100,000 bucks; 100,000 votes

The press has placed great significance on how much money the presidential candidates are raising for their 2008 races. Increasing public attention to the money race is certain to drive up campaign giving.

So why not cut to the chase?

Instead of ballot boxes (alas, now easily rigged voting machines), let's just have easily stuffed cash boxes and be done with it.

Out with the niceties of voter registration, primaries, caucuses, political conventions, polling places and the electoral college.

Let's just keep a tally of the money in the various campaign tills, being sure to inform the donating "electorate" as the fund-raising mounts. Wallets and purses will open wider and wider as the campaigns near the November final accounting day—formerly known as election day.

If we put a lid on how much candidates can spend and require that excess cash go to pay for government, we might actually replace taxes with campaign contributions. You can be sure the rich will pay "their fair share" to influence the political outcome. Call it voluntary progressive donation.

In any case, on the first Tuesday in November 2008, the candidate raising the most money would become president of the United States.

Might the cash-box political system leave us better off than the ballot-box one?

Or are they somehow one in the same?