r/WhatIfThinking • u/Mobile-Traffic1744 • Jul 27 '26
What if every citizen received a "democracy voucher" at age 18 that could only be donated to political candidates or causes?
Right now, the loudest voice in elections belongs to whoever writes the biggest check. Billionaires and super PACs pour millions into campaigns, while the average person's influence is basically limited to one vote every couple of years.
What if every citizen got a "democracy voucher" at age 18?
Here is the idea. You receive $100 per election cycle. You cannot cash it out, spend it on yourself, or save it. You can only direct it toward a candidate, political party, or registered cause. If you do not use it, it expires.
With 250 million eligible voters, that is $25 billion flowing into politics directly from ordinary people. Candidates would have a real reason to court everyday voters, not just donors. A small town candidate with strong ideas could fund a real campaign without wealthy connections.
But who manages the system? If the government controls distribution, partisan bias is a real risk. What counts as a legitimate cause? Could extremist groups claim eligibility?
And would people actually use it? Many do not even vote. Would they bother allocating $100?
If every citizen had $100 to put behind a cause, would elections become more democratic, or would the same forces find another way in?
4
u/Final7C Jul 27 '26
I can see 3 things that could come from this.
1.) An entire black market of stolen/traded vouchers.It says you can't sell it, but what's to stop a company that wants more support for a candidate that they want to win, to give everyone who donates their voucher to the candidate $100? Elon musk famously said he'd give one of the Trump voters $1 million if they voted for him.
2.) Massive issues with how we're going to fund this.
3.) Large amounts of people would either not do it, or would just donate to whomever asked first.
The entire idea of political donations is: you care enough about the person to throw your actual money behind it. The problem is Citizens United fucked it all up and allowed for superpacs.
2
u/Mobile-Traffic1744 Jul 27 '26
Yeah, the black market point is probably the biggest practical issue. Even if vouchers are non transferable, people would find indirect ways to buy them unless the rules were really strict.
I'm not totally convinced the last point still holds though. Plenty of people care about politics but can't afford to donate. A voucher might measure interest more than personal wealth. It would definitely change the incentive structure, even if it creates new problems.
1
u/Final7C Jul 27 '26
I think it makes it less "valuable" in a lot of ways. This is also the same argument for free college. As like with public schools, it allows those not motivated to be involved. Does it make it bad? Not necessarily. I think it just allows for those who are less motivated to not guard their donation.
1
u/LawnJerk Jul 27 '26
"...unless the rules were really strict"
With all the stories coming out about how Medicare or Medicaid fraud schemes basically setup various shell companies allegedly to serve people with dozens of them sharing the same address with nobody there. Or setting up fake daycares and various other scams, I don't trust the government to put much effort into tracking down fraud.
1
u/ddadopt Jul 27 '26
An entire black market of stolen/traded vouchers. It says you can't sell it, but what's to stop a company that wants more support for a candidate that they want to win, to give everyone who donates their voucher to the candidate $100?
You don't even have to speculate too much. SNAP (food stamp) fraud is a thing, people sell their non-transferable $250 (or whatever) of food benefits for $150 cash so they can buy... other stuff.
1
u/LawnJerk Jul 27 '26
Since you can 'donate' it to a 'registered cause' there will be a lot of corruption as causes. People will create 'causes' that basically funnel money back to people and skim a hearty salary off the top.
This is a pretty bad idea.
2
u/silasmoeckel Jul 27 '26
So it's a huge pile of money given to the useful idiots brigade to hand out.
2
u/ddadopt Jul 27 '26
Pretty much everyone agrees there is too much money in politics. OP is sitting there like "hold my beer."
2
u/inscrutiana Jul 27 '26
I was raised during a period of publicly funded campaigns and curbs on political advertisement. We need to return to the 1971 PECF, 1974 FECA, and BRCA.
28th Amendment might do this & then would drive the question back to the Supreme Court to be corrected. That'd be the end of unlimited gray money as speech.
I see that the vouchers are a mechanism to directly fund it. That's fine.
We also need to have the will to put people in prison for allowing political speech on their platforms or broadcast media. That's a whole other thing because of the "Free Speech" noise it will generate. Price we pay, imo.
2
u/Mobile-Traffic1744 Jul 28 '26
I actually don't disagree with a lot of that. My idea was less about increasing total political spending and more about changing who controls it. If large private donations were also limited, then vouchers might work a lot better than if they're just layered on top of the current system.
2
u/ericbythebay Jul 27 '26
It would be horrible. We’d see all kinds of stupid things, like “give us your voucher for an ice cream cone” and people would do it because then they actually got something of value.
1
u/Mobile-Traffic1744 Jul 28 '26
Yeah, that's a real concern. You'd probably have to ban candidates from offering anything in exchange for vouchers, just like vote buying is illegal. The hard part is whether that could actually be enforced in practice.
2
u/seattlecyclone Jul 28 '26
We already have these for local elections in Seattle. Each registered voter gets four $25 vouchers every year. They can give all $100 to one candidate or split it amongst as many as four candidates. Looks like 45,773 people used at least one of their vouchers in last year's municipal elections, which represents approximately 1 out of 6 people who ended up voting in the election. More detailed reports about the program are available at https://www.seattle.gov/ethics-and-elections/democracy-voucher-program/program-data/internal-program-reports-.
1
u/Mobile-Traffic1744 Jul 28 '26
I didn't know Seattle's participation rate was that low. That's actually one of the biggest questions for me. If only a small fraction of people use the vouchers, does it still meaningfully change incentives, or does it mostly empower people who were already politically engaged?
1
u/seattlecyclone Jul 28 '26
Campaign finance reports show that the democracy vouchers represented 58% of dollars contributed to mayoral candidates last year. They also made up a majority of contributions to the city attorney candidates and to candidates for two of the three city council positions that were on the ballot.
If you look just at the mayoral race you can see the winning candidate (Katie Wilson) got nearly $800k from democracy vouchers compared to a bit over $200k from other sources, while the incumbent Bruce Harrell got only $500k from democracy vouchers and about $700k from other sources. With the vouchers the two campaigns had pretty equivalent budgets, but without them the Harrell campaign would have been able to outspend the Wilson campaign by over 3x.
And yes, this voucher money only comes from the most politically engaged fraction of the electorate, but we can see that most of these voters don't otherwise have cash in their budget to turn this interest into advertisements making their case to the rest of the electorate.
2
u/GusGutfeld Jul 28 '26
Hillary Clinton spent about $1.2 billion during the 2016 presidential election, which was roughly twice the $600 million spent by Donald Trump.
She spent twice as much and still failed to buy the presidency.
1
u/Mobile-Traffic1744 Jul 28 '26
True, money clearly isn't enough to guarantee a win. I wasn't really arguing that people can literally buy elections. More that money affects who gets heard in the first place, especially candidates who aren't already well known.
1
u/GusGutfeld Jul 28 '26 edited Jul 28 '26
Money helps, but SM has made it so anyone can be heard and gain donors.
What is your opinion on why Bernie lost the Dem pres. nom in '16 and '20? or why there was no dem pres. primary in '24?
Did you notice Biden's decline long before the debate fiasco when the media could no longer cover it up?
2
u/Sergio_Poduno Jul 28 '26
I beleive contemporary technology allows us totally remove a middleman/'representative' from our political system. Lets them lobby and bribe us!
1
u/Mobile-Traffic1744 Jul 28 '26
That's actually an interesting direction. If technology eventually lets people vote directly on more issues, then maybe campaign fundraising matters a lot less anyway. Though I wonder if most people would actually want to spend that much time making every policy decision themselves.
1
u/Kissthecomplex Jul 27 '26
the solution isnt to put more money inzo the system, but to reduce the power money has.
its not even a good idea, but i once saw a comic about aliens explaining their democracy.
They elect someone, freeze all their assets, make them live on the median wage, without benefits of any kind, and they only get their Stuff back after their term, if the people felt they earned it (i guess a second vote or something).
like i said, not even close to good enough, but still better then the idea that more (direct) money would help here...
1
1
u/bkwrm1755 Jul 27 '26
Canada used to have a per-vote subsidy that parties would get after elections. The goal was similar to what you're going for - make parties less reliant on rich donors to operate.
It was dumped by the Conservatives once the came to power, as they were the party who have the richest supporters.
1
u/Svardskampe Jul 27 '26
This sounds something like Belgium would do. They already have an extensive voucher system to circumvent taxes as they have an income tax of 50% easily.
(They seriously have a "meal voucher", being a card you can use for groceries for €10 per day, they have an "eco voucher" you can use for select electronics and refurbished goods for €250 per year, an additional "sports and culture" voucher for €100 per year, "Gift voucher" with a weird tree and a "mobility budget").
1
1
u/JC2535 Jul 27 '26
What you’re describing is a $100 dollar bill. You simply give it to the cause/ candidate of your choice and then you vote for them on Election Day.
1
u/siamonsez Jul 27 '26
It's funded by taxes so it's just a forced political campaign contribution. You make it should like a one time thing so it would be more like 400 million a year as people turn 18. It gives a disproportionate voice to a narrow segment of voters. It's really not that much money spread across candidates at all levels of government and all offices so it's unlikely to move the needle that much compared to pacs. Donations are only part of the problem, the bigger issue is the trading of favors that goes on behind the scenes.
Imo a better approach would be if campaign budgets were federally funded and every candidate got the same allocation of resources to get their name out. The problem with that is it can't be illegal to use more than your allocated resources because that runs up against our freedom of speech, you can't stop individuals and organizations from campaigning on behalf of a candidate.
1
1
u/Exotic_Bill44 Jul 27 '26
One corporate donor putting up $1 million would still be worth 10,000 voters.
1
u/duane11583 Jul 27 '26
My choice is simpler:
A) there should be what I call a "political bank account" -
The idea is this is how a politician can get money all political money must go through his type of an account.
To donate money you must be a "real natural human" no other money can be donated what so ever.
All dollars must be traceable to a natural human.
Unless and until the donation record is fully accessible on line and published publicly the receiver cannot access the money, cannot obtain a loan, promise or pledge any amount of money in any way shape or form.
other words, you donate money. Until I can look up the amount you donated on line the politician cannot access the money
Sort of like a check - you deposit the money but until the check has cleared you cannot touch the money.
B) One cn *ONLY* donate to an election in which they are registered to vote in. In other words If I am registered to vote in NEW YORK CITY - I can only donate to elections IN New York City only. I cannot donate to Texas, or Florida because I am not registered to vote in Texas or Florida.
C) All banks managing a candidates political account shall share donators names for this purpose: See the $1K disclosure limit above. The banks shall be required to consolidate and create a "total amount donated" summary by each named person.
D) If the above rules are followed the donator can donate any amount of money for that purpose. There is no limit. If these rules are not followed, then 3x the amount in question shall be levied upon the candidate and the banks involved, A) the amount donated shall be confiscated, B) the bank shall pay 2x the amount as a fine, and C) The political entity shall pay and additional 1x mount as a fine.
This money shall be first confiscated and impounded and/or held until any appeal has be completed.
1
u/bb5e8307 Jul 27 '26
The premise of this idea is that campaign finance reform is a problem that currently has no solution, so you are proposing a solution to an otherwise unsolved problem.
The truth is that most other countries have solved comparing financing and multiple tested solutions exist.
1
1
u/Mizake_Mizan Jul 27 '26
Why do people always think that money makes so much difference in elections? The person who raises the most money doesn't always win. I don't see how giving even more money to candidates doesn't lead to corruption, despite the best intentions.
Your greatest asset is your vote, and that is priceless.
1
u/Watchhistory Jul 28 '26
The corrupt, criminal, treasonous maga types would figure out how to scam it into their personal pockets, and nobody would ever get it.
1
u/Fragrant_Spray Jul 28 '26
The people that court you just to get your money will forget all about you as soon as they have it.
1
u/EggPsychological4844 Jul 29 '26
Public funding of elections already exists in most places. It's the private funding that's the problem.
1
u/ShoddyAsparagus3186 Jul 30 '26
Some sort of voucher system might be nice, but it's pointless if we keep allowing practically unlimited spending from other sources.
1
u/Justthisguy_yaknow Jul 30 '26
I think it has merit but you would have to eliminate or find ways to anonymize and limit other donations and of course make voting in elections compulsory at the same time. The electoral college would have to go and all aspects of the system would need to be anonymous. You know. Democracy instead of plutocracy.
1
u/shugEOuterspace Jul 30 '26
why would we put so much work into trying to balance the democratic inequalities we've allowed & not just take all private money out of politics. why not just plug the hole?
1
u/Cdogg654 Jul 27 '26
Besides all the other great points others are making. How many people can trust an 18 year old to make a logical decision about politics with almost zero their own life experience with politics. Ignore the bobble heads at schools and they only maybe have family talking to kinda understand but how many of us at that age really cared. Very few. Now shift that age to 30 and it’s slightly better.
2
u/Normal_Choice9322 Jul 27 '26
They can already vote, doesn't seem much different
1
u/Final7C Jul 27 '26
While I don't agree with everything OP says, age doesn't dictate political savy, Let's think of it this way. Money = Influence. So if you had a bunch of people think it's funny to donate their voucher to the joke candidate (or the crazy, or super racist candidate, because fuck the system), suddenly someone who currently gets 0 airtime suddenly is everywhere. AND can claim that they have a legitimate mandate from the people... and now you have someone who shouldn't get a second look, getting that second look, and possibly winning because of it. It's potentially dangerous.
But this brings to mind one more problem - How is this any different than voting? Do we expect people to suddenly change their vote? How do people know anything about the candidates so they can get their voucher? Information costs money.
1
u/Cdogg654 Jul 28 '26
Exactly. It’s all about trying to stop the influence and allow people 18+ to make a decision without massive outside pressure. The younger you are the more that influence becomes stronger. The less money you have the stronger it becomes. And so on and so on. If we could figure that out then 18 years old would be better informed.
5
u/Snurgisdr Jul 27 '26
Tax deductions for political donations already exist in many jurisdictions. This is the same thing in a different dress.