Project Funds

The Super-Conducting Super Collider was a hotly debated project in the 1980s.  This effort to build the world's largest cyclotron was supported by a majority of Congress for a few years – then terminated.  The only things left were partial plans and a huge, “billion-dollar hole in the ground”.

Enthusiasts might be more careful about starting projects if they could not spend the opposition's share the budget.  And they should have the power finish their projects with their own share the budget.

Fair-Share Voting

There are several systems for FSV.  The best use Movable Money Votes (MMV) that work very much like Transferable Votes for PR.  For several years, Twin Oaks Community has used MMV for their annual Trade-Off Games and/or “One-Time Resource-Allocations”.  Over 37 years they have tested and used several forms of “Participatory Budgeting”.

Later pages will explain how MMV works.  But first, consider the benefits in any system for fair spending.

Voting rules for fair, efficient funding can increase trust and respect for co-operative and public funding.  That may encourage people to shift some spending from private items to shared goods.  It may reduce spending at the extremes of individual and central control.

On the other hand, a tax rebate may be one of the items on the ballot.  It would let reps vote to reduce taxes and services as easily as voting to fund a project.  Voters can clearly see each rep's contribution to this private good and to the public goods.

A majority that becomes a minority can still fund some priorities — so their budgets rise and fall smoothly.  Most voters help at least one project to win despite less than majority support, showing the majority are members of political minorities.

A rep may discover interests shared with rivals who contribute to her favorite projects.  That may lead to better understanding and further cooperation — made easier by the assurance that fair shares let no one dominate others.

A project that breaks policies is subject to majority veto.  Vetoes ideally occur before the funding vote.  But the first group to try FSV puts all proposals on the ballot then debates a veto only if a controversial item wins.  This avoids many debates.  If opponents win, the ballots are tallied again without the item.

Fair-Share Voting is unlikely to give minorities too much power.  All policies are enacted by majority rules.  This means all agencies spend their money supporting majority policies.  Finally, most FSV funds will be spent by the majority.

Limited as it is, the right to spend some revenue is a major expansion in the concept of democracy, similar to earlier expansions in the right to vote and the right to representation.

In the private sector, Fair-Share Voting helps buyers organize big purchases — so it may increase the market power of buyers relative to producers.  But it does not replace market mechanisms for competitive pricing, efficiency, innovation and investment.

The Accurate Democracy Primer has a quick intro to Fair-Share Voting and dot-lists of the benefits from FSV.