presidential / parliamentarian elections? Is there a minimum or maximum threshold to proxy voting? So let’s hear your ideas on how proxy voting is regulated in DC.
Finally some other idea has entered my mind. What about the employees of the mega corporations? Do they loose their right to vote when they sign the contract? I personally don’t like this idea it is more for the comic setting of cyberpunk. As a provider of horror this idea is to ‘cheap’ (if that is the correct term), I like it if GAWAG provides welfare and presents itself as the saintly light in the darkness. I like DC since you can easily disguise evil as good. And if you take a look at our world, few people consider themselves evil, regardless of what they actually do. They don’t run around and tell you they need to take away your vote for their own benefits. These things don’t happen in real life. I mean not even the Nazis wore skull and cross bone to show how evil they were let alone attack their Russian ally in the middle of the war to demonstrate their general untrustworthiness. What I want to say is, we also need a positive term for the proxy voting. Social Partnership for example.

[Linden]

Here's my take on it:

I always thought that the system would depend on companies maintaining estates of low cost ballotman housing - mostly in urban constituencies. In exchange for the companies doing this they get to dictate how the residents' vote is used. Quite possibly the residents never even get to put a cross on the form. If there's 2000 voters in a particular estate then their votes are automatically allocated as a bloc to whichever (business friendly) candidate the company chooses.

Of course some companies like GAWAG for instance probably have little experience or interest in property/estate management. Quite likely they'd subcontract the running of the ballotman housing to another firm (I recall C4 and Solprodev were mentioned as big property outfits in various DC related publications). The managing company might then have voting rights over some of the owning company's estates in lieu of monetary payment. Of course property firms will probably own plenty of ballotman estates in their own right.

I think selling of one's vote is probably something of a last resort, and is part of the package when you reach rock bottom in DC world. After all it's not just your vote you lose, you have to live in a crappy corporate owned estate, wear paper overalls and subsist on poor quality food. You're just one step up from living on the street. For that reason I'd restrict vote selling to those who've really hit the skids. That's just my preference though.

The corporate employee question is an interesting one. I'd suggest these people have a free vote, at least nominally. Possibly their employers send out the odd email or memo indicating which candidate the company prefers. This could be quite subtle though. Rather than saying vote for Joe, the PR dept for say GAWAG emails out a newsletter saying "MP visits GAWAG factory in *Coventry".



*or wherever in the UK still makes cars

[ReHerakhte]

I see things the same way as Linden has said, if you have no other option you sell your right to vote to a corporation. In return for that right to vote, they "take care of you". The harsh reality is that (again as Linden mentioned), the way they take care of you is little better than living on the street - the only difference is that you actually have some protection from the weather and you get at least one or two meals a day.
The corporations are only 'allowed' to do this sort of thing because they take on the burden of providing social welfare to the people who sell them their right to vote thereby relieving the government of the burden.


As a complete change of subject, I really like the fact that the creation (i.e. GAWAG) of one of the members here (Lee!) has become so well known that it has become a common point of reference!

Thinking about some of the other points Zvezda raised, I think most corporations would never even consider themselves to be evil in any sense, they would just see themselves as another organization 'trying to survive' in the world of big business. I do agree that some of them would see the publicity value in providing welfare for the poor and in that situation they are by default less than good (they are motivated by the desire to be seen as good, they aren't doing good for it's own sake).
When they start offering to provide welfare in exchange for people's right to vote they are most definitely evil - but they would not see it as evil, just as a business transaction.

Cheers,
Kevin

[Morthrai]

I also see it as somewhere to go for the more desperate. Of course, the people who already lived on the streets wouldn't be registered to vote and therefore the corps would have a 'Who cares?" attitude to them. The proxy vote is a way of catching people (and their votes) on their way down, whilst looking like the corporation has a social conscience.

As an aside, I guess I've been around long enough that at least some of my material has practically become canon! A strange feeling I can tell you

[Linden]

I also see it as somewhere to go for the more desperate. Of course, the people who already lived on the streets wouldn't be registered to vote and therefore the corps would have a 'Who cares?" attitude to them.

Possibly it'd be good PR for corps to get homeless people off the streets and into ballotman accomodation. "Not only are we housing these people we're helping restore their civil rights by registering them to vote." Of course these new votes go to who the corp says, and there's plenty of potential for gerrymandering. A sudden influx of homeless into an estate before election time could tip the balance in the corporate candidate's favour.

[Zvezda]

That is a great idea. I just wonder if the whole concept of proxy voting brings enough influence in relation to the cost. I mean compared to old-school lobbing.

[Linden]

That is a great idea. I just wonder if the whole concept of proxy voting brings enough influence in relation to the cost. I mean compared to old-school lobbing.

A good question, and I think the answer has to be "yes", but to be worthwhile costs must be kept low hence the near subsistence standard of living on ballotman estates.

I can think of a couple of informal attempts at creating voter blocs in the UK: The Homes for Votes scandal in Westminster during the 1980s and more recently the wholesale abuse of postal votes in some urban constituencies.

[Linden]

As a late addendum to this topic I was listening to Radio 4's Start the Week programme this morning and they very briefly touched on the concept of selling votes as a commercial proposition. It was in the context of there being some things that shouldn't be left to market forces. One of the speakers then said something to the effect that there would be plenty of people willing to sell their votes, and plenty of people willing to buy them, but for society as a whole there is a moral objection to such arrangements.

As I said it was only a fleeting mention but it did get me pondering who the likely buyers would be if we ever reached the stage where we no longer had any real qualms about vote selling. From Dark Conspiracy we know it would be the corporations, but which companies in particular I wonder?

[Phulish]

The key seems to be the amount and quality of services provided by the megacorps vs. the govt. If the corps can offer a better package than desperate people will sellout.

[Linden]

I'd be interested to know who in the present day has expressed a desire to purchase votes, just to see if they conform to the Dark Conspiracy model.

[Morthrai]

I'd be interested to know who in the present day has expressed a desire to purchase votes, just to see if they conform to the Dark Conspiracy model.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't the largest and most obvious corporate suspects, but rather the companies that have only one major location rather than global operations.

[Phulish]

I think that each region might need something to ease tensions. In Britain I could see a pub franchise and a theatre with corperate sponsored football? The pub probably be limited in menu items, but allow a feel of normalcy.

[Morthrai]

In Britain I could see a pub franchise and a theatre with corperate sponsored football? The pub probably be limited in menu items, but allow a feel of normalcy.

We already have that kind of thing here, JD Wetherspoon being the most obvious example. My local branch isn't one of the better ones sadly!

[Linden]

We already have that kind of thing here, JD Wetherspoon being the most obvious example.

Beat me to the punch mate!

My local branch isn't one of the better ones sadly!

The worst one I went to was the Tally Ho in Finchley, a good few years ago now. Never seen so many winos in my life. They congregated on the ground floor (negotiating the stairs probably a bit too much for their impaired vision) and it wasn't hard to imagine the place as some kind of drinking den on a ballotman estate where the residents come to blow their corporate dole on cheap booze. Never been back oddly enough.

[Phulish]

Oh! I didn't get the UK, I went to Japan as my first base. I'm clumsily trying to fit the prole lifestyle and certain cultural standards(or stereotypes ). What works in NewBosWash would't quite work in London and might need a PR department to plan out or have a hefty antiriot budget for the secgoons. Finally, the sidhe can use plain ole ugly bigotry, especially if shipments of prole goods are diverted or hijacked, "They get food and liquor that should be ours!" At least the internet let's us explore these, I'd rather hear from citizens than trust a google for some data when it comes to mood and "feel".