First, I note that the betting exchanges have already developed most of the software to implement your concept.

As for the legal mechanics, I don't see any problems whatever. The privatized political parties simply decide that all ballots, or a proportion of the ballots (to allow for a firm Establishment hand on The Tiller of Statesmanship) are replaced by on-line contracts, one contract per voter. In order to use the on line exchange, each voter must visit party headquarters to register, with a photo ID and receive a unique PIN number. That should take care of most voter fraud, although there is some potential for hacking (using PIN worms). You can't stop progress on account of some background fraud...and The Public already accepts/ignores a much larger amount of Candidate Fraud without making a meaningful fuss at the ballot box.

I do see 2 potential problems, neither which is necessarily fatal.

Problem the First. The Advertising Lobby is going to hate it, since they lose out on lucrative primary adverts. On the other hand, The Candidates may need to be convinced that contracts for the Primaries + Adverts for the Election are actually cheaper than All ads all the time. (Actually I'm not entirely convinced that would be so).

Problem the second: The Public might suspect the costs will ultimately be passed on to them by higher prices for goods and services. Ultimately, the consumer pays for advertisements, possibly offset by increased information (hmmm...) or greased economics as dollars travel further and faster resulting in a multiplication effect (double hmmmm....). Same model applies to bribes.

I don't know the answers to those problems, but that's the beauty of having 50 state laboratories, and 50 states worth of citizen lab rats and Professional Economists in whatever they wear when they collect or make up data.

In closing, this primary vote buying concept would have made a great deadpan Bob and Ray routine *. I mention this because Bob Elliot died yesterday, or thereabouts, aged 92. So long Bob, say hey to Ray, and write if you get work in the aferlife.

PS, this column alone was worth my hefty yearly contribution :)

*
Interviewer: "How can employees live on just 13 cents per day?"

Guest: "We try not to pry into the private lives of our employees"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/wp-content/themes/wapo-blogs/inc/imrs.php?src=http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2016/01/clintondecider02.jpg&authapi-mob-redir=0&w=1200

Hillary is dodging sniper fire again!!! :D

heh

Michale

So, that means you would vote for Hillary.. :D

Michale

Just kidding Michale ;)

hehehehehe

Michale

I use postal voting - it literally takes minutes to think "Which way would Michale vote?" then do the opposite, slap a stamp on, sign and mail.

Just kidding Michale ;)

By preventing those buildings, office supplies, hours of work, and so on from being used to produce other stuff that people could benefit from. That's basically what money means.

(takes a look at the U.S. Constitution ...)

Amendment XXIV section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President ...

Hehehehehe..

It would be exactly like the Democrat Party 180 turnaround on the Citizens United ruling.. :D

All of the sudden, despite the initial "This will end our Democracy as we know it!!!", all of the sudden it's realized... "Hay, wait a minute. This is an awesome thing! We can USE this!!!"

But I gotta agree with Biga on this.. Mainly because it drives him hysterical batshit crazy when I do.. :D

Advertising execs and TV execs will be gunning for yor ass! :D

Michale

There are all sorts of issues with this non-serious proposal, but there is one that you should consider before all the others.

The media companies WILL have you shot.

As a writer, you could be risking your job security just for proposing it jokingly.

Tread carefully. I kind of like you.

A