Did You VoteOrNot.org?

WhiskerBiscuit writes "The boys at Am I Hot or Not have started a sweepstakes to encourage people to register to vote. According to this blogger's analysis, the contest should encourage disempowered people to register (subject to the constraint that poor people don't have computers). The organizers have cleverly split the prize between a lucky winner and whoever happens to have referred them, providing a selection advantage for viral dispersal of the meme."

Wonder Why?

[romper]

In case you're wondering why they're doing this. [voteornot.org]

Re:Wonder Why?

[IEEEmember]

Or you could believe the terms and conditions;

By registering, entrants may sign up to receive email from Eight Days, Inc. ("Sponsor"). You can remove yourself from the email list by following onscreen instructions.

Which is in direct conflict with the entry form;

We only need the following info to contact you if you win. You will NOT get junk mail or spam for signing up.

Illegal

[buzzn]

Over here in California, it's illegal to offer an inducement to vote.

Re:Wonder Why?

[romper]

For what it's worth, I've been a member of their site for a long time (even met a great girl on there), and have never gotten any spam from that signup other than the occasional message from them (and yes, I use unique addresses for different accounts to track this kind of thing), and you can remove yourself from their mailing list if you wish.

I think what they mean is they're not going to be selling your information to anyone else.

Re:Terrible idea

[Luyseyal]

It's not illegal to ask for ID at polls... not in Texas anyway. They ask you for your registration card or gov't ID or you don't get a ballot.

-l

Re:Virals and sweeps...

[Lord Kano]

The problem with viral campaigns like VoteOrNot is that it is too easy to have multiple on-line personalities. In these days, nobody has one email account... it's easy for one person to be a ton of people online. That's the problem the company will have.

They ask for your name, address and telephone number in addition to your email address. Most people don't have multiples of all of those too.

LK

Re:Vote or shut up!

[the economist troll]

If you think the two major-party presidential candidates are "nearly identical" on the issues that matter most to people (i.e. those who have ventured beyond the sheltered environment of their college campus), you're a fucking retard. Not to mention, contrary to popular belief, the presidential race isn't the only campaign going on right now.

Re:jury duty

[philbert26]

do they select you for jury duty using voter registration records? everyone i have ever talked to who has been selected for jury duty has been registered to vote... is this a coincidence?

In some states they do this. However this often results in a shortage of jurors, so some states (like Washington) pull jurors from the DMV records as well, so unless you don't drive, there's no advantage to not voting.

It's a bit scary to think that the government is actively trying to find people who can't be bothered to vote and stick them on juries, but I guess they got desperate.

Re:Register to vote?

[tuxette]

Here in Denmark, every person over 18 is sent a card and a place/time to vote. No registration.

Yeah, same here in Norway. And I suppose you also allow foreigners to vote in local elections after 3 years? ANd they get their cards automatically, right?

The result is that 80+% actually vote...

A whole bunch of people were throwing big fat hissy-fits all over the place after the last local election here (2003) because only an average of 75% (or something like that) voted! And that it was a big scandal (!!!)

Re:Mandatory Voting

[jea6]

The city states in the area we now refer to as the country of Greece had various forms of government, none of which were representative of all the people. The BBC has a good write-up [bbc.co.uk]. In any case, the United States is not a Democracy, it is a Republic.

this is illegal

[toiletmonster]

i think this is illegal.

here in minnesota there was recently a controversy about something similar. it seems there is a federal law prohibiting payment in exchange for votes OR for voter registration. even if its just a candy bar.

http://wcco.com/localnews/local_story_244093451. ht ml
http://www.usatoday.com/news/states/mnmain.htm

Re:Virals and sweeps...

[SeanDuggan]

Honestly? Because whichever party gets the most vote in your state, it's their electoral college people who get to vote. (I'm still kind of hazy as to what happens if a third-party person should win in a state.) While theoretically, the electoral college could vote for whoever they want, the fact of the matter is that cases where they haven't are few and far between. (And those cases where they have, it's usually something insane (or a political statement) where someone votes for Mickey Mouse or some random third-party candidate. And really, cases where the electoral college total result and the popular vote results differ are very rare. You can find some history and neat-o facts here [jackson.mo.us].

$100K each?

[El_Smack]

Jim and James are giving away $100K each? Holy Crap, how much is HotorNot bringing in? And yeah, I (kinda) know about the marketing value of this, but it still means they have a $200K marketing budget for HotorNot.

Re:Help for time off

[taustin]

It is illegal to prevent an employee from voting by not giving them time off. If they can make it outside of work hourse, there is no requirement to let them take time off. If they *can't* get to vote outside working hours (usually, apparently, 2-3 hours of poll time outside work hours), nearly all states require time off without repercussion. Many require paid time off.

In short, what you propose is already law.

You should have known that.

Vote randomly!

[MobyDisk]

If you didn't vote in 2000, or know someone who hasn't then listen to this:

1) In 2000, national voter turnout was 51.3%. (Source http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html [infoplease.com])
2) For a party to get federal funding, they need to get 5% or more.
3) That means that if the remaining 48.7% voted randomly then we could have a total of 11 parties running. (9 at 5% each, plus the standard 2).

11 parties nationally recognized in the US!!!! And all that has to happen is people must just vote - vote for anyone! Their dog! Their mom! Some weird-lookin' independent guy you hear about on the news now and then!

Ralph Nader wanted to get 5% of the vote in 2000, but only got 3%. That means 2% of the population could have just gotten up and made a powerful statement for change just by walking down the street to your nearest voting place, and pulled a random lever in a booth. You don't even have to agree with the guy.
(Source http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2000/11/09/Ne ws/Nader.Barely.Misses.Federal.Funding-700791.shtm l [dailytexanonline.com])

Anyhow, I encourage everyone to pass this on. That may make some of the apathetic voters go out and do some good. Having more alternatives would be a major help to the US election system. (Then, we can push for run-off elections so we can reduce the split-election problem)

Re:To bad for the rest of us.

[soyuz_2]

I was going to say that, but thank you for doing it. If you were sick that day in World history (or German, if you're German, I guess), read about it here [wikipedia.org]

Make election day a holiday

[commodoresloat]

In some countries election day is a national holiday -- this will bring more people to the polls in the US, since a lot of people here would vote if they didn't have to work on election day. There are many ways to encourage people to vote without giving them free ipods and without making it a crime not to.

Re:Mandatory Voting

[ender81b]

Making voting mandatory simply increases the number of uninformed voters. Personally, I'd rather the people who can't be bothered stay home and leave the decision making to those who care.

Poli Sci studies show that those groups tend to just balance each other out so, in the long run, it doesn't matter. Hell - voting for somebody just by basis of their party is, in fact, a somewhat logical choice. Even voting by looks can be argued to be a logical, rational, decision.

Re:How is registering to vote a bad idea?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if I can handle this mindless dribble much longer. The truth of the matter is, our founding fathers had absolutely no intention of us ever becoming a democracy and were extremely afraid of every person having a vote. They set us up to be a constitutional republic so that we could avoid the tyranny of the masses. Did you know that George Washington was not voted on by anyone? He was appointed by Congress. That was how our country was set up. We voted on congressmen, they decided on the President. And NO, it wasn't just because of the lack of ability to run a mass election. It was because they wanted most people to concentrate on who their congressmen were because that is where the real power is, and they are the future presidents. Don't believe me, read the federalist papers written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. They spell out, in detail, the intentions of the founding fathers, and their reasoning for their decisions. In closing, just remember, a democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what to have for dinner!!!