Buying votes outright with your own money is illegal. I can't say I'd give you $1K to vote for me and then write a check. But I can promise to give you $1K after I've been elected and pay you with taxpayer money. Watch both of the big US presidential campaigns and you'll see one overt pitch after another to various population segments.
Political campaigning is the ultimate marketing project. Splice up the population into manageable voting blocks based on whatever demographic characteristics you think you can efficiently exploit. Then go about shamelessly promising them whatever they want to hear.
You'll hear nonsense catering to unions about stifling free trade. There'll be talk of giving seniors more prescription drug benefits. And of course it makese a ton of sense to promise EVERYONE energy "tax credits", in the form of $1,000 by Obama. What a great way to promise a little something to everyone...no need to offend a minority group. [Note I put "tax credit" in parenthesis since ~ 40 million Americans will receive a direct subsidy since they don't pay taxes in the first place].
Buying votes is shameful, but that's the natural devolution of politics in an unconstrained Democracy. Society needs to be strong enough to say there are limits to government scope of authority and such gifts from the public treasury are illegal.
Hell yes--i don't plan on using it anyway--it seems like democracy has become passe. its about celebrity, power and money (maybe it always has been, but it seems to have evolved to a vulgar sport).
If some dweeb pencil-pushing bureaucrat wasn't lying in the weeds to arrest me I'd do it, thank you very much.
Osama, McCain, doesn't really matter...
it's likely that other people would be offered a similar incentive as well. Given the disenfranchisement of many voters, along with someone else's previous answer, I could see $1000 swaying many people. Given the approximate $65 million cash on hand that Obama has, or $30 million for McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/), that lets either one buy tens of thousands of votes without having to campaign for them. At that point it begins to matter whether an individual would sell his or her vote.
This is a timely post as I am dealing with some financial drought right now. After our kids were born my wife had planned to return to work when the youngest started the first grade. That was a year ago. Two years ago she was diagnosed with a progressive chronic disease called fibromyalgia. It causes her much pain and in fact has led her into depression. During that time I was also diagnosed with a progressive disease, Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes. We have spent quite a bit of money trying to find something that works to reduce my wife's pain. She has seen traditional doctors, holistic doctors ( not covered by insurance ), and now a psychiatrist and a psychologist and acupuncturist. Things are getting better ( but she is still in pain ) but at this point she is not able to work while our medical expenses have increased considerably.
We are trying to figure it all out but I have the sinking feeling that we're not going to make it financially.
When a candidate spends 3 gazillion dollars on campaigns making shiny promises to me... Rubbing me the right way so that I am lead to believe that if he wins, I will get all those great benefits, my taxes will magically evaporate, my life will just be awesome...
"The People" still don't get the overall idea that voting is for what's best for the country and not what's best for you.
Extreme example:
Candidate Johnarack Obacain promises that all residents of New Montana state will pay no tax and even get a $5k bonus every year. But at the same time, he will raise the taxes of all the other states to compensate. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that most New Montana residents will vote Obacain while all other people will vote against him.
We vote for whoever benefits us the most. That is, in my opinion, a form of bribery already.
Only difference is that we don't get the payout.
Kinda like you're being offered a large sum of money to vote for a party (as suggested in this article)... and after you vote... you get no money... in fact, you don't get anything... and you're often worst off than before the vote...
So to answer the question: Yes, but pay first. (Checks need to clear before vote is taken. Will only accept payment from a CONFIRMED Paypal account. Don't try to bribe me from Nigeria, I don't care if you're uncle has $56,000,000 locked in an account)
I live in California so at least as far as my Presidential, Senate and Congressional votes go, my vote means nothing. Whether I vote democrate or republican, Democrats will win these elections here. So what do I care? Bidding starts at 1 dollar... :-(
...to the Highest Bidder but its only Legal if you are an Elected Politician and the only people allowed to be Buyers are callled "Lobbiests".
Face it...would you give up a Multi-Million Dollar a year job to work for a couple of Hundred Thousand as President, Vice-President, Cabinet Member, etc. unless after your term the people you did vote/legislative favors for paid you back with "jobs" that made the Multi-Million Dollar Salary look like peanuts.
The Clintons are now worth How Many Tens of Millions???
The reality is that votes are being bought ALL the time by politicians. One example is Obama's plan to give seniors making less than $50000 a complete and total tax break. If that's not policy to target a group of people for their votes then I don't know what is.
No, not ever, never. Not for any amount of money. I also refuse to believe that my vote doesn't count. Crazy question. Reminds of all the conversations when "Indecent Proposal" came out. We all agreed we would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Of course most of us agreed we'd sleep with Robert Redford for free though so it wasn't really a valid argument, but I digress...I'd never sell my vote.
all i know is that neither the GOP or the DEMS talk about the economy in real life terms, we just had another bank to fail. That’s makes 10
its about my pocket – im sorry
@ Julie
It's great that your son is so generous. I'd much rather have a problem of someone wanting to give too much money away, rather than spending too much. Keep encouraging him to start saving for the future as well as giving.
Wouldn't ever. Reminds me of Upton Sinclair's the Jungle, where votes were bought and kept the elite in power. A couple of notes on this hypothetical (and assuming that the bribe was of any significant amount of money):
1. You have to wonder who would want your vote so badly that they would pay that. What are they so afraid of?
2. You would have to consider what kind of power a voter would have that all the dirty politics in the world couldn't muster the same effect as buying your valuable vote. When you have something that money can't buy -- you better hold on to it.
3. I wonder how many people pondering this hypothetical CAN vote, but haven't even taken the time to register. For many, it is a vapid point. For the others, like you, they would love the chance to, but can't. That which we obtain easily we often esteem lightly...
Thanks for the discussion... although I still wouldn't sell myself or my vote. :)
I would sell my vote because it doesn't mean much to the elections. If I were a member of the electoral college, however, I wouldn't sell my vote because then it would have some meaning.
Even in the times of The Great Depression, millions made it through. I take comfort in FDR's inauguration speech that addressed this Nation's serious problems back then and use it as inspiration for our much less serious financial times now. That post "Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself" at http://shanelyang.com/2008/04/24/nothing-to-fear-but-fear-itself/ provides additional helpful tips on how best to deal with these times, including a summary of the key concept in the bestselling self help book "Who Moved My Cheese?" Good luck, All! : )
It's great when you say "Even when you're negatively saving towards whatever it is you want" and all the other stuff you said. It helped me see that the plans I have to revitalize my home are only dead if I let them die. I just happen to be currently negatively saving, HA! I love it.
I'm usually a very optimistic person but I had all but moved into the basement of a friend's house with my ruminations about how this "drought" would play out on my cash flow. This article basically is telling me "snap out of it!".
wildgift,
The big thing about hacking the machines is how do you actually pull it off?
Do you do it in transit between the voting booth and the central voting office? If that's the case, it's not much different than throwing away paper ballots for a particular party. In such a case, there is no possible way to prevent fraud whether it be electronically or paper.
Do you do it at the machine itself? This seems really difficult. You will need some sort of access to the machine (which should be locked away from the touch monitor anyways). If you do get access to the machine, you need to hack it without anybody noticing. I'm not sure how it is everywhere else, but when I voted over the last several years, I got this little cubical like thing. It protected people from looking at my votes from the side but the voting people could still see my back. The most I ever got was a little curtain that covered from about the waist up. Being able to connect any equipment to a machine (which again, should be at least locked away a small distance away from the monitor) would draw attention. Now if you got your own little voting room that is away from everyone, then you might have an easier time pulling a hack off, but that's not how it is here.
I don't see any other ways to access the machines unless they are connected to the internet or a network (which they shouldn't be in the first place in my opinion).
All they need to do is have a basic database system with no access to any network and above standard security. The physical machine needs to be located in a separate area (even as simple as a locked metal box with only a hole for the monitor cable). Then at the time of the polls closing, they need to be able to unlock the box, put the hard drives in a new machine which will print out the total results for that precinct as well as save the results to a DVD. This way with 3 separate "paper trails" that they can spot discrepancies in the results and possible hacks that might occur between the voting booth and the central voting office. The only possible hacks could occur by the voting personnel during the transfer of Hard Drives and even this could be solved by locking mechanisms which don't release except when inserted into the master machine via mechanical means rather than electronic means.
Another great solution would be to use a write-only media such as a DVD-R. This way, no data can be deleted, only inputted. Than, the data can at least be cross checked with the number of people who actually walked into the voting center. If there was an extra 1000 votes, than a re-vote can be issued or something similar.
No plan is perfect, but this would be as good or better than paper ballots. If you think only in computer terms, than anything can be hacked, but when you think in more mechanical terms (like restricting access to the machine or using write-only media) than it opens up a lot more accountability.
It has been a stressful week for the consumers of UK energy due to the rising wholesale price of both gas and electricity. On Thursday, Aug. 21st, two of the “Big 6” energy suppliers announced consumer price hikes for monthly energy bills. The rising cost of energy brings into question how households are going to cope now that inflation in the UK is nearing 5% across the board.
The rising bills have also begun to hamper the Bank of England’s efforts to control this inflation, leaving the cost of living at nearly double the official target. E.ON announced a 26% increase in the price of gas as well as a 16% increase in the price of electricity, both effective August 22nd. Following suit was SSE, Scottish & Southern Energy, who announced a 19.2% increase in the price of electricity and a 29.2% increase in the price of gas to take effect August 25th. SSE is the #2 supplier of energy in the UK, with their 8.8 million customers seeing an average rise of £253, averaging £1259 per year with the current rate increase.
Both E.ON and SSE blame the staggering price swell by the rise of wholesale energy prices, which have experienced a 50% increase in the price of gas and 60% increase in the price of electricity between February and July 2008. According to E.ON’s managing director of retail the astounding increase in the price consumers will be paying, “was not an easy decision to make and we’ve tried to keep these increases as low as possible while protecting as many customers as we can.”
The drastic price inflation of the cost of energy is the result of a decrease in overall supply. A leak in a North Sea located pipeline linking Norway’s Kvitebjoern field to an onshore processing plant, caused the pipeline to be shut for repairs. Norway’s oil/gas producer Statoli Hydro stated the pipeline might remain shut until early spring. This devastating supply decrease coupled with the UK’s lack of gas storage makes consumers that much more vulnerable to price fluctuations. In addition, the widespread opinion that hydrocarbons, such as gas, are a scarce resource has fostered more intense competition for supplies worldwide.
The change in prices announced by E.ON and SSE was preceded by the record breaking 35% increases to the price of gas announced by British Gas just last month. Similarly, energy provider EDF, upped prices by 22% for gas and 17% for electric. With these increases last month, and the recent price hikes of E.ON and SSE, there are only two energy providers remaining who have yet to announce any alterations to consumer prices. However, the general consensus is that Scottish Power and Npower will soon follow suit. SSE’s Energy Supply Director, Alistair Phillips-Davies commented, “The world is experiencing an energy shock of a kind not seen since the early 1970’s, but which is likely to have more profound and lasting consequences."
With nearly 19% of UK households likely to be considered in fuel poverty this winter, consumers are left to make difficult decisions of what to do to decrease energy usage. Fuel poverty is defined as a household spending more than 10% of disposable income on fuel bills. Many of the energy suppliers have offered products at fixed or capped rate tariffs in the past. E.ON is the only company still offering its product at the old fixed rate. Price Protection 2009 will cost consumers approximately £1102.39 yearly, compared with the £1259 per year average. Alternatively, British Gas’ newly announced competitive fixed deal will guarantee stable prices through 2011, and will cost UK customers roughly £1240.19 per year.
Although British Gas’ fixed price plan is more expensive than E.ON’s current Price Protection 2009, consumers will be able to count on stable prices for the next 2 years. When deciding which direction to take, UK customers must decide what is a better option for them: gamble that the prices will not continue to rise in order to save money right now, or spend the additional income now in order to save on future price fluctuations. Arguments can be made for each eventuality, however the only right answer is the decision that you, the consumer, feel most comfortable with. Regardless of the decision made, it is definitely worth researching any and all possible energy plans, as well as finding ways to reduce the amount of energy consumed. Here are some tips on saving energy in order to help curb the affect these aggressive increases in energy will have on your household.
* Adjust your thermostat. The Energy Saving Trust states, decreasing the temperature setting by 1°C could yield a reduction of 10% on your heating bills.
* Use energy efficient light bulbs. The life of these light bulbs is around ten times longer than ordinary bulbs and can result in savings of £40 over the lifetime of the bulb.
* Fix leaking taps - a dripping hot water tap could waste enough energy in a week to fill half a bath so make sure it's turned off.
* Conserve by boiling only as much water as you need.
* Always turn lights off when leaving a room.
* Turn appliances off rather than leaving on standby. Also, do not leave electrical items to charge unnecessarily.
* Consider investing in a lagging jacket for hot water pipes and insulate pipes - this could pay for itself within a few months.
* Defrost freezers regularly and don't leave the fridge door open longer than necessary to ensure it runs efficiently.
* Consider investing in loft insulation as 25% of heat lost in a home disappears through lofts without it.
My first thought was that I'd only "sell" my vote to the party I wanted to vote for anyways. But then...if someone I supported was going around trying to buy votes, well, I wouldn't want to support them anymore. So maybe I'd "sell" my vote to someone I would never vote for, and then just vote the way I was going to anyway. Or are you saying they'd be in the voting booth with me?
I'm almost certainly going to vote for a write-in candidate, and that's been my feeling for many long months. Lots of people hear that and tell me I'm throwing my vote away anyway. So maybe my vote is the sort that ought to be bought, if any votes at all are to be bought.
In any case, it would have to be a *very* substantial sum of money (7 figures, at least) for me to even entertain the notion. I think I'd have to turn it down in the end though. Then I'd report the would-be vote buyer.
but not encouraging people to sell their vote either. It's illegal. I'm just asking the question...would you, and if so then for how much? Some people clearly would, others like yourself would not. It's a simple debate starter, like saying "would you kill Hitler before he rose to power, if you had the chance."
Buying votes outright with your own money is illegal. I can't say I'd give you $1K to vote for me and then write a check. But I can promise to give you $1K after I've been elected and pay you with taxpayer money. Watch both of the big US presidential campaigns and you'll see one overt pitch after another to various population segments.
Political campaigning is the ultimate marketing project. Splice up the population into manageable voting blocks based on whatever demographic characteristics you think you can efficiently exploit. Then go about shamelessly promising them whatever they want to hear.
You'll hear nonsense catering to unions about stifling free trade. There'll be talk of giving seniors more prescription drug benefits. And of course it makese a ton of sense to promise EVERYONE energy "tax credits", in the form of $1,000 by Obama. What a great way to promise a little something to everyone...no need to offend a minority group. [Note I put "tax credit" in parenthesis since ~ 40 million Americans will receive a direct subsidy since they don't pay taxes in the first place].
Buying votes is shameful, but that's the natural devolution of politics in an unconstrained Democracy. Society needs to be strong enough to say there are limits to government scope of authority and such gifts from the public treasury are illegal.
The August 3rd edition, of the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, has a great article on creating healthy and affordable school lunches for your kids.
http://www.sfgate.com
The article has tips, and recipes, to help you save money.
How much are you offering?
Hell yes--i don't plan on using it anyway--it seems like democracy has become passe. its about celebrity, power and money (maybe it always has been, but it seems to have evolved to a vulgar sport).
If some dweeb pencil-pushing bureaucrat wasn't lying in the weeds to arrest me I'd do it, thank you very much.
Osama, McCain, doesn't really matter...
it's likely that other people would be offered a similar incentive as well. Given the disenfranchisement of many voters, along with someone else's previous answer, I could see $1000 swaying many people. Given the approximate $65 million cash on hand that Obama has, or $30 million for McCain (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/), that lets either one buy tens of thousands of votes without having to campaign for them. At that point it begins to matter whether an individual would sell his or her vote.
This is a timely post as I am dealing with some financial drought right now. After our kids were born my wife had planned to return to work when the youngest started the first grade. That was a year ago. Two years ago she was diagnosed with a progressive chronic disease called fibromyalgia. It causes her much pain and in fact has led her into depression. During that time I was also diagnosed with a progressive disease, Type 1 (juvenile) diabetes. We have spent quite a bit of money trying to find something that works to reduce my wife's pain. She has seen traditional doctors, holistic doctors ( not covered by insurance ), and now a psychiatrist and a psychologist and acupuncturist. Things are getting better ( but she is still in pain ) but at this point she is not able to work while our medical expenses have increased considerably.
We are trying to figure it all out but I have the sinking feeling that we're not going to make it financially.
>>1947 – All states finally grant Native Americans the right to vote
I found this both comical and sad at the same time. Kinda like going into someone's house and barring them from having some of the dinner they cooked.
When a candidate spends 3 gazillion dollars on campaigns making shiny promises to me... Rubbing me the right way so that I am lead to believe that if he wins, I will get all those great benefits, my taxes will magically evaporate, my life will just be awesome...
"The People" still don't get the overall idea that voting is for what's best for the country and not what's best for you.
Extreme example:
Candidate Johnarack Obacain promises that all residents of New Montana state will pay no tax and even get a $5k bonus every year. But at the same time, he will raise the taxes of all the other states to compensate. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that most New Montana residents will vote Obacain while all other people will vote against him.
We vote for whoever benefits us the most. That is, in my opinion, a form of bribery already.
Only difference is that we don't get the payout.
Kinda like you're being offered a large sum of money to vote for a party (as suggested in this article)... and after you vote... you get no money... in fact, you don't get anything... and you're often worst off than before the vote...
So to answer the question: Yes, but pay first. (Checks need to clear before vote is taken. Will only accept payment from a CONFIRMED Paypal account. Don't try to bribe me from Nigeria, I don't care if you're uncle has $56,000,000 locked in an account)
I made a web-based calculator to estimate how much money can be saved by riding the bus instead of driving.
I live in California so at least as far as my Presidential, Senate and Congressional votes go, my vote means nothing. Whether I vote democrate or republican, Democrats will win these elections here. So what do I care? Bidding starts at 1 dollar... :-(
...to the Highest Bidder but its only Legal if you are an Elected Politician and the only people allowed to be Buyers are callled "Lobbiests".
Face it...would you give up a Multi-Million Dollar a year job to work for a couple of Hundred Thousand as President, Vice-President, Cabinet Member, etc. unless after your term the people you did vote/legislative favors for paid you back with "jobs" that made the Multi-Million Dollar Salary look like peanuts.
The Clintons are now worth How Many Tens of Millions???
~ Roland
The reality is that votes are being bought ALL the time by politicians. One example is Obama's plan to give seniors making less than $50000 a complete and total tax break. If that's not policy to target a group of people for their votes then I don't know what is.
No, not ever, never. Not for any amount of money. I also refuse to believe that my vote doesn't count. Crazy question. Reminds of all the conversations when "Indecent Proposal" came out. We all agreed we would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Of course most of us agreed we'd sleep with Robert Redford for free though so it wasn't really a valid argument, but I digress...I'd never sell my vote.
all i know is that neither the GOP or the DEMS talk about the economy in real life terms, we just had another bank to fail. That’s makes 10
its about my pocket – im sorry
@ Julie
It's great that your son is so generous. I'd much rather have a problem of someone wanting to give too much money away, rather than spending too much. Keep encouraging him to start saving for the future as well as giving.
Wouldn't ever. Reminds me of Upton Sinclair's the Jungle, where votes were bought and kept the elite in power. A couple of notes on this hypothetical (and assuming that the bribe was of any significant amount of money):
1. You have to wonder who would want your vote so badly that they would pay that. What are they so afraid of?
2. You would have to consider what kind of power a voter would have that all the dirty politics in the world couldn't muster the same effect as buying your valuable vote. When you have something that money can't buy -- you better hold on to it.
3. I wonder how many people pondering this hypothetical CAN vote, but haven't even taken the time to register. For many, it is a vapid point. For the others, like you, they would love the chance to, but can't. That which we obtain easily we often esteem lightly...
Thanks for the discussion... although I still wouldn't sell myself or my vote. :)
http://shop.jainsweb.com
check this website , they are giving you 4% back on your purchase as well as lists deals up to 90% off.
MUST SEE !!!
http://shop.jainsweb.com
check this website , they are giving you 4% back on your purchase as well as lists deals up to 90% off.
MUST SEE !!!
I would sell my vote because it doesn't mean much to the elections. If I were a member of the electoral college, however, I wouldn't sell my vote because then it would have some meaning.
Even in the times of The Great Depression, millions made it through. I take comfort in FDR's inauguration speech that addressed this Nation's serious problems back then and use it as inspiration for our much less serious financial times now. That post "Nothing to Fear but Fear Itself" at http://shanelyang.com/2008/04/24/nothing-to-fear-but-fear-itself/ provides additional helpful tips on how best to deal with these times, including a summary of the key concept in the bestselling self help book "Who Moved My Cheese?" Good luck, All! : )
It's great when you say "Even when you're negatively saving towards whatever it is you want" and all the other stuff you said. It helped me see that the plans I have to revitalize my home are only dead if I let them die. I just happen to be currently negatively saving, HA! I love it.
I'm usually a very optimistic person but I had all but moved into the basement of a friend's house with my ruminations about how this "drought" would play out on my cash flow. This article basically is telling me "snap out of it!".
Thanks.
wildgift,
The big thing about hacking the machines is how do you actually pull it off?
Do you do it in transit between the voting booth and the central voting office? If that's the case, it's not much different than throwing away paper ballots for a particular party. In such a case, there is no possible way to prevent fraud whether it be electronically or paper.
Do you do it at the machine itself? This seems really difficult. You will need some sort of access to the machine (which should be locked away from the touch monitor anyways). If you do get access to the machine, you need to hack it without anybody noticing. I'm not sure how it is everywhere else, but when I voted over the last several years, I got this little cubical like thing. It protected people from looking at my votes from the side but the voting people could still see my back. The most I ever got was a little curtain that covered from about the waist up. Being able to connect any equipment to a machine (which again, should be at least locked away a small distance away from the monitor) would draw attention. Now if you got your own little voting room that is away from everyone, then you might have an easier time pulling a hack off, but that's not how it is here.
I don't see any other ways to access the machines unless they are connected to the internet or a network (which they shouldn't be in the first place in my opinion).
All they need to do is have a basic database system with no access to any network and above standard security. The physical machine needs to be located in a separate area (even as simple as a locked metal box with only a hole for the monitor cable). Then at the time of the polls closing, they need to be able to unlock the box, put the hard drives in a new machine which will print out the total results for that precinct as well as save the results to a DVD. This way with 3 separate "paper trails" that they can spot discrepancies in the results and possible hacks that might occur between the voting booth and the central voting office. The only possible hacks could occur by the voting personnel during the transfer of Hard Drives and even this could be solved by locking mechanisms which don't release except when inserted into the master machine via mechanical means rather than electronic means.
Another great solution would be to use a write-only media such as a DVD-R. This way, no data can be deleted, only inputted. Than, the data can at least be cross checked with the number of people who actually walked into the voting center. If there was an extra 1000 votes, than a re-vote can be issued or something similar.
No plan is perfect, but this would be as good or better than paper ballots. If you think only in computer terms, than anything can be hacked, but when you think in more mechanical terms (like restricting access to the machine or using write-only media) than it opens up a lot more accountability.
It has been a stressful week for the consumers of UK energy due to the rising wholesale price of both gas and electricity. On Thursday, Aug. 21st, two of the “Big 6” energy suppliers announced consumer price hikes for monthly energy bills. The rising cost of energy brings into question how households are going to cope now that inflation in the UK is nearing 5% across the board.
The rising bills have also begun to hamper the Bank of England’s efforts to control this inflation, leaving the cost of living at nearly double the official target. E.ON announced a 26% increase in the price of gas as well as a 16% increase in the price of electricity, both effective August 22nd. Following suit was SSE, Scottish & Southern Energy, who announced a 19.2% increase in the price of electricity and a 29.2% increase in the price of gas to take effect August 25th. SSE is the #2 supplier of energy in the UK, with their 8.8 million customers seeing an average rise of £253, averaging £1259 per year with the current rate increase.
Both E.ON and SSE blame the staggering price swell by the rise of wholesale energy prices, which have experienced a 50% increase in the price of gas and 60% increase in the price of electricity between February and July 2008. According to E.ON’s managing director of retail the astounding increase in the price consumers will be paying, “was not an easy decision to make and we’ve tried to keep these increases as low as possible while protecting as many customers as we can.”
The drastic price inflation of the cost of energy is the result of a decrease in overall supply. A leak in a North Sea located pipeline linking Norway’s Kvitebjoern field to an onshore processing plant, caused the pipeline to be shut for repairs. Norway’s oil/gas producer Statoli Hydro stated the pipeline might remain shut until early spring. This devastating supply decrease coupled with the UK’s lack of gas storage makes consumers that much more vulnerable to price fluctuations. In addition, the widespread opinion that hydrocarbons, such as gas, are a scarce resource has fostered more intense competition for supplies worldwide.
The change in prices announced by E.ON and SSE was preceded by the record breaking 35% increases to the price of gas announced by British Gas just last month. Similarly, energy provider EDF, upped prices by 22% for gas and 17% for electric. With these increases last month, and the recent price hikes of E.ON and SSE, there are only two energy providers remaining who have yet to announce any alterations to consumer prices. However, the general consensus is that Scottish Power and Npower will soon follow suit. SSE’s Energy Supply Director, Alistair Phillips-Davies commented, “The world is experiencing an energy shock of a kind not seen since the early 1970’s, but which is likely to have more profound and lasting consequences."
With nearly 19% of UK households likely to be considered in fuel poverty this winter, consumers are left to make difficult decisions of what to do to decrease energy usage. Fuel poverty is defined as a household spending more than 10% of disposable income on fuel bills. Many of the energy suppliers have offered products at fixed or capped rate tariffs in the past. E.ON is the only company still offering its product at the old fixed rate. Price Protection 2009 will cost consumers approximately £1102.39 yearly, compared with the £1259 per year average. Alternatively, British Gas’ newly announced competitive fixed deal will guarantee stable prices through 2011, and will cost UK customers roughly £1240.19 per year.
Although British Gas’ fixed price plan is more expensive than E.ON’s current Price Protection 2009, consumers will be able to count on stable prices for the next 2 years. When deciding which direction to take, UK customers must decide what is a better option for them: gamble that the prices will not continue to rise in order to save money right now, or spend the additional income now in order to save on future price fluctuations. Arguments can be made for each eventuality, however the only right answer is the decision that you, the consumer, feel most comfortable with. Regardless of the decision made, it is definitely worth researching any and all possible energy plans, as well as finding ways to reduce the amount of energy consumed. Here are some tips on saving energy in order to help curb the affect these aggressive increases in energy will have on your household.
* Adjust your thermostat. The Energy Saving Trust states, decreasing the temperature setting by 1°C could yield a reduction of 10% on your heating bills.
* Use energy efficient light bulbs. The life of these light bulbs is around ten times longer than ordinary bulbs and can result in savings of £40 over the lifetime of the bulb.
* Fix leaking taps - a dripping hot water tap could waste enough energy in a week to fill half a bath so make sure it's turned off.
* Conserve by boiling only as much water as you need.
* Always turn lights off when leaving a room.
* Turn appliances off rather than leaving on standby. Also, do not leave electrical items to charge unnecessarily.
* Consider investing in a lagging jacket for hot water pipes and insulate pipes - this could pay for itself within a few months.
* Defrost freezers regularly and don't leave the fridge door open longer than necessary to ensure it runs efficiently.
* Consider investing in loft insulation as 25% of heat lost in a home disappears through lofts without it.
* Close curtains to stop heat from escaping.
My first thought was that I'd only "sell" my vote to the party I wanted to vote for anyways. But then...if someone I supported was going around trying to buy votes, well, I wouldn't want to support them anymore. So maybe I'd "sell" my vote to someone I would never vote for, and then just vote the way I was going to anyway. Or are you saying they'd be in the voting booth with me?
I'm almost certainly going to vote for a write-in candidate, and that's been my feeling for many long months. Lots of people hear that and tell me I'm throwing my vote away anyway. So maybe my vote is the sort that ought to be bought, if any votes at all are to be bought.
In any case, it would have to be a *very* substantial sum of money (7 figures, at least) for me to even entertain the notion. I think I'd have to turn it down in the end though. Then I'd report the would-be vote buyer.
but not encouraging people to sell their vote either. It's illegal. I'm just asking the question...would you, and if so then for how much? Some people clearly would, others like yourself would not. It's a simple debate starter, like saying "would you kill Hitler before he rose to power, if you had the chance."