We Vote with Our Dollars at One Vote per Dollar

We rank talk radio hosts according to their number of listeners.  We count a rich listener as one, and we count a poor listener as one.  Hence, whether a person is either rich or poor, he represents only one listener.  We do not rank talk show host by how much money listeners spend on the products/services advertised on the station’s airwaves.  However, radio ads/spots are valued according to the number of listeners that a particular talk show host has amassed.  Hence, we have a level playing field.  A rich listener is equivalent to a poor listener.

We base the dollar amount that advertisers pay for radio ads/spots on a particular talk show host’s radio show according to total listenership.  The more listeners he has, the higher the cost for ads/spots on that show.

Now, a rich listener can spend either all of his money on advertised products/services or, if he is an advertiser, all of his radio ads/spots money into a conservative talk-radio station or a liberal talk-radio station.  He has total freedom of choice as to where he puts his money.  However, his listening to the station counts only as one listener for that talk show host!  On the other hand, a poor or un-wealthy listener can spend all of his money on advertised products/services on either a conservative talk-radio station or a liberal talk-radio station.  Likewise, he has freedom of choice as to where he spends his money.  If he is very poor with no discretionary funds, he does not spend any money at all!

This is where the $1.00 one vote comes into play.  Generally, rich people spend more money than poor people on radio-advertised products/services mainly because they have the means to do so.  Rich peoples’ votes, i.e., $1.00 per vote, earn more money for advertisers than do the poor peoples’ votes.  That only stands to reason.  Hence, no matter what the listenership is for a radio station (whether conservative or liberal), if the listenership spends more money on one than the other, that is where the advertisers will invest their advertising money.  Hence, a station with a higher listenership may bring in lower revenues for the advertisers than a station with a lower listenership and vice versa.  Therefore, the economic playing field is level here also.

A friend made the statement, “A commercial endeavor is not a democracy, so the vote analogy is not accurate.  In a free economy, those that earn more get to spend more, those who do not, don’t.”  My friend makes a true statement here.  Now, when you just speak of pure listenership, a rich person is one listener, which is equivalent to a poor person (again one listener).  Hence, the playing field is level.  This is democracy in action because these listeners have their freedom of choice as to what talk show host they would rather listen.

Another friend makes the statement, “When you say that one dollar is equivalent to one vote, it means that a person with $10 will get 10 votes.  But a person with $.50 will get a half a vote.  I was hoping that democracy could do better than that.”  You bet!  If a person works harder and makes more money than another person, he has more economic votes than someone with lesser means.  However, note that this economic vote is not the same as a listenership vote.  The listenership vote is one vote per listener.  However, in purchasing products/services, if you have more money, you have the right and purchasing power to buy more than can people of lesser means.

What we allude to here in the above statement is what the rascals in Congress are attempting to do, which is to take from the rich (through higher taxes) to give to the poor (handouts) to level out the economic playing field.  That is pure socialism, which is what some of the progressives are pushing.  I cannot and will not stand for that approach to “democracy”!  Handouts, entitlements, and quotas are not the democratic way to level the economic playing field.  It is a socialistic way to level the economic playing field.  A better way to level the economic playing field is through education, instilling the puritan work ethic, self-discipline, sacrifice, and responsibility.  Above all, getting people off their lazy butts and motivating them to do something productive, constructive, and value-adding so that they can be proud of their accomplishments.  Self-respect follows.

Now, when you speak about commercial endeavors (as are the radio stations and advertisers), listeners (whether rich or poor) vote with their dollars at $1.00 per vote.  They vote on the products/services advertised on radio spots during a talk radio host’s show.  Again, they have their freedom of choice as to where they put their dollars (i.e., votes).  Likewise for advertisers who put their advertising dollars where they receive the greatest return on investment (ROI), which is again according to one dollar per vote.  Hence, the bottom line to all of this is that we also have a level playing field in a free economy.  If we force advertisers to place their money in one station over another, then we really do not have freedom and liberty; instead, we have a totalitarian state.  Therefore, I say, let the free market determine both listenership and where people vote with their dollars.

###