Slashdot Mirror
Voting Plus Lottery Equals Voter Turnout?
qmark_is_mysterious writes "Fortune magazine has a interesting article on how it could be possible to increase voter turnout to 100% by making your vote an entry to a national lottery. By offering a prizes of up to $10 million dollars it's hoped that many people who feel disenfranchised will be motivated to go vote and express their opinion. A group in Arizona is trying to get an initiative on the 2006 ballot to get this implemented in that state. Do you think offering cash prizes will make elections more popular and effective?"
Where will the money for this lottery come from? Will they charge you to vote, or will they have just another tax? I agree people should be encourage to vote, but if the only reason they are voting is for money, do you really think they are going to vote with much thought. I can think of the ad campaigns now "We brought you the chance to win money by voting, vote for use remember just pull the foo party switch, and enjoy your winnings" the first party that does that is sure to win, if they can convince the people voting for only the chance of winning that their chances of winning are greater if they vote for party foo.
If someone is not motivated to participate by civic duty, the country is better off without their participation. Why are we interesting in 100% voter participation in voting? We need 100% participation in concern and consideration about our country/state/city. Bribing someone to vote does not remove apathy, it highlights it.
This is like the opposite of a poll tax, which was declared unconstitutional (IIRC).
:)
I am, however, looking forward to Joe Schmoe yelling, "I WON THE ELECTION!" when he hits the payoff.
[insert witty sig here]
IT would make people who don't know the issues cast their votes like seeds in random directions and probably make the elctions less efective.
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
If you think voter fraud is bad now, try something like this and it would be 100x worse.
Just make voting mandatory, as many Western nations already do. Voting isn't just a right, it's a duty.
Democracy doesn't just need more voters, it needs more informed voters. Offering a lottery may get more people to the booths but these people might not know any of the issues, don't pay attention to the news but want a free lottery ticket.
I don't mean to troll, but pose a serious question: do we really WANT to have "this kind" of people influence our elections? "This kind" being the kind of person who doesn't care enough about his/her freedom, rights, or ability to affect the course of our nation and collective destiny, but rather is only motiviated by the opportunity to get a "free lottery ticket"?!
It is CERTAINLY their right to vote, and I encourage and support that, and yes would even fight and die to defend that right; HOWEVER, I tremble to think of the havoc that would be wrought on our system of government if this type of selfish, self-absorbed, unthinking nit-wits were lured to the polls (at great expense to the tax-payers) in order to cast their selfish, self-absorbed, un-thought-out "opinions" in the form of a vote cast only to get a chance at "free" money.
Frankly, I don't see any widespread legitimate reason why ANY American who has the RIGHT to vote CAN'T vote; if this type of citizen is disenfranchised in any way, it is a SELF-EMPOSED disenfranchisement, and THAT's a right we need to support too - the right NOT to vote.
And easily shown illegal... You're forcing me to "pay" something to get into the lottery. That's illegal in most states (that's why you can get free game pieces for the fast food games). So I should be allowed to enter the lottery without voting and that kills the logic right there.
Seriously, it's stupid. Paying people for their votes won't make government any more responsive which is why people aren't voting to begin with.
Do you think offering cash prizes will make elections more popular and effective?
I personally think with the right advertising this would make elections more popular, but *certainly* not more effective. If we have people voting for the purpose of getting a reward we take away just about everything elections stand for. It is almost apauling to hear this news and to know that it might actually work.
Rad Adam - Advocate for Self-Government
"So Lonestar, now you see that evil will always triumph, because good is dumb."
All this will do is to motivate people who really do not care who is elected to go and just press buttons so they get their lottery ticket. 100% turn out means nothing if the people voting are just doing so without making any attempt at all towards an informed decision.
On the bright side of this, we could have the world's largest random number generator.
It might also increase the odds of a third candidate to be elected (by random).
Mid-Eastern Pennsylvania Gaming Convention
Isn't it stupid? Simple survey of 1% of voters will give almost the same result as real elections but with smaller resource consumption (cheaper etc).
I just don't understand this push to drag people kicking and screaming to the polls. If you don't care enough to spend 5 minutes voting then who thinks you will spend any time trying to understand the issues.
If you are happy with the status quo, if you don't want to take the time to understand the issues, or if you simply don't care then STAY THE HECK OUT OF THE VOTING BOOTH! Let the votes of the concerned voters count more.
I frequently skip items on the ballot because I don't feel informed or it is an issue that does not affect me in any way (or sometimes there is only one choice so I don't feel compelled to waste my time checking the only box available).
Personally I think there should be more effort put into investigating and prosecuting voter fraud (multiple registrations/voting, registration/voting by non-citizens, etc.) but any efforts at cleaning up elections seem to be viewed as "discouraging participation".
It's so insane that in San Francisco there is a proposal to allow illegal aliens to vote in school board elections since their children are in the public schools. Yikes!
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
I was thinking a while back that non-voters are shirking their duty to the democracy they live in and had sort of the opposite idea. Give out an exemption receipt for the $100 Non-Vote tax. Don't vote, and you pay an extra $100 on your taxes at the year-end. Vote, and you're forgiven the tax. Sends a clear message to non-voters that they are a drain on society, but no fear because they're paying society back.
Vote early and vote often.
I'm all in favor of making voting fun and easy, but I have to stop short at the idea of bribing people to vote. A lottery would further cheapen an already cynicism-inducing process, and punish those who vote because they want a part in the decision by drowning their voices in a sea of people who are just too stupid to do math.
The solution, as some other fine poster said, isn't to get people who don't care to vote, but to get people to care more.
Final point: a lot of states have anti-gambling laws, and this idea would run afoul of them. Anyone in favor of states' rights should see the idea as an imposition on the agency of the states.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
I took this idea one further once. When you vote, your name is entered into a lottery for a seat in the House of Representatives. After the election, each state draws 1 ticket (from all who voted) to randomly appoint 1 Rep.
The winner, if they accept, gets 2 years employment at standard Rep salary (over $150k curerntly), guaranteed time off from their current job, and all the usual perks of being a Rep.
It'd be 1 additional Rep for each state, adding a senatorial weight and slightly expanding the House. If the winner declines, the state just keeps drawing tickets until one accepts.
This would finally give a chance for real representation in the House (as well as expanding past the usual straight-line two parties).
It probably wouldn't increase voter turnout, unlike the cash lottery plan, but it'd be a great political achievement.
A.
Getting someone to vote only for the free lottery ticket could be a bad thing, person doesn't have a clue about policies, person doesn't listen to news, person doesn't even know who they are, put X in random box pick up free lottery ticket!
wouldnt democracy cease to be? wouldnt you really be operating it what Fourier and Proudon would call corporate feudalism?
back in the day we didnt have no old school
For the most part those who actually learn about the issues to make sound decisions (both dems and reps) are already going to vote. Otherwise you're missing the idea of an election and skewing the results with garbage data and thoughtless votes.
I'd rather base an election on 100 well informed voters than a million mouth-breathers who'd want to elect Dale Ernhardt Jr anyways.
When you vote, you don't know whether you'll win or not.
The candidates will generally do their best to shield you from knowing what they will really do; they still might do something different from what they say or what they've done in the past. The candidate you vote against might actually do more for your well-being.
If you're smart and have enough money, you'll vote with dollars placed on all the horses in the race using campaign contributions.
[Not saying I like it this way; just that's the way it is....]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I'm all in favor of making voting fun and easy, but I have to stop short at the idea of bribing people to vote.
It's not bribery so much as returning some of the costs of voting in the first place.
A lottery would further cheapen an already cynicism-inducing process, and punish those who vote because they want a part in the decision by drowning their voices in a sea of people who are just too stupid to do math.
Please. People who vote are those too stupid to do math. Your chances of being killed on the way to the polls far outweigh your chances of actually affecting the outcome of the election.
The solution, as some other fine poster said, isn't to get people who don't care to vote, but to get people to care more.
Care about what, exactly?
Final point: a lot of states have anti-gambling laws, and this idea would run afoul of them.
I doubt it. If that were true clearchannel would be in violation of it when they run those nationwide givaways (be caller number 1000 or whatever).
Anyone in favor of states' rights should see the idea as an imposition on the agency of the states.
This might be a states' rights issue if states are forced to participate, but giving states the option of participating and giving away the prize with federal funds wouldn't infringe on any state rights. No state would actually opt out of such a deal. It's free money.
Do what other countries do and make it a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. How do we expect the poor and disenfranchised to vote if they have to somehow get out of work to vote? How hard is that.
(I believe there are various patchwork laws that allow certain periods of time off, but it needs to be national, at least for national elections)
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Why not combine the new touch screen voting machines with video lottery terminals that way you won't need to wait for your winnings. You'd get instant feedback as to whether you win or not. "You could walk away from the voting booth 10 million richer, vote today!"
There should be some point to voting, since Diebold and a few judges are deciding the outcome anyway.
I'd much rather see a national voting holiday.
I don't want someone randomly pushing a button or punching a hole just to get a lottery ticket, but I do want everybody to have a decent chance to vote. A normal 9 to 5 workday plus traffic just doesn't leave much time left for voting, so you've got a big line in the morning or a big line in the evening. In a free country, election day is the most important day of the year. Why shouldn't it be a holiday?
At least *some* voters will win the election this way.
I believe one of the reasons why more people don't vote is because the voting system doesn't let them express themselves the way they want.
Since they are talking about the disenfranchised, I daresay the disenfranchised are feeling negative and would like to say NO!
But the voting system only allows "Yes" votes. So if they take part, they have to say "Yes" to somebody, or spoil their votes. They may not feel like getting off their butts to pick either option.
Whereas my hypothesis is if you had a range voting system where voters are allowed vote options of No (-1), Don't care (0), Yes (+1), and get to use these for each and all of the candidates, they might actually bother going to vote.
The votes will be totalled up, and the candidate with the most positive total (or least negative) will win.
The subtotals of the No, Don't cares and Yes can also be shown in the results and thus provide a better picture of what the voters think.
Sure the candidate you dislike could still win. BUT, imagine if he/she wins with a NEGATIVE total (or a very substantial negative subtotal). Think of the resulting interviews with the Foreign Media/Press...
"Mr President, how can you say you've been given mandate or have support of the people - the elections show that most people don't want you, you're just the least unwanted candidate".
Would the disenfranchised get off their butts for this?
The people (especially Academics) who say it's the same as Approval Voting don't get it. It's not the same at all - giving everyone Zeroes is NOT the same as giving everyone -1. It's harder to spin a big negative score, as it is to spin a near zero score. Or a slight negative score vs a below midrange positive score.
For many theorists on both the left and right, low voter turnout is symptomatic of the ethic that politics is all about maximizing personal utility. Encouraging people to vote for selfish reasons seems like exactly the wrong thing to do.
Do we really want a government elected by a people who have to be bribed to vote? Is that really democratic?
If a person acts rationally he will not vote. I read that in an economics textbook once. I believe it was because it costs more for a person to vote (time,effort,etc) than she stands to gain from the influence of her vote. So theoretically people don't vote in raw self-interest but rather because they 'believe' in the idea.
All I'm really suggesting is that maybe there are informed potential voters out there who just are not incented to vote. I don't know what a good incentive is though.
First, all state lotteries should be outlawed. They are a terrible way to collect tax dollars, offering both the state, the media (advertising) and the lottery game creators the chance to become as rich as the winners themselves, while the majority of the burden is placed on people at or near the poverty level. Terrible terrible idea -- should all be abolished.
... especially because the government is picking up the tab its *NOT FREE*.
No doubt, someone will respond this would be a free lottery -- to that I say it would use existing lottery infrastructure, and the prize money has got to come from somewhere
Second, It would not encourage turnout that much, look at the number of people that actually play lottery in any state. It's not going to have much of an effect. Turnout is always greatest when important issues are on the ballot -- the lottery won't matter one way or the other.
Third, Why encourage 100% turnout? Many people vote their choice *BY NOT VOTING*. By not voting, you are saying that you're going to let other people who care about the issues decide it. There's nothing wrong with that in a free country. Why use an artificial chance drawing to coerce someone into voting if they wouldn't normally otherwise?
Just quit adding all this crap to the process. Quit adding to government, quit adding to my tax burden, and let me do as I would like to do.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
If people can't feel strongly enough about participating in democracy by going to a polling location in their neighborhood, how can we expect the concept to survive. What is next, bread and circuses?
This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
...But I digress. TREMBLE PUNY HUMANS!ONE DAY MY SPECIES WILL DESTROY YOU ALL!
Everyone qualified to vote gets a free lotto ticket. Each prospective voter now gets to make a choice: keep the ticket and have a chance at winning some mega-bucks prize, or hand in the ticket and get to vote.
The sort of people who could pass on a long shot at unearned riches to retain their voting rights are exactly the sort of people we need voting, and I suspect the rest of the people (*ahem* lunkheads) who just kept their tickets would be pretty happy too.
it's an improvement on this campaign.
No, you don't understand the philosophy of libertarians and conservative republicans with regard to government income.
We believe that limited government is the best form of government. Government is a necessary evil because it has certain benefits like law and order. However, government has a violent tendency to exceed its role and to exert its power for evil. Thus, limited government is the only tolerable government.
All this spending that the government does is unjustified, and in some cases, specifically outlawed in the constitution. The federal government doesn't need to spend nearly as much as they do. Consider what it has to do: run some courts, pay some legislators and officers, and do this foreign relations thing by sending ambassadors and diplomats to foreign countries. Raising an army is not part of the federal government - that's for the individual states to do. The president only commands troops in times of war, as declared by congress. Until that time, the states control them.
The Federal Government could probably do everything with a couple hundred million dollars, not the couple of hundred BILLION dollars budget it has now. A couple hundred million dollars equates to about a buck a citizen in the US.
We believe that the federal government should only collect taxes from specific sources, namely a per-capita tax charged to the individual states, or a tariff on imported goods. The per-capita tax, if it were levied today, would amount to thousands of dollars per person, which is unbearable. But with limited government, it would be in the range of a few bucks. The tariffs are useful as a negotiating tool. Since the purpose of federal government is to handle all the foreign relations stuff, it could be a handy tool to them. (In particular, tariffs are levied with unfriendly countries, and will build up the coffers before a war with said country.)
We believe that governments shouldn't incur debts, enslaving the next generation, but build wealth. They should have extra money that they either loan out or deposit in a bank account and earn interest on. This way, eventually the government could function in times of peace *without* taxes! Maybe with a big enough reserve, we could survive a war without incuring any debt.
Consider that if you put your cash into any decent fund, it will return about 10%. If you stick it in the stock market, say, the Dow Jones index, historically, you will get a 20% return over time. If the government had a reserve of only a billion dollars, that would bring in about $300,000,000 to $600,000,000 of revenue without collecting taxes or tariffs. That should be more than enough to run the federal government - tax free.
We believe that states are free to tax however they like, provided it is in accordance to the state constitution. In my state of Washington, that's property taxes. What has happened recently under democrat rule is that we have been nickled and dimed to death. First we had a state sales tax. Now that tax is up to about 9% in most areas, and they're talking about raising it another "penny", or a billion dollars. There are other unconstitutional or extra-constitutional taxes that our state burdens us with, but thanks to Tim Eyman, we are able to tell the government that we don't want the spending and we don't want the taxes. We want to be free.
We believe that fines are appropriate, provided that they are used as a means of extracting damages or punishment of the offender. I believe that jail time or perhaps physical punishment or humiliation is more appropriate than a fine. So you were caught speeding? You'll spend tomorrow in the stockades with a sign "I can't obey simple laws like the speed limit" around your neck. Fines are something that favor the rich. Jailtime, humiliation, and physical punishment favors no one, and all are equal under the law.
Fines shouldn't be used for the government. If they are collected, it should be destroyed, increasing the value of the dollar. Otherwise, it will encourage the
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Last time I checked absentee ballots were available to anyone who asks for one, and could be filled out and mailed in one's spare time.
No missed work, no problem.
Comments should be like skirts. Short enough to keep your attention, but long enough to cover the subject
Overheard a guy talking on his cell phone the other day...
"Hey, Joe? Did you see this on the internet?"
"Huh. Well, with the election lottery, well - you know who makes those voting machines, right?"
"Yah, Diebold. Uh-huh, the ones who endorsed Candidate X."
"Now, listen - this guy sent me an email, and he knows a guy who says that one of the folks who had a brother who worked at Diebold told him that you have a better chance at winning the lottery if you vote for X."
"Uh-huh. Yah, but what if it is true? I dunno, man - I don't really care who wins, so I'm gonna vote for X.""You too? Yah? What're you gonna do with the money when you win?"
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
If someone is too ignorant or apathetic to vote, they SHOULD NOT vote, because their vote has negative value.
It's a logical truism: democracy is rule by the people. The people make choices, who their leaders are, and such. In order to make a real choice, you must be educated to some degree about the options, and have a preference as to which option is best.
People who are neither ignorant nor apathetic do vote, in very large numbers, already. The solution to the problem is not increasing turnout by any means, but by doing it the right way: by education, and giving people a reason to care.
The latter would be fixed primarily by two things: improving the process of selecting our candidates, and reversing the course of centralizing the power that we have continued on in full force since the early 20th century and the beginning of progressivism. Give Congress back its power, give the states back their power. The more power your local officials have, the more you will see that your vote counts, and the more you will be likely to care about voting.
I think we should be doing just the reverse. We should be trying to a higher percentage of more informed voters to the polls, not high numbers who would only care about a lottery.
To do this, I propose all voters should pass a political literacy quiz. The quiz could even be posted in major newspapers 10 days before the election, to give everyone a fair shot. For example, to vote, you should have to answer 3 or more of the following questions correctly. I have attached the percent who failed to answer. Keep this is mind if you think you are an uninformed voter.
1. Name a single Supreme Court justice [64% percent of Americans can't]
2. Identify a single department of the president's cabinet [58 percent can't]
3. Locate Afghanistan, Iraq or Israel on a map [85 percent of young American adults can't]
4. Name one of the following: your governor, congressman or one senator.
5. Who is the vice president?
The answers are left as an exercise for the reader.
They'll have to add cigs, 40s, and pre-paid phone cards to the shelves if they really want my business.
Can we sponsor this sort of lottery without government intervention? Fund it with voluntary contributions, then choose someone randomly off the rolls after the election? Frankly, I think it's a good idea, but as a libertarian I think deriving the jackpot from stolen (taxed) funds is wrong. I'd be happy to donate into the pot.
"It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." - Ronald Reagan
I'm glad Harry S. Truman didn't care who would get the credit for that quote when he said it.
I find your ideas interesting... and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Do you think offering cash prizes will make elections more popular and effective?
Yes, I actually do... not 100% voter turnout. I also think it's a rather unfortunate state of affairs if my thoughts and assumptions are true and would more potential voters come on down. (shudder) You would get a lot mor uninformed voters at the polls (you know, kids asking their friends and parents who they voted for) just to see if they can win some "bling".
What I think would be a more intelligent way to spend our time working towards if Instant Run-off voting. I think it's the most palletable and the most logical way to make my voice count (not living in a swing state). It would give me to vote for a Third or Fourth party candidate and have my second choice for the more likely winner.
WTPOUAWYHTTOTWPA
What's the point of using acronyms when you have to type out the whole phrase anyways?
Discrimination on account of intelligence is just a wrong and illegal ...
/.?
WRONG!
Why does this keep coming up? Why are there so many hug-me-today goody-two-shoes right-wing-nut-job liberals posting to
Let me break this to you gently: *ALL PEOPLE ARE NOT EQUAL*. Discrimination based on ability is completely legal, ethical, moral, widespread and forms the basis of any society.
All people are *CREATED* equal, but all people *ARE NOT EQUAL*. All people should have equal opportunity, but all people should not have equal responsibilities.
Fools might need representation under the US government, but it doesn't take a fool to represent a fool's best interests, and we really don't need any more elected fools in government.
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds
Our elections are all rigged to some extent or another. Replacing a few hundred people in the military industrial congressional complex isn't going to accomplish much since it's made of of hundreds of thousands of people. If nothing of any importance changes no matter who's in office apathy is the only rational attitude. Voting is simply choosing the best liar. Those who want power should never ever get it. There will be no real change until the streets run red with blood.
"Who cares, jus' check off all 'em boxes. Maybe we'll win!"
"Oooh! Look! Vin Deisel is on here! I'm definitely votin' for him. He kicks serious ass!"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
this is a bad idea. if it's too hard to get off your sofa once every four years to participate in the future direction of the country in which you live, then don't. if people don't find it worthwhile they don't have to do it, that's their choice.
I'd consider being in Congress punishment rather than reward. Of course, I could just 'Kerry/Edwards' and collect my salary without actually doing any work ...
All this get out the vote drive is nothing more than an effort to get unmotivated people to vote. Why? Simple. Because they are unmotivated to vote, they are also uninformed and easy prey for propaganda.
The idea of a lottery is no different. People will go just to make an entry so they have a chance at winning the lottery. They won't care who they vote for which makes them prime for pumping at the poll.
It's just a more sophisticated way to try and buy votes.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
Who plays the lottery? The poorest people. Why? Because they want the money and have aspirations of wealth.
If a lottery were implemented to encourage voting, I'm all for it -- with a twist. The twist is to make it a voluntary progressive tax rather than a regressive one. How to do this? If you make less than 100K/yr, you get to enter for 20 cents. From 100K-200K you get to enter for a dollar. From 200K to 300K, you get to enter for twenty-five dollars. From 300K to 400K you get in for a thousand dollars. 400K to 500K, you get in for ten thousand dollars. From 500K to the roof you pay twenty-five thousand dollars per 500K of income. There you have it, a progressively taxing lottery for voting.
Who would vote under these conditions? The ones who could not afford to spend money on lobbyists or 10K-per-plate chicken-and-peas fundraising events. At the same time, the people who can afford the high-dollar issue and candidate contributions would stay away. Xanadu!
Okay, maybe not realistic, but definetly fun to think about.
.. pa-ra-bo-la, pa-ra-bo-la, 2 pi R, 2 pi R, where's your latus rectum, where's your latus rectum, 2 pi R
The act of voting, if nothing else, is a signal that you consent to be ruled by the options on the ballot. If nobody can give citizens something worthwhile to vote for, compulsory voting and silly schemes like this will only make matters worse.
the amazing amount already being poured into "Get Out The Vote" style programs. I'm not sure if any of the current programs are goverment sponsored in any way, but I would not be surprised if they were.
One side comment: I would be willing to believe that Republicans would most oppose this measure for one reason (which they may not acknowledge), and that is that the socio-economic class that largely funds state lottery systems is more likely to be Democratic.
We already allocate money to parties/candidates by allocating budgets based on vote support.
Why not get a chance of getting some money for voting.
If you think of all the people who don't vote, their money is being used to support the candidates anyways. Why not use some of it to help bolster voter turnout?
Even a $30 million prize would be quite significant and only cost around $0.10 per US citizen...
Americas a democracy now? *Scratches head* I could've sworn we were a Constitutional Republic...
I realize that a system like this would increase voter turnout, but it is extremely sad that we would come to this.
The incentive for voting should be the chance to speak one's mind.
I personally don't want a bunch of uninformed voters who are just there for a chance to win some money.
This is a sick proposition.
Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
If you are too stupid to vote on your own accord you should not be allowed to vote at all. Sure have ads, have parties, but don't make them vote because of receiving an award. Let them vote because they care about who wins the election.
Why not offer a $20 "tax rebate" if someone has voted in all of the elections in a given year?
Perhaps a better idea would be to offer a modest tax rebate for proof of voting. The logic being that apathetic voters are a burden to effective government and therefore a cost to their country.
This vote offers a free trip to Washington D.C. to one voter: http://www.leaderofthefreeworld.com
Mike O'Conner was right in that the money would need to come from somewhere unknown, although, in fairness, 300,000,000 people paying one extra dollar each would be a $300,000,000, wouldn't it.
Furthermore--
Regardless of the general principles of democracy, it is not unhealthy for the public good to entice people to cast a vote on the basis of money. Do you really want people who are so lazy that they can't even go to election day and punch out a chad or two voting? I don't. Only people who are interested in the government really have the capability to be informed, intelligent voters.
Are we so corrupt that we'd whore out our informed, self-driven electorate in the interest of driving a few more lazy bastards to the voting booths?
--Petey
http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscod e18/usc_sec_18_00000597----000-.html
The patchwork laws you are referring to are on a state by state basis. Most (but not all) states have laws requiring employers to provide time for their employees to vote. The laws vary state to state, but generally you must give your employee a few hours off when the polls are open so they can vote. Most state laws require the employees to be PAID for their time off to vote as well!
1 014time_for_voting.asp
I agree with you 100% that it should be a national law, but that isn't the kind of thing you could restrict to just national elections. There are many state and local elections and ballot measures the people vote on when they vote for the President. If the laws were only applied to national elections you would have half of the House elected on days everyone was off and the other half elected when not everyone could come out, etc. There would be a lot of fighting about when a certain measure/canidate/whatever should be voted on, and I'm sure there would be lawsuits...
I really don't think a National Holiday would be very effective. All the white-collar or union workers would be off, but just like Labor day, Memorial day, etc all the service industry would still have to work. As would many individuals who have jobs at places that must be running 24/7/365.
What we need is a simple, national law about allowing time off. Most states require 3 hours paid off to vote (unless the polls are open at a time when you would have 3 hours available anyway) - we could apply that nationwide. But even more importantly, people need to know that they can't be forced to work and not vote! The majority of America has guaranteed time off to vote as it is - but very few know it.
Here's a link that lists what law are currently in place -
http://www.fordharrison.com/fh/news/articles/2004
And you have just forced a state to do something they don't want to. It is not fair for people in some state that does not want a lottery to pay taxes that would then go to someone in a different state that takes the lottery money.
Anything else is a poll tax. Already known to be unconstitutional.
So, voter turnout is around 95% in Australia, and has been for many years. The great thing about this is that apathetic informed citizens are compelled to at least show up at the polling booth, and generally once they're there voters will, I believe, tend to cast a valid ballot. The bad thing about compulsory voting is that apathetic ill-informed voters will also tend to cast their ballots.
Is it worth forcing the latter group to vote in order to get the former group to do so? I don't know.
steve
For a long time I didn't vote.. Why? I had no idea what was going on. Politics didn't interest me in the slightest... I didn't know the difference between right and left... So, I didn't vote.. Mind you, I didn't complain either....
/SHOULD/ vote.. There are people that are quite ignorant and that's fine...
I think if you don't know what's going on - that's fine. Not everyone
What I think SHOULD happen is that on your voter registration card you should have a simple multiple choice test regarding the various platforms of the various parties... you fail the test you don't vote...
But somehow I don't see that coming into effect anytime soon.
I'm all in favor of making voting fun and easy, but I have to stop short at the idea of bribing people to vote.
Surely that's what happens already... The difference is that in this case the bribe is very obvious whereas in the current state of affairs it's disguised as a new military base or a tax cut or a new dam.
Doodz, it dozn't matr if VoTeRz dont no what their votting 4. Rock tha vote 1337 doodz. Avril Lavigne roolz.
"We" just funded billions of dollars for HAVA, to get more votes counted more properly. If 0.01% of the 150M eligible voters win an average of $1000 each, it will cost $15M extra - if it gets 5% more people to the polls, it just cost couple of bucks apiece. Not a bad price for more democracy. The scheme has other problems, but we can afford it. It's the distorted democracy from 20% of Americans electing the politicians that we can't afford any longer.
--
make install -not war
What if a single State decided to dedicate one of their seats to the random draw? IIRC, the individual States have a lot of authority over how elections are run. Would you need a constitutional ammendment if a few states wanted to implement something like this? FWIW, I find the idea of a random draw for a seat very interesting.
Please excuse any gross misunderstandings, being a Canadian, my US political knowledge is a shade weak.
If people go to the polls just to win money, there is a high chance that they care little about politics, and who wins. Likely, many will choose randomly.
I'm not too sure this is good for our country.
And you have just forced a state to do something they don't want to.
Presumably it's something they do want to do, otherwise they wouldn't do it.
It is not fair for people in some state that does not want a lottery to pay taxes that would then go to someone in a different state that takes the lottery money.
There's no constitutional requirement that taxation has to be "fair". More importantly, taxation applies to the person, not the state. The federal government taxes people "unfairly" in this way all the time. They even do things which are much worse, like withhold highway funds to states which refuse to lower the speed limit or raise the drinking age. This doesn't require the states to do anything.
No matter how many wrongs you add up, you will never create a right.
I'm well aware of the federal government intruding in states rights in all sorts of ways. Too bad the states as a whole don't have the guts to refuse that money. In the long run we would all be better off.
No matter how many wrongs you add up, you will never create a right.
But I wasn't talking about right and wrong, I was talking about constitutional and unconstiutional.
I'm well aware of the federal government intruding in states rights in all sorts of ways.
But this wouldn't be one of them. What "right" would this infringe, anyway, the right for states to not allow its citizens to receive $10 million? I guess not, since the state could refuse to participate.
more popular: yes
more effective: no