Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck Government Politics

Voting Plus Lottery Equals Voter Turnout? 220

Posted by michael from the you-never-know dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Voting Plus Lottery Equals Voter Turnout? More

Voting Plus Lottery Equals Voter Turnout?

Comments Filter:

  • I don't think this would be a good idea (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 ) * on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:11AM (#10588049) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Easy - just have the regular polling places funded as normal.

      Add polling places at the local Kwik-E-Mart and charge $1 to vote and give the purchasers a receipt to let them check their numbers. Require people to sign something saying it's their only vote, but let them buy as many times as they want (and only count it once).

      • That's a terrible idea. We have enough problems making sure voting fraud doesn't happen now, and adding thousands of convenience stores into the mix isn't going to help anything.

  • Do you really want them to vote? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by waynegoode ( 758645 ) * on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:11AM (#10588055) Homepage
    If someone is only going to vote because of the long-shot chance of winning a lot of money, do you really want that person to help decide the future of our country?

    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.

    • If someone is only going to vote because of the long-shot chance of winning a lot of money, do you really want that person to help decide the future of our country?

      Yes. I rather fancy the idea of living in a Democracy.

      Getting a non-voter to vote can be hard, and there are many reasons for not voting so you can't claim that not voting means incompetent. Once they make the effort to vote, they are more likely to take an interest in national and local politics. This is a positive effect, and next thing you
      • > there are many reasons for not voting

        Perhaps time and money would better be spent addressing those reasons instead of bribing people to overlook them.

        • Nice idea. Still, the lottery would be cheaper than to get rid of all the people who want to keep things the way they are.

        • Re:Do you really want them to vote? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jgardn ( 539054 ) <jgardn@alumni.washington.edu> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @01:08PM (#10590054) Homepage Journal
          Perhaps time and money would better be spent addressing those reasons instead of bribing people to overlook them.

          Sounds like a great idea. Let's have a class in school that is mandatory for all 8th graders called "civics". Here, we teach them about our country's history from Charlemagne, to English history, and then to American history. We'll teach them how many people fought and dies so that we can be free from a king. And we'll show them how to vote. We'll bring in representatives from the republican, democratic, libertarian, and every other party that wants to come and have them talk about their party. We'll teach the children about government, from the local school board to the supreme court. We'll have them learn about important national figures. We'll have them memorize the constitution of the united states and the constitution of their state.

          And then after all this education, we'll get them involved in the community. We'll show them how to be responsible and democratically aware. We'll show them how to form a coalition, how to organize, how to advertise, and how to manage and govern.
          • A Civics class is mandated by law in my state. I guess I just assumed that was the case nationally. Is it not? If not, I agree with you, it should be. If it is, we need to work on our implementation.
            • Ok, you missed the sarcasm tags, the post dripped and oozed sarcasm, I almost hurt myself slipping in the puddle of sarcasm oozing from that post.

              the GP post was attempting to make the point that we already have civics classes nationwide and it doesn't appear to have any impact on students.
              • 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 i


      • We have a legitimate democracy now, or at least a legitimate democratic republic. Every citizen has the right to choose their own level of participation, and nothing is preventing them from voting, supporting candidates or running for office themselves. Voting, like education, is hard -- it requires discipline and commitment. Those who aren't willing to take that responsibility have decided for themselves that they have nothing constructive to add, so as far as I am concerned, the republic is better off wit
      • Yes. I rather fancy the idea of living in a Democracy.

        You've got the wrong country there buddy. If this were supposed to be that kind of a Democracy there would have been something about a citizen's right to vote in the Constitution. It's a representative Democracy which means that people who understand what's best for everyone vote for those who don't. That's the basic idea anyway.

        What you want in this country, and probably any country, is decisions being made by those intimately knowledgeable of the su
      • So you'd like your well considered and thoughtful vote (signal) to be swamped in the noise of people whose only motivating factors are the possibility of a free handout? Don't we have enough of that problem already?

  • Interesting stuff (Score:4, Funny)

    by BaldGhoti ( 265981 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:12AM (#10588060) Homepage
    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. :)

    • Sig (Score:2)

      by Rufus88 ( 748752 )
      "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.

  • no (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nocomment ( 239368 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:12AM (#10588069) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Voter fraud (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deanj ( 519759 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:14AM (#10588090)
    If you think voter fraud is bad now, try something like this and it would be 100x worse.

    • Re:Voter fraud (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Software ( 179033 )
      Um, why? Are people going to sign up to vote under fake names so they can win a lottery? What good would winning a lottery using a fake name do?

  • Terrible idea (Score:2, Interesting)

    by etymxris ( 121288 )
    Just make voting mandatory, as many Western nations already do. Voting isn't just a right, it's a duty.

    • Re:Terrible idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pauljlucas ( 529435 )
      Just make voting mandatory ...
      And this helps how? Do you really want to count votes of people who don't care enough to vote voluntarily? They might just vote randomly or pick the first choice for everything just to get it over with as quickly as possible.

  • What if some people don't have an opinion? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aoteoroa ( 596031 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:16AM (#10588131)
    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.
    • So make a skill testing question or questions to go on the back. Don't award money to people that can't answer the questions.
    • Those uninformed people are already voting anyways.
    • I still don't understand the reasoning behind the idea that having more people vote is somehow better than less. Everyone seems to think it's some kind of huge problem that so few people vote. I think it's great that people who can't be bothered to form an opinion one way or the other stay out of it. In fact I wish I was the only person that voted. The more votes there are, the less mine counts. How exactly are more votes good for me again? Do you guys all *like* having other people make decisions for you?

    • Re:What if some people don't have an opinion? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xlv ( 125699 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @01:53PM (#10590641)
      This is why in some other countries, there's the idea of a "blank" ballot and this is not the same as an invalid entry. For instance, in France, for each candidate there's a separate piece of paper that you put in the envelope. The voter has the option not to put anything in the envelope (blank vote) which is different from a damaged paper, more than one paper, something unrelated in the envelope (invalid vote). The blank votes are counted as such and distinct from invalid votes and both counts are part of the election results.

      I had a discussion a long time ago with an American, the first time I was here during an election where I stated that without this option, this is not really a democracy as you cannot legally express that you don't like any of the choices and no, staying at home or casting an invalid ballot is not the same thing...

    • 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.

  • What a Horrible Idea! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by WaldoJMU ( 2651 )
    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 tremb
    • Frankly, I don't see any widespread legitimate reason why ANY American who has the RIGHT to vote CAN'T vote;

      You haven't been keeping up with the news, have you? Many people will be in for a surprise in two weeks when they aren't allowed to vote. This happened in 2000 as well, and I'm sure happens every election.

      if this type of citizen is disenfranchised in any way, it is a SELF-EMPOSED disenfranchisement,

      Limiting this just to people who voluntarily don't vote, a large portion of this group is disenfra
      • Limiting this just to people who voluntarily don't vote, a large portion of this group is disenfranchised by the system which they don't feel is effective and/or doesn't offer any real choice. Fix the system (or at least gussy it up a bit), and they'll vote. I'd say their disenfranchisement isn't self-imposed, but imposed by a flawed system.

        Are you saying that if we had 9 candidates with legitimate shots at winning, we'd have higher turnout? I'm not sure that more candidates == higher turnout. Look at

  • Bad idea (tm) (Score:3, Interesting)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:19AM (#10588173)
    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.
    • You can get free game pieces, but you are forced to "do something" which usually means you have to submit a SASE to an address.

    • 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 righ

    • Keep the regular polling places open and free. Open additional polling places at the Kwik-E-Mart and charge $1 per vote. Allow a person to vote multiple times, but only count one ballot from them - if they want to pay more, who are we to stop them as long as they are only counted once.
    • The only reason it's illegal to buy a contest entry from a restaurant is that for-profit enterprises are not allowed to gamble in most states (and are heavily regulated in others, like Nevada.)

      Elections are run by state and local governments, who are allowed to run gambling operations. How many states run lotteries even as we speak?

  • 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).
  • 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).

  • Who Cares!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by linuxwrangler ( 582055 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:24AM (#10588269)
    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!

  • Alternative (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Inexile2002 ( 540368 ) * on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:25AM (#10588284) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • Non-voters do nothing to harm the system. If half of the people who can vote don't vote, it doesn't harm me any. It does the opposite in fact. It helps me.

      Let's say that half of the people that can vote do vote. Now, let's say we do something to make it so that nearly 100% of the people vote. This means that my vote is now half as effective as it used to be. That doesn't help me, it hurts me. That means that my informed opinion is half as effective.

      I never ever understood this obsession with majori

  • Wrong idea, wrong time, wrong place. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by An Onerous Coward ( 222037 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:26AM (#10588309) Homepage
    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.

  • lottery for representatives instead (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ghostlibrary ( 450718 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:30AM (#10588380) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • 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.
    • The main problem with your idea is that adding one extra Representative per state makes the problem of small states being over-represented even more exaggerated.

      Look at Wyoming and California. As of 2000, each representative represents the following number of people:

      Wyoming: 493,782 people (493,782 people/1 representative)
      California: 639,088 people (33,871,648 people/53 representatives)

      After adding an extra representative, you end up with each representative representing the following number of people:
  • ...unless, of course, you want people voting without any knowledge of what they are voting on - then it's pure genius.

  • 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?

  • Better? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maddh ( 608481 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:40AM (#10588598)
    I think all this would do is invite more of the willfully ignorant and uninformed to 'express their opinion' (ie vote for whoever has cooler commercials or has better looking daughters)

    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.

  • NATIONAL HOLIDAY (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hard_Code ( 49548 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @11:58AM (#10588875)
    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)
    • 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.
    • Why? In MS we just keep the polls open late so that people can go on their way home from work.

      • Re:NATIONAL HOLIDAY (Score:3, Insightful)

        by j0nb0y ( 107699 )
        Yeah, I think polls are open for about 12 hours everywhere. Unless you work a 12 hour day which perfectly coincides with the polling hours, can't get off work to vote, and can't get an absentee ballot, you won't be disenfranchised by this.
    • I discussed this with a politically active (Republican) friend of mine in college, because of all things that seemingly require a National holiday, election day seems to me to be by far the most deserving. Essentially, she told me it boils down to the fact that numerically there are more Democrats in the US than Republicans. However, Democrats are more aloof and have much lower turnouts at the polls than Republicans tend to. Hence this is why you often see Democratic groups holding voter registration drive
      • And I hope when she says Republicans she means Republican leadership (which is itself unfortunate) and not rank and file citizens who wish to willfully and dishonestly erode the democratic process for partisan gain. That seems hypocritical since it is the average joe-six-pack blue collar worker that the Republican party tries so desperately to befriend and emulate.

    • 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.

      Actually, having voting on weekdays favors the poor and the rich, and fucks the middle class. Many of the poor are jobless, and can spend as long as they need to stand in line and vote. Many of the exceedingly rich are in a position where they can take arbitrary amounts of time off from work to go vote. The middle class is the g

  • No Thanks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Who Man ( 671061 )
    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?

  • Negative (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @12:13PM (#10589136) Journal
    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.

    • As I've said in other places, I'm in favor of Condorcet voting with the addition of a mandatory "None of the Above" option.

      If "None of the Above" is picked, a make-up election is scheduled and none of the candidates who ran in the last one can run in the new one.

  • 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'

  • Sub-Moronic Idea ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by c.ecker ( 812382 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @12:31PM (#10589440)
    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.

    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 ... especially because the government is picking up the tab its *NOT FREE*.

    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.
  • As if we didn't have a problem with bogus and illegal registration now. I predict Dick Tracy or Mickey Mouse will win the first 10 mil.

    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.

  • Why it's a bad idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Samrobb ( 12731 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @01:01PM (#10589951) Journal

    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?"

  • Stupid Idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pudge ( 3605 ) * <<slashdot> <at> <pudge.net>> on Thursday October 21, 2004 @01:02PM (#10589953) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • So who gets to decide who is intelligent enough to vote? You? George Bush? Corporate America?

      • I am not talking about keeping anyone from voting, and I am not talking about intelligence. You invented those ideas, I did not express them.

        I am saying that if you are ignorant and don't know what you are voting for, your vote has negative value: it hurts the process. But only the individual can make that determination, for themselves.

        When I moved to a new state last year, I didn't vote right away, because I didn't know about any of the candidates or issues. It was not a lack of intelligence, and no o
  • 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.

    • Re:Political Literacy Quiz (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Enrico Pulatzo ( 536675 ) on Thursday October 21, 2004 @01:33PM (#10590405)
      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.
    • 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

  • 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.

  • Responce (Score:2, Interesting)

    by standsolid ( 619377 )
    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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.

  • Not the greatest idea. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jasonv ( 156958 ) * on Thursday October 21, 2004 @10:00PM (#10594763)
    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....

    I think if you don't know what's going on - that's fine. Not everyone /SHOULD/ vote.. There are people that are quite ignorant and that's fine...

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close