NEWS: Cast a Vote, You May Already Be a Winner!

POLITICS: Cast a Vote, You May Already Be a Winner!

Voter apathy is one of those issues that comes up every four years, amidst plenty of finger wagging and somber paeans to those who fought and died to get everyone the right to vote only so they could piss it away by not voting at all. Not to mention comparisons to countries like Iran, whose presidential election turnout, at 60% of registered voters, kicked America's ass even though it was their lowest ever. Tired of scolding newscasters and nagging senior citizens, Mark Osterloh has decided to do something about voter apathy on his own. He's sponsoring a ballot initiative that already has widespread support that will turn the November election into a lottery; one person who has voted, chosen at random, will win one million dollars.

Maybe voters are tired of seeing their elected officials receive all the bribes and want a little action on their end if they're to participate in the electoral process. Maybe they're convinced that they'll actually win this lottery; participation in other lotteries like Powerball that have significantly worse odds (1:150,000,000) is already quite high, and that costs money to do! Voting just takes time, and the ability to stand in line and deal with potentially fraudulent voting machines and typically incompetent volunteer election officials.



Participation in democracy is an exercise in motivated self-interest; people should vote because, in theory anyway, they're helping shape the government in ways that bring it more in line with their own views. That level of abstract gratification is obviously no longer enough for many voters who don't feel as if their self-interests are being served by casting their ballot, so perhaps it's time to change the motivation to something more tangible, like cash. Or maybe the people who need a monetary incentive to give a shit about their government should just leave the voting to those of us who actually care about the issues?

and fund the lottery by levying a small fine on those who refuse to vote! A carrot and a stick!

There has to be something unconstitutional about that.

Just what we need: people who vote for whoever and whatever - without any actual thought - just so they're in the pot for that million.

They need to figure out a way to combat voter apathy, not turn the process into a goddamn lotto.

Not much worse than people who vote based on one issue, like abortion, especially when the person they vote for isn't even going to eliminate abortion if they ARE elected.

That's my gut reaction, but I honestly cannot think of what the grounds would be. It isn't compelled voting, it isn't a poll tax...I could maybe see an argument by people who don't want their vote "supporting" such a scheme if they are fundamentally opposed to lotteries/gambling of any type, but I doubt there's any real compelled speech First Amendment argument there. Perhaps if the "prize" was being paid out of state funds that would otherwise go to other projects, there may be someone would could establish standing...but the article said that it would be paid out of unclaimed state lottery winnings (presumably after the time had run for people to claim that money).

But, the article does suggest that it may be illegal on statutory grounds:

I suppose you could argue that it's a scheme to encourage the poor to vote. After all, while someone making $100,000 would love $1,000,000, I doubt 1:2,000,000 odds are enough to make them much more likely to vote.

Who the poor vote for would probably depend on the area. In Cleveland, for example, if you got the impoverished to vote, you'd probably be giving a boost to the Democratic party. In southern Ohio, it'd probably be a Republican boost.

At least they're voting for a valid reason and not a prize.

To me, even if someone votes for 'that guy' because he's a conservative and they figure he'll make sure abortion is banned, or 'the other guy' because he's a liberal and he'll make sure the oceans stay clean is much better than "shit, I'll vote for....my momma told me to pick the very best...that one!" because they could get a prize.

It's putting the wrong kind of motivation behind the vote. People should vote because they care about an issue, not because they want to win the pot.

Know what I mean?

i would vote if all the canidates werent assholes

True, but it's not the whole story. There's the issue of voter disenfranchisement. Politicians are more likely to pander to voter groups who tend to vote, such as old people and gun owners, not to mention the ultra-solid voting block of old gun owners. Getting the total vote up would help to steer politicians towards policies for all.

On a side not. The last vote where I am had a turn out of 12%. Still, no queue to vote at least.

What's it matter? The elections are rigged anyway.

Why not just make it mandatory to vote like it is here in Australia?

What, exactly, is this "problem" we're trying to solve? Is voter apathy really such a bad thing? Will the Republic be much improved by the participation of the kind of people who will respond to this kind of bait? Are we worse off when the dim-bulb proles stay home on election day? I think the 2004 election demonstrated that far too many people vote in this country as it is. Too many people equate voting with giving blood; i.e. it's inherently virtuous if you just show up and do it. When I vote, I'm invariably confronted with a few measures that I haven't had time to read up on or am just too flat-out stupid to understand (yes or no - sidewalk repair in front of our schools to be funded by taxing 1.4% of the inflation-adjusted value of blahblahblah...). These items I consider it my responsibility to skip (yes, you can do that!). I have no right to vote in ignorance, and most people (me included) are fucking ignorant.
Besides, widespread voter apathy has a political message of its own. Correct me please if I'm wrong, but wasn't the reason that Iran's (admittedly impressive) turnout was their lowest ever that a lot of candidates were not allowed by the Guardian Council to run, prompting many people to boycott the election? People who stay home do so for a reason; either because they're making a statement (of sorts), or because they're not the kind of people who belong in a voting booth anyway.

Mandatory? ugh, what a perversion of democracy.
reminds me of that expression "If I want your opinion I'll beat it out of you!"

Like the U.S you have to register to vote in Australia but if one forgets then no harm no fowl just dont bitch about the govt the other thing is if you are registered and you dont vote you will be fiend like $50 bucks or something not to sure on the fine amount though. It makes for a greater base for the politicians to get a feel for how the voteing population is feeling at the time.

In the last two presidential elections, there's been talk of voter fraud. I'm not saying there has been or not ( there has ), but a lottery would simply shift attention off real issues onto people bitching that it wasn't fair that ____ got the money and not them. If you don't want to vote, fine. In fact, as it's been stated, it's better if you're not voting if you don't have a clue what's going on.

My choice has either been crap sandwich A or shit sub B every time I've voted. Maybe we should take the money for the lottery and invest it in the option of lesser evil C. Make me and a few others proud to vote for once. Just a thought.

The choice not to vote is just as important as having a choice in who to vote for. I can't speak for Australia, but there are some of us in the US that are just plain tired of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, rather than a canidate that we are truly enthusiastic about. By not voting, people who feel this way are expressing themselves in a way. Although, to be sure, there are plenty of folks who don't vote simply because they don't want to miss their favorite TV show. There's also the problem of not everyone getting off of work on election days. Sure government employees get off, but not the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds. And college students don't get off of classes on election days. Sure they could fill out an absentee ballot, but then their vote may not be counted.

My point exactly, about expressing disgust through not voting. Although I should say I don't really approve of that method of expressing dissatisfaction w the the 2 ruling parties, when there are so many other choices available, especially Green and Libertarian candidates running campaigns that will be mostly symbolic acts of futile protest until people get over the idea that voting for them is "wasting" a vote. We don't HAVE to choose between the lesser of two evils. I sleep like a baby on election nights ever since I stopped voting Democrat and started voting Libertarian (although I confess I voted for Kerry in 2004, and for Larry Flynt for Gov of California before that).

Aw hell, let's just turn those fucking Diebold voter (fraud) machines into video slot machines, we'll probably all still get the same results anyways (most of us lose and the house always wins). The assholes in congress will never go for changing the system they've rigged.

Want to fix the apathy? You've got to fix the "fixed" system. You're vote should ALWAYS count with a popular majority vote deciding presidential races (instead of some archaic electoral college), make "election day" a holiday or a weekend day that allows more people access to the polls, allow international observers during elections to confirm validity of polling and voting, dramatically improve and enforce campaign finance, allow equal party representation in the media and at debates (I'm talking more than a two party system, you know REAL democracy), introduce a parlimentary style system where the President must have open debate with members of congress (in congress) over issues instead of preaching (mandating) from the pulpit (what a novel idea... it's actually entertaining to hear an MP grind the British Prime Minister amid the ruckus of cheers and laughter). There are so many ways the system can be improved, but it takes real leader and real leadership to change the system (unfortunately this is a catch-22 situation right now, it's a bit like asking a bunch of crooks to police themselves).

This next election will either completely break or restore what little faith I have in the system (but I'm not holding my breath). What's the point of voting if it doesn't actually count? (Sorry if I sound apathetic... No I'm not).

Those things don't have to be mutually exclusive. Simply have a choice that says, "None of the above."

We should go the other way. Set up obstacle courses in front of voting booths. You wouldn't have to make any particular time, or even successfully navigate the course in order to vote, but only the people who *tried* would be allowed in.
I don't particularly see the value in boosting the number of votes, while degrading the quality of the voters. I'd much rather see lower voter turnout, but only get votes from those who really cared.

So wait a minute, if you don't vote they won't let you eat chicken, turkey or goose? It doesn't sound that harsh a punishment, but what about the KFC? I can't imagine having to wait till next year for the Zinger sauce.

Politicos offer money in tax cuts, jobs and kick-backs with every election. At least Arizona is guaranteeing one lucky voter actually gets what's promised.

Why is it more despicable to vote in the hopes that you'll get money than in the hope that you'll get a vague sense of control over the government? If nothing else, we'll all learn something invaluable from Arizona's efforts: if it changes turn-out, we'll have a shred of evidence explaining why turn-out is so low. If it doesn't, we'll have a shred of evidence for that, too.

Why don't they just be honest and offer $500,000 tax free?

If you combine this initiative with conditional suffrage then I'm in. That is to say, the first 10 things on the ballot are a simple current events quiz, half provided by one party and half by the other, and if the voter doesn't get at least 8 correct his or her vote is not counted. it just comes out the other end without being enumerated and with a big X on it for manual recounts. heh.
after all, why should anyone who doesn't have the knowledge or mental capacity to understand the choice they're making have a say in it?