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?"

Comments

I don't think this would be a good idea

[mpost4]

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.

no

[nocomment]

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.

Terrible idea

[etymxris]

Just make voting mandatory, as many Western nations already do. Voting isn't just a right, it's a duty.

Bad idea (tm)

[the_skywise]

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.

lottery for representatives instead

[ghostlibrary]

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.

Re:lottery for representatives instead

[CommanderData]

Now THIS is an interesting idea. Can you imagine the good that could be done for the lower and middle class if some of us were in positions of power? No politicians truly represent the little guy. They all are either rich, have connected family/friends, or combinations of the two. There's no way for the Average Joe to compete with that and get into a position that could make a difference.

An idea like this could change America. Count me in.

Negative

[TheLink]

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.

the Public Economics perspective

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

It seems most posts are saying we don't want apathetic citizens voting anyway. This is a good argument however it may be instructive to consider the economics of voting from an indvidual level.

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.

Why it's a bad idea...

[Samrobb]

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?"

Re:Political Literacy Quiz

[the morgawr]

They used to do this in most states. Poll workers would rig it so that poor people and minorities couldn't vote. Good idea but it failed in practice.

OTOH, since you are having standardized questions and we now have reps from both parties at the polling places, it MIGHT hold up to a court challenge

Re:What if some people don't have an opinion?

[dynamo]

No, we just need more voters of new types. There ain't much useful informing being done - it doesn't benefit those in power. If everyone had a compelling separate reason to vote, politicians would have a compelling reason to pander to everyone, not just those self-important enough to try to manipulate politics (myself included). In an ideal world, which this idea brings us closer to, everyone votes, and politics manipulates itself for everyone.

Responce

[standsolid]

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.

Re:Do you really want them to vote?

[the morgawr]

it doesn't appear to have any impact on students

Hypothesis: The classes have little impact because they are mostly taught by un-enthusiasic, un-inspiring teachers/coaches who don't give a shit. Like most classes in the US, the course plan mostly sucks and students are bored witless. Teachers stress memorization of facts over gaining of knowledge. Because of the stress on memorization, students realize the class is worthless and put zero effort in, grades go lower. As a result of poor grades, the course is made "easier" and more focus is put on memorization (this is also called having "standardized testing"). Due to the stress on memorization, ...

It's a pretty bad cycle. That needs to get addressed. However I think it's separate from the issue with voter turn out (and has nothing to do with my original point).

Poor voter turn out is most probably the result of two things:

1. People don't like either of the two guys running and view them both as equally bad choices. They don't vote at all. Having the mandatory option of "None of the Above" on all ballots (where if it wins, a new election with none of the former candidates is held), would make give almost everyone who is hesitant to vote for the lesser of two evils a way to express their thoughts.
2. People who arn't informed enough on the issues and don't vote because they have no opinion. Better communication on the part of political parties, non-profits, and the candidates themselves could address this problem (these are potential voters). However most of these people don't have an opinion because the existing political parties don't fit them. This is why encouraging third party candidates is important. Giving better ballot access to third parties and changing our election system (to Aproval or Condorcet) would go a long way to fixing this problem.