Why A Better Vote‑Counting System Will Yield Widespread Economic Prosperity

Written by Richard Fobes

Author of
The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox
and
Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections

When you “read” this article the first time, just skim the paragraphs, and just briefly look at each list.  Later you can return to focus on specific sections of interest, or to read the details in a specific list of interest:  Tactics used to extract extra money from customers,  Election-manipulation tactics,  High-profile examples of election-manipulation tactics,  Good versus bad election feedback loops,  Wage-suppression tactics,  Advantages of smaller wage gap,  Taker businesses versus maker businesses,  Economic advantages of the “makerbiz” tax credit,  Summary of reforms that will increase widespread economic prosperity.  Asterisks indicate that clarifications appear at the end of this article.

The biggest fight in politics is between business owners and the majority of voters.^*  Surprisingly there are ways to benefit both business owners and the rest of us.  These reforms will enable both business owners and the rest of us to soar to new heights of economic prosperity.

Here's the key to understanding how prosperity can increase for business owners, and customers, and employees.  Recognize that customers, employees, and shareholders can be, and often are, the same person.

Specifically, consider that when a pharmaceutical business uses unfair tactics that increase the cost of a medication a person uses, the person has less money to become the customer of a different business.  And when the person's employer uses unfair tactics that reduce the person's wages, the person cannot afford to become a consumer of products sold by yet other businesses.  And when the same person owns shares of yet other businesses as part of their Wall Street investments, the executives of those businesses are likely to be giving lots of campaign funds to politicians who pass laws that allow those businesses to extract extra money from the person's wallet as a customer.

In other words, we no longer live in a world where nobles and peasants are easy to identify.  Instead we are all tightly interconnected.  As a result, the world economy is dragged down each time a business extracts extra money from a customer, or from an employee.  That extra extraction takes money away from other businesses who sell what the customer also would buy if they had more money.

In the following sections you will learn about, or be reminded of, money-extraction tactics, wage-suppression tactics, and tactics that block the kinds of businesses we, as customers, want more of.  Although these tactics are unethical, they are legal because state and federal laws have been written to support these unethical tactics.  State legislatures and Congress approved these laws because our elected representatives get most of their biggest campaign contributions from the owners of the kinds of businesses that exploit these unethical extraction and suppression tactics.

The simple solution to this economy-draining feedback loop is to replace our primitive vote-counting system with a better vote-counting system that resists being exploited in ways that involve money.  Then we, the majority of voters, will fully control both Republican and Democratic legislators in state legislatures.  Then our reformed state legislatures, and eventually Congress, will adopt long-overdue legal reforms that reduce, and eventually eliminate, the unethical tactics that extract extra money from our wallets as customers and employees.  Lots of this extra money in our wallets will flow to businesses that attract money from distant customers.  This increase in the flow of money into the states, and the nation, will yield higher levels of economic prosperity.

Problem:  Money extraction from customers

To better understand how nearly everyone can get what they want, let's start with a list of money-extraction tactics that specific kinds of businesses use to extract extra money from their customers.

The list is long, so don't bother reading everything in the list.  Especially if you're seeing this list for the first time.

Each of the money-extraction tactics in isolation drags down our economy by a relatively small amount.  However, they are used by a huge number of large and medium-sized businesses, so all together these tactics squeeze huge amounts of money from our wallets.

If you recognize that you financially benefit from one of these money-extraction tactics, consider that “your” business will sell more products and services when other business owners in this list have stopped using their tactics to remove money from your customers, and your future customers.

Tactics used to extract extra money from customers

From our perspective as consumers and voters, these money-extraction tactics yield higher consumer prices.  That's exactly the opposite of what we want.  We want lower consumer prices.

Lower consumer prices will allow us to buy more of what other businesses sell.  In turn, that increased consumption will significantly increase economic prosperity. ^*

As a further benefit, there will be fewer negative side effects.  Remember that some of these money-extraction tactics lead to death, injury, disease, depression, unhappiness, and environmental destruction.

Now let's look at how we, the majority of voters, can begin to defeat these money-extraction tactics.  It involves increasing voter control over who gets elected to state legislatures and Congress.

Solution:  Election system reform

To better understand how owners of some businesses win the political fight against us, the majority of voters, let's look at the election-manipulation tactics these business owners use to control both the Republican and Democratic parties.  Also let's look at how to defeat these election-manipulation tactics.

The most important part of the solution is to change our ballots.  Our ballot needs to ask for more than just our first choice.  The ballot also needs to ask for our second choice, third choice, and so on, for as many candidates as we want to rank.  This kind of ballot is called a “ranked choice ballot.”

It's easy to count ranked choice ballots in a way that correctly identifies which candidate deserves to become a mayor, governor, or president.  And it's easy for software to count ranked choice ballots in ways that fill state legislatures and Congress with the people who better represent most voters.

As you read about these election-manipulation tactics, keep in mind that during the primary election the biggest campaign contributors directly or indirectly contribute money to candidates in both political parties. ^*  This primary-election blocking tactic robs us, the majority of voters, from getting a reform-minded candidate from either party in the general election.

Election-manipulation tactics

To help you better understand these tactics, let's look at some high-profile examples of these election-manipulation tactics.

High-profile examples of election-manipulation tactics

If a well-designed election system had been adopted long before these elections, either the political views of these candidates would have changed, or different candidates would have been in these elections.  That's because we, the voters, would have been able to elect the reform-minded leaders we want.  Instead, using our current primitive election system, we get stuck with politicians who are basically special-interest puppets.

If these historic elections suddenly switched to a better election system just before the primary election, and the same candidates were on the ballot, we don't know for sure who would have won.  That's because ranked choice ballots were not used in opinion polls.

When opinion pollsters start asking voters for their second choice and third choice, and not just their first choice, we will find out which candidate is actually most popular in each election.

Imagine the result of adopting a well-designed election system.  Congress will be filled with reform-minded leaders instead of special-interest puppets.  Lots of big problems will quickly fade away into history.  To appreciate this transformation, recall that England, France, Germany, and Italy fought wars about whether a citizen was allowed to be a Protestant or Catholic.  Those wars ended when democracy arrived.  In a similar way, when we reach higher levels of democracy, the current political fights about assault weapons, abortion, gender bias, and racial bias will fade into history.  Even better, the money-extraction tactics listed above will be reduced.  That will give consumers and voters more money to buy what other businesses sell.  This is the better economic future that will arrive when we adopt a better vote-counting system.

How will ranked-choice ballot marks be counted?  Unfortunately the answer is confusing. ^*  Fortunately this confusion will disappear when better election software becomes available, and when better videos become available to explain how the counting is done.

The result of adopting wisely designed ranked choice ballots, and wisely designed election software, will be to increase the influence of voters, and decrease the effectiveness of the biggest campaign contributions.

Currently we are stuck in a bad feedback loop in which “the rich get richer and the poor get poorer” and too many resources — including time, fuel, money, machines, computers, and brainpower — are wasted.  We need to switch to the good feedback loop in which “wealth flows to businesses and employees that make the world a better place, and fewer resources are wasted.”

Good versus bad election feedback loops

Understandably many business owners are afraid of adopting ranked choice ballots.  They know they will lose some of their control over politicians.  Mistakenly they also fear they will suffer economically.  After all, the dominant goal behind the biggest campaign contributions is to stop politicians from adopting the reforms the majority of voters want.

Yet, as stated at the beginning of this article, most business owners will earn more money, not less money, when voters have more control over election outcomes.  That's because elected representatives will bring an end to the unethical tactics that extract extra money from the wallets of customers.  With more money in their wallets, more customers will be able to afford more of what other businesses sell.

Problem:  Wage suppression

Remember that the biggest fight in politics is between business owners and the majority of voters.  The largest part of this fight is about wages.

Most business owners want to pay wages that are as low as possible.  This goal is reasonable if the low-income employees have enough money to pay for more than just food and rent.  But if the low-income employees need to get food and housing assistance from government-funded programs, that's not reasonable because those wage-suppression tactics shift the financial burden to taxpayers.

In contrast, most employees want higher wages.  This goal is reasonable for employees who do the core activities that customers, clients, and patients pay for.  And this goal is especially reasonable if the business owners are living in luxury, and would not suffer by sharing a small portion of their current income.

Here's a list of wage-suppression tactics that business owners use to reduce how much money they pay their employees.  As you skim this list, keep in mind that reduced wages drag down the overall economy because the employees are also customers, and potential customers, of other businesses.

Wage-suppression tactics

These wage-suppression tactics leave low-wage employees without enough money to buy what other businesses sell.  The other businesses have less money to pay their low-wage employees.  And those low-wage employees have less money to buy what the original business sells.  The result is a bad feedback loop that drags down the overall economy.

To counteract this bad feedback loop, let's look at how to financially motivate businesses to at least slightly increase the wages paid to their low-wage employees.

Solution:  “Perbiz” wage-gap tax break

A simple way to reduce the wage gap within a business is to give a business tax credit to a qualified business that has a smaller wage gap.

To clarify we are referring to a wage gap within a single business, and not across multiple businesses, let's call this intra-business wage gap the “perbiz” — as in per-business — wage gap.

How can we calculate the “perbiz” wage gap?  If you don't like dealing with any kind of mathematics feel free to skip the next sentence, which describes how to calculate the “perbiz wage gap index.”  The perbiz wage-gap index is calculated as the average wage of the top half of employees, minus the average wage of the bottom half of employees, divided by the minimum wage.

A business that has a lower perbiz wage gap index will get a bigger tax credit.  A business that has a higher wage gap index will continue to pay the same business taxes they currently pay.

Initially the tax credit amount will be small, and limited to certain kinds of businesses.  This cautious approach allows time to refine the rules to avoid loopholes, and to verify the tax credit really increases prosperity in the local economy.

To better understand the advantages of the perbiz wage gap tax credit, let's look at why our current high wage gap undermines our economy, and why a smaller wage gap will strengthen our economy.  For simplicity this list ignores employees in the middle wage range.

Advantages of smaller wage gap

In spite of its advantages, the “perbiz” tax credit will never get adopted while we still use our current primitive election system.  And if, somehow, it were adopted without reforming our election system, the biggest campaign contributors would write the rules to benefit themselves, not to benefit the overall economy.

This reform is much more likely to get adopted when we have adopted a better vote-counting system.  This difference is yet another reason why election-method reform will significantly increase widespread economic prosperity.

Problem:  Taxes on small maker businesses are too high

What do the voters and business owners in each city and state want more of ?  We want more businesses that bring lots of money into our city and state.  Specifically we want local businesses that sell to customers around the world, or to customers who at least live outside our city, or outside our state.

Examples of such businesses in Washington, Oregon, and California include: Microsoft, Amazon, Nike, Hollywood movie studios, Intel, and many high-tech businesses in San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

These kinds of businesses can be called “maker” businesses.  That's because they make valuable things that are sold to customers around the world.  Or, as demonstrated by Amazon, they make valuable services that other businesses do not yet offer.

To better appreciate how maker businesses increase overall economic prosperity, consider the opposite extreme.  They can be called “taker” businesses.

Taker businesses drag down the local economy.  Instead of making something of value, most taker businesses just transfer ownership of something that already exists.  And typically what they sell is also available in most other states.  Most of them sell to local customers, which does not attract money from outside the region.  Even worse, some of them send lots of their profits to distant headquarters, which removes money from the region.  Examples of taker businesses include: insurance companies, banks, law firms, and most chain businesses including Home Depot, Walmart, and McDonalds.

There are other business categories that fit between the maker and taker extremes.  These other categories include teaching, maintenance, healthcare, transportation, communication (of what already exists), retail, and sales.  For simplicity let's ignore these in-between categories.

Below is a list of important differences between maker businesses and taker businesses.

As you skim this list, notice that taker businesses tend to be the kind of businesses that exploit money-extraction tactics.  In contrast, well-run maker businesses thrive in a free-market economy, without the need to exploit money-extraction tactics. ^*

Taker businesses versus maker businesses

Notice that maker businesses attract a significant flow of money from customers in many distant locations, without losing much of value.

In contrast, non-maker businesses, which include taker businesses, do not attract much money from distant customers.  In fact they get most of their money from customers who are local, within the city or state.

This difference means that money needs to pass through at least one maker business before it reaches a non-maker business.

In turn, this insight reveals that nurturing maker businesses will increase economic prosperity for everyone.  This everyone includes both employees and business owners in other businesses.

Let's look at how city and state governments can nurture the growth of all maker businesses, not just the big ones that get special tax breaks.

Solution:  Reduce taxes on small maker businesses

The simple way to help maker businesses grow is to give a tax credit to small maker businesses.

Large maker businesses are excluded because they already get special tax breaks that are arranged each time they plan to expand or move.  Those special tax breaks are not available to small maker businesses.  That's because politicians tend to ignore the owners of small maker businesses.  In turn, this oversight occurs because small-business owners do not give big campaign contributions.

Let's call this special tax credit a “makerbiz” tax credit.  Here's a look at how the tax credit works, how it compares to existing tax breaks, and why it will increase economic prosperity.

Economic advantages of the “makerbiz” tax credit

Governments can, and should, nurture small maker businesses through something like a “makerbiz” tax credit.

This nurturing is analogous to what our distant ancestors learned to do when they tended herds and flocks of goats, sheep, and chickens.  They wisely chose to more often kill and cook mature males.  This protection of young animals and fertile females yielded bigger herds and flocks.  Capturing and killing younger animals and pregnant females is easier, but easier is not always wiser for the future.

Governments already understand the importance of giving tax breaks to farmers and ranchers who wisely nurture immature crops and immature animals against harsh conditions.  Now it's time for governments to understand the difference between “maker” businesses and “taker” businesses, and to nurture maker businesses while they are small and vulnerable.  This nurturing will help small maker businesses grow into larger mature maker businesses.  We shouldn't wait until then to arrange lower tax rates for the maker businesses that attract much more money into a state compared to taker businesses.

Under current election conditions, the owners of taker businesses are likely to claim they too sell to distant customers, and they too make something that some customers will pay lots of money for, and that yielding faster economic gains is better than something that only slowly yields future gains.  Yet these views are short-sighted.

This short-sightedness is why adopting a better vote-counting system is so important.  Our current election system elects state legislators and members of Congress who must continually do what their biggest campaign contributors tell them to do, or else risk getting replaced by a more obedient special-interest puppet in the next primary election.

When our elected representatives can resist being pushed by short-sighted campaign contributors, our elected representatives will be free to adopt the makerbiz tax credit.  Then maker businesses will be less burdened by oppressive tax rates, they can more easily grow by adding well-paid employees, and widespread prosperity will increase.

Why will the prosperity be widespread?  Because adding well-paid employees to a maker business also increases the number of customers of other businesses.  As explained at the beginning, most of us are customers and business owners and employees.  We are all interconnected!

Summary

Here's a list that summarizes the three reforms described above.

Summary of reforms that will increase widespread economic prosperity

Notice these reforms do not involve any bias for, or against, either the Republican party or the Democratic party.

The first reform gives voters more control of both political parties.  The second reform reduces business taxes for businesses that reduce the wage gap within their business.  And the third reform reduces business taxes for small maker businesses the are essential for increasing a region's overall economic prosperity.

The result of adopting these three reforms will be dramatically increased economic prosperity across all business types.  Remember that profits increase when more people have more money with which to buy what each business sells, and less money is exported out of the local economy.

As a big extra bonus, these suggested legal reforms also will bring widespread increases in happiness.  Why?  Because we will have: lower consumer prices, higher wages, lower individual tax rates, more time and money available for entertainment, fewer financial hardships, less emotional suffering, less physical suffering, less crime, less homelessness, less exposure to toxins, fewer deaths, fewer disabilities, less environmental destruction, fewer extinctions, and less-drastic climate change.

^* Clarifications

Author bias:  I, the author, admit to being biased against both the Republican party and the Democratic party, and against any other specific political party.  I switch my political-party registration between the Republican and Democratic parties so I can influence at least one of the two dominant parties.  I am biased against corruption in the healthcare industry, and against unethical tactics that many businesses use to extract extra money from customers and employees.  I am not a fan of labor unions, yet I recognize that currently they are needed to counterbalance flaws in our primitive election system and our primitive political system.  Otherwise I am both pro-business and pro-employee.  At least briefly I have experienced being a: corporate CEO, commodity trader, landlord, trustee, estate executor, homeless person, manual laborer, hardware-store clerk, handyman, auto mechanic, electronics technician, physics major, grad student, atmospheric scientist, software developer, technical writer, author, internationally known creative problem solver, election-method expert, neighborhood organizer, and dance instructor.  Fairness is very important to me, and that priority led me to become “the VoteFair guy.”

Biggest political fight:  Of course the characterization of politics as a fight between business owners and the majority of voters is simplistic.  Most voters actually are on both sides as a result of being a shareholder, being an employee, and being a customer of many different businesses.  The two sides are not separate.  As a result, most of us vote for candidates who hurt us economically.

Business owners versus customers versus employees:  Henry Ford recognized, and fueled, this feedback loop.  He chose to pay his workers well so they could afford to by his cars.  This tactic significantly increased his personal income.

Biggest campaign contributors:  As evidence that the biggest fight in politics is between business owners and the majority of voters, the biggest campaign contributions typically come from owners (including shareholders) of the businesses listed in the left column in the first list.  Specifically, the people who give the most money to members of Congress are in these industries: finance, insurance, real estate, health, lawyers, communications and electronics, energy and natural resources, construction, agribusiness, transportation, and defense.  Notice many of these businesses involve lots of interactions with government at the city, state, and national level.  All the biggest campaign contributors oppose what most voters want.  If they didn't, they wouldn't waste their money trying to control election results.  The owners of many other kinds of businesses, especially smaller ones, also give campaign contributions, but the total amount of their contributions is much smaller.

Both parties:  These biggest campaign contributions go to both Republican candidates and Democratic candidates.  Specifically the money goes to whichever candidates demonstrate a willingness to protect the money-extraction tactics that allow these business owners to earn extra profits, beyond what the business would earn in a free-market economy.

OpenSecrets.org:  The website at OpenSecrets.org tracks the campaign contributions to members of U.S. Congress.  This data has a clear pattern of each industry giving money to both the Republican and Democratic parties.  Some industries split according to internal conflicts.  For example, banks and credit unions are both in the financial industry, but banks tend to prefer Republican candidates and credit unions tend to prefer Democratic candidates.

Political ads:  Lots of voters are influenced by political ads, yet they do not have as much influence as many people believe.  Under current conditions, a typical general election is a choice between two candidates who would never have reached the general election if both the Republican and Democratic parties were controlled by voters instead of the biggest campaign contributors.  Also, third-party candidates will lose some of their appeal when we get better Republican and Democratic candidates.

One nominee per party:  The blocking tactic exploits the fact that each party nominates only one candidate.  This limit arose because a party that offered two candidates almost always lost to the party that offered just one candidate.  This unexpected result, which is called “vote splitting,” occurs because the candidate with the most votes is not necessarily the most popular candidate.^*  Only if a candidate also gets more than half the votes is that candidate the most popular.

“Spoiler” candidate:  The presence of a “spoiler” candidate is not what spoils an election.  What spoils the election is the use of a primitive vote-counting system that can change the winner just by adding a candidate who is not popular enough to win.

Second nominee:  Another advantage of a second nominee from the same party is that conditions can change between the primary and general election.  In particular, the opposite party's candidate cannot automatically win by promoting scandalous news about the first nominee.  Also it eliminates the motivation to cause harm to a single nominee, which increases resistance to authoritarianism.

Third parties:  Lots of voters assume that both the Republican party and the Democratic party cannot be reformed so they favor third-party candidates.  This belief is supported by observing the election results in Europe where it is easier for third-party candidates to get elected.  Eventually it will become practical for the United States to adopt some well-chosen elements of those election systems, and that will increase the number of third-party candidates in Congress and state legislatures.  However, those well-chosen elements won't become practical until we have first adopted ranked choice ballots and better vote-counting methods for use in electing mayors and governors.

Open primaries:  Lots of voters want “open primaries” because those voters don't want to be affiliated with any political party.  During a primary election those voters only get to vote on candidates running for non-partisan offices (such as judges and maybe city-council members).  This limitation reduces voter turnout for primary elections.  Yet our current system of closed primary elections also has advantages.  During general elections the party affiliation of each candidate is included on the ballot and becomes very useful information for voters who don't have time to memorize the names of “good” and “bad” candidates.  This advantage will become even more important in the future when voters will need to also mark their second choice, third choice, and so on.  Another advantage of closed primaries is they provide a meaningful way for a political party to measure the relative popularity of specific candidates within their party.  This information is essential for keeping the “party platform” well-matched to the voters who are registered in that party.

Statewide seats:  If a ballot doesn't ask the voter for a favorite party, the party of the highest-ranked candidate can be used for these calculations.

Affordability of campaign contributions:  Our existing vote-counting system makes it very affordable for business owners to control both the Republican and Democratic parties.  For each dollar a business owner contributes to help a politician get elected, often the business earns at least 10 or 20 dollars through their favorite money-extraction tactics.  When any politician attempts to reform any unfair law, the affected business owners cut off future campaign contributions to that politician and shift their support to a puppet-like politician in the next primary election.

Socialism:  Understandably some business owners fear that lots of voters want socialism.  Actually socialism advocates are more concerned about ending the money-extraction tactics listed in the first list.  These extraction tactics are what allow “the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer.”  Ending these money-extraction tactics will yield better-paying jobs and more-affordable consumer products and services.  That's what nearly everyone really wants.  Yes there will always be a few people who blindly advocate socialism, or advocate a “universal basic income,” but they comprise only a small minority of voters.

Capitalism:  The word “capitalism” has multiple meanings, and typically is used by different people in different contexts.  For example, sometimes one person defends capitalism as good while another person attacks capitalism as bad.  In such cases it's more meaningful to specify which aspects of capitalism are being defended and which aspects are being attacked.  As a simple example, is public education part of capitalism or a part of socialism?  When the federal government declares a region to be a disaster zone, that means that taxpayer money becomes available to pay for insurance claims.  Is this use of taxpayer money an example of socialism stepping in when a capitalistic insurance company can't afford to pay insurance claims?  Or is the sharing of the disaster-recovery cost an example of socialism?

Presidential elections:  U.S. presidential elections involve lots of complications beyond the ones in city and state elections.  What's worth understanding is that eventually presidential elections will use a better vote-counting system, and that change can be done without amending the U.S. Constitution.  However these reforms won't become possible until ranked choice ballots are used in more state elections.  Also worth understanding is that the “interstate compact” that some states have already adopted will not work as intended when there are more than two popular candidates.

Counting ranked choice ballots:  Fortunately voters do not need to understand the counting details beyond whether or not the voter is allowed to rank two or more candidates at the same choice level.  Better software will allow these marks, and will correctly count these marks.  For now multiple counts in the same choice column are called “overvotes” and they have to be avoided because currently certified software does not count them in a way that matches the voter's intent.

Unfair results using ranked choice ballots:  There have been two elections in the United States where ranked choice ballots were used and the wrong candidate was elected.  These were a special election in Alaska, and a mayoral election in Burlington Vermont.  The mistake was caused by counting software that assumes the candidate with the fewest “transferred votes” is always the least popular candidate.  This mistake is easy to remedy by eliminating “pairwise losing candidates” when they occur.  A pairwise losing candidate is a candidate who would lose every one-on-one competition against every other remaining candidate.  Even better ways to count ranked choice ballots will become available after more voters learn about advanced vote-counting methods.

Money versus votes:  After adopting ranked choice ballots, wealthy business owners will still have some extra influence because they will buy advertising, but they will have less excessive influence because they will no longer be able to exploit vote-splitting tactics.

Patent law:  If a small business sues a large manufacturing business for patent infringement, the suit has to request stopping the manufacturing process, which allows the large business to counter-sue to request that the smaller business put money into an escrow account to cover the cost of paying assembly-line employees to be idle in case the smaller business loses the lawsuit.  The escrow cost will bankrupt the small business.  As a separate factor, a large business typically doesn't understand how to identify and hire inventors, which makes it harder for many large businesses to design innovative products and features.

Sugar:  On the commodity market, sugar number 11 is the global sugar price and sugar number 16 is the U.S. sugar price.  The U.S. price is always significantly higher than the global price.  Sugar cane is grown in Florida where federal subsidies pay for the canals that make this growing possible.  Farming sugar cane is not very profitable, but the lack of competition on the global market allows sugar refining and related businesses to earn very high profits.  The money spent on canals reduces the money available for other priorities.  In the past, two brothers in Florida owned sugar processing businesses, one brother registered as a Republican and gave campaign contributions to Republican candidates, and the other brother registered as a Democrat and gave campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.  This is a clear example of the pattern that the same biggest campaign contributors control both political parties.

Stevia:  Stevia does not work as a replacement for sugar in baking recipes.

Healthcare and health insurance:  Ideally voters would like elected representatives in Congress to rely on the same healthcare system the rest of us use.  That would motivate them to quickly reform our healthcare system.

Affordable housing:  Real estate developers favor whatever gives them the highest profit when a property sells.  This bias favors large houses.  This bias intentionally limits affordable housing options such as lower-cost houses, duplexes, studio apartments, and “dwelling units” built next to an existing house.  The resulting shortage of more-affordable housing options inflates prices for all housing options.

Banks versus credit unions:  Banks tend to favor Republican politicians, and credit unions tend to favor Democratic politicians.  Their fight is superimposed on the political left-versus-right conflict.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP):  Economists often use GDP to measure economic prosperity.  However, GDP measures transfers of money without recognizing that some money transfers measure the consequences of undesirable events, such as paying funeral expenses and cleaning up oil spills.  Also, some money transfers are not productive, such as when one business contracts with another business for the purpose of avoiding taxes, protecting against lawsuits, or exploiting employment loopholes.

Healthy results:  Another weakness of traditional modern medicine is a heavy emphasis on death rates, and much less emphasis on quality of life.  Partially this occurs because death rates are easier to measure.  Also, doctors and pharmaceutical companies refer to death rates when they discuss cancer treatments because those treatments do not “cure” cancer.

Obama and Clinton political agendas:  Hillary Clinton promoted reforms that would have decreased the profits of some businesses.  That's why some Republican campaign contributors blocked her by paying for ads in favor of Obama.  Barack Obama's campaign slogan of “hope and change,” implied he was going to adopt more reforms than the Republican candidate (John McCain), but various tactics (which unfortunately included death threats) were used to block the intended reforms.

Crime:  In addition to less tax revenue to pay for law enforcement, the unfair laws that support money-extraction and wage-suppression tactics cause some people to believe that “laws aren't fair,” which reduces respect for laws, which increases crime.  Also consider that people with less money tend to be hungry, cold, and angry, and these conditions cause these citizens to believe they won't lose much by resorting to robbery and other threat-based crimes, which often lead to violence.

Tax the rich:  Some voters promote the idea of “tax the rich” without realizing that a business owner can avoid such individual tax increases by arranging for their business to own a vacation home, yacht, or luxury cars.  Also there's a tendency to forget that some wealthy people, such as comedian Stephen Colbert, deserve to be wealthy because they have developed valuable skills and use these skills to benefit many people.  (Laughing at the craziness of politics makes the world a happier place.)  A better method of taxation is to increase taxes on businesses that do what we want less of, and reduce taxes on businesses that do what we want more of.  These business tax reforms will better target business owners who deserve less wealth, and give tax breaks to business owners who benefit many, many people.

“Trickle down” economics:  Wealthy people often claim that increases in income to wealthy people will trickle down to people who are less wealthy.  This claim ignores the importance of lateral (sideways) flows of money to other states.  Money that flows out of state is an economic loss.  In contrast, money that trickles down and stays in the same state will help that state's economy.

Business tax breaks:  Governments also give huge tax breaks to farms and ranches because they are so essential to economic strength.

“NAICS” (North American Industry Classification System) code numbers:  The first two digits of these numbers indicate a general category.  The categories that include some codes that can qualify for the makerbiz tax credit include categories 23, 31, 32, 33, 51, 54, 71, 72, and 81.  Categories 11 and 21 already get tax credits.  Categories that do not deserve the makerbiz tax credits are categories 22, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53, 56, 91, and 92.  Additional information about the business is needed if the code is in one of the remaining categories.

Free market:  We as voters want something closer to a “free market,” which economists refer to as “perfect competition”.  The academic term for extracting extra money from our wallets is “abnormal profit.”  From a different perspective, dictators retain control by not allowing a free market, which is part of why they fight against democracy.

Carrot versus stick:  The reforms recommended here do not involve attacking or punishing people or businesses for doing what we want less of.  Instead the reforms operate more efficiently by financially rewarding businesses for doing what we want more of.

Working remotely:  Although some big-city politicians would like business executives to force more of their employees to work from downtown offices more often, this perspective is an example of trying to fix a problem at the symptom of the problem.  Instead, the best place to solve a problem is at the root of the problem.

Guns, artificial intelligence, drones:  These technologies are tools.  As with any tool, including hammers and spray paint, they can be used for good, or used for bad.  It's the use of a tool, not the tool itself, that is good or bad.

Homelessness and immigration:  There are many causes of homelessness, so there is no simple solution to this problem.  Yet there is less homelessness when the local economy is prosperous.  That's because prosperity for businesses typically leads to hiring more employees, which makes it easier for some people to lift themselves out of desperate situations, which at least reduces competition among the remaining people living in desperate situations.  If a local economy reduces homelessness through increased prosperity, homeless people from other locations will move to that more prosperous location.  When a nation gains increased prosperity, citizens who are living in desperate situations in other nations always try to move to the prosperous nation.  The amount of illegal immigration will depend on the difference in prosperity and living conditions in the two nations.  The more desperate people become, the more risks they take, and the more willing they are to violate laws.

Marketing wisdom:  The business book titled Building A Story Brand: Clarify your message so customers will listen by Donald Miller explains marketing tactics that are based on promoting products and services that honestly benefit customers.  In contrast, many popular marketing tactics are based on inflated promises and viewing customers as a source of money to be exploited.

Business wisdom:  The business books written by Clayton Christensen, who was a Harvard Business School professor, explain how businesses can earn lots of money without resorting to the kinds of money-extraction tactics listed above.

(version 2023-Sept-23)

© Copyright 2023 by Richard Fobes at VoteFair.org.
Permission to exactly and fully copy and re-publish this full article with no changes and no additions is hereby granted.
All other rights are reserved.