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]
If you think voter fraud is bad now, try something like this and it would be 100x worse.
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'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.
And easily shown illegal...
It would require changes in the law to implement, obviously.
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).
Every state I know of has exceptions for certain situtions, like the government run state lottery, or powerball, or chuch 50/50s, or fire department raffles, or whatever.
So I should be allowed to enter the lottery without voting and that kills the logic right there.
Absolutely. Anyone who shows up to the voting booth should be entered, even if he or she decides to cast a blank ballot.
Paying people for their votes won't make government any more responsive which is why people aren't voting to begin with.
People aren't voting because voting isn't something you do for yourself, it's something you do for your nation. Any single person isn't going to change the election, so it's irrational for any single person to vote. I don't like the idea of voting being mandatory, but I think this is a good incentive which will give us more of a rational reason to vote.
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.
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?
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
I think you need some history lessons. Discrimination on account of intelligence is just a wrong and illegal as discriminating on account of race, creed, or color.
Both the wise and fools need equal representation under our (the US) government.
Your post seems to imply that you think your vote will be checked for correctness by some sort of official. Where do you live?
Here in Australia, where we do have mandatory voting, the concept of an anonymous ballot is still adhered to.
Put simply, this means that you get your name signed off the electoral roll on entry to a polling booth, get handed the ballot sheets, and then enter a private cubicle to complete the sheets.
The system is kinda flawed in that it is supposedly mandatory voting, but in reality is only compulsory attendance. I refuse to pick the lesser of two evils, and as such either protest vote (Greens, Dems, even One Nation once), or write something I think those counting the votes will find amusing.
I do believe that where a system of compulsory voting is instituted, that "None of the Above" should be an option (as mentioned by another poster).