Thanks for the clarification!

Which is, of course, why such activities have been made illegal (and the relevant laws are enforced ⚖️) in working democracies.

The expected utility for the voter, I suspect, is pretty good: A 1-in-50,000 chance of winning $1mm is equivalent to a 100% chance of winning $20.

If it works, you've cut out a HUGE swath of principal-agent problems in vote-buying (doi.org/10.1080/0966...)

Normally a guy with lots of local knowledge would give each voter a small gift card to vote. But we don't have that kind of structure, because we got rid of it 100 years ago.

So instead, a rich man will *directly give* $1mm to two voters. 💰🧐💰

No middlemen! No brokers!

2) The longer this goes on, and the more criminal liability the actors accrue, the less willing they will be to step aside.

This has implications for the current crisis, but also for election integrity down the road.

I think we political science professors have probably also failed in teaching our undergraduates--so many of whom go on to work in DC--what authoritarianism actually looks like in the modern world and how democratic backsliding works.

Dems--and anyone who wants fair US elections--should recognize the last few days as a very slippery slope, that could affect the opposition's chances of winning future elections--no matter how unpopular the incumbent may become.

2) The logic of authoritarianism is, sadly, self-sustaining. The stronger the incumbent looks, the more people will work with him.

Talented politicians join his party. Bureaucrats, judges, and military officers comply. Citizens don't complain.

Resistance seems futile: a self-fulfilling prophecy.

...and a well of pro-incumbent voters mobilized / coerced through their workplaces.

This is electoral authoritarianism, the most common style of non-democracy today.

The government has vast economic and coercive powers; Americans are used to those powers being used in a more-or-less non-partisan way.

When that changes, there are still elections. But the opposition party faces strong headwinds: its best candidates harassed out of the race, unfavorable media...

Big media companies with interests before the DoJ hear the same story:

Don't report on those rumors of voter pressure or political investigations, or that big merger may not get approved.

Now imagine big companies with big govt. contracts. The bosses are told: make sure your workers vote for us, and your contract will go through. If not, you may hear from the IRS / SEC.

Bosses then put pressure on their workers to vote 'correctly,' doling out rewards and punishments as needed.

Imagine the strongest D gubernatorial candidates in swing states getting a visit from the IRS / FBI before the campaign and given a message: run for election and face criminal investigation; don't run and we can make this problem go away.

Doing this can clear the field of your strongest opponents.

1) Politicizing the civil service and law enforcement changes the rules of the game. Now, the tools of power can be used to lock the opposition *out* of power.

In the post-Soviet world, we call these 'administrative resources.' Sounds like 📠 fax machines and office space, but it's much more.