One person one vote is not a good/democratic solution if the voters are totally
dependent on a media owned by the establishment in forming
their opinions.
Eva
> At a local monthly discussion group in which Arts funding was a recent
> topic, I got an idea which may be "new". If any know of similiar ideas,
> please pass along links/references.
>
> Populist, deep-democracy values would seem to mesh with the idea of one
> person, one vote. Subsidies like grants from the National Endowment for
> the Arts (US) require a panel which screens applicants "worthiness" in
> general and sometimes specifically re proposed projects/works. This is open
> to elitist and power game criticisms, as well as cultural biases.
>
> If the screening process was changed to a licensing process in which each
> art form set minimal standards (musical, theater, film, creative writing,
> painting/sculpture, etc) for registration, and registration gave one the
> ability to cash in vouchers used by the public to enjoy the arts, a fairer
> system might result.
>
> Sure the vouchers, equally distributed among all people, could be traded
> like food stamps for less than face value in cash, but all would ultimately
> end up in the hands of registered artists. This *might* get the
> establishment out of the dominant position they currently hold in the US
> and similiar systems.
>
> Problems, sure. Better, maybe. Comments?
>
> Steve
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
