Ariz. considers $1 million voter lottery

[kumquatq3]

I'm undecided, thoughts?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_el_ge/voter_reward

 

PHOENIX - "Vote your pocketbook" could take on a whole new meaning in Arizona.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The state is considering a proposal to boost turnout during elections by awarding a $1 million prize to one randomly selected voter, just for casting a ballot.

 

"It gives them something to shoot for," said Rosie Coyote, 55, a process server from Phoenix. "It gives them motive. I think it's a good idea."

 

But others warn that the raffle would trivialize the electoral process, distort the outcome and violate state or federal law.

 

Arizonans will vote on the reward idea Nov. 7. The proposal made it onto the ballot in June after supporters turned in nearly 184,000 signatures, or about 50 percent more than required.

 

If the measure passed, election officials would assign a number to each voter who casts a ballot in a state election. The state commission that oversees the Arizona lottery would then hold a public drawing to pick a winner, with the prize money coming from unclaimed lottery prizes.

 

Supporters see the reward as a way to boost participation in elections. Arizona's turnout of registered voters in the 2004 general election was already high at 77 percent, compared with nearly 61 percent nationally.

 

"One of the goals that I've had in my lifetime is to see that all Americans have health care like every other major country on earth. One of the ways to do that is to make sure that everybody votes," said Mark Osterloh, a Tucson ophthalmologist and political activist who headed and bankrolled the reward campaign. He also ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2002.

 

Casey Mammen said the financial incentive trivializes the electoral process.

 

"Voting is a privilege of an American. That's the way it should be viewed, not as a bribe to get me to come do what I have the privilege to do," said Mammen, 33, a pastor in El Mirage.

 

David Garcia, 36, said the idea makes him uncomfortable: "The government encouraging democracy through a monetary reward I think starts to go down some slippery slopes. Just for some reason, mixing the two together doesn't sit well with me."

 

The Arizona Chamber on Commerce and Industry, the state's biggest business lobby, calls the idea misguided and dangerous, saying a reward would encourage people to cast a ballot "even if they are completely uninformed and uninterested."

 

"It's too cute by more than a half, and I think Arizona voters will reject this kind of gimmickry," Chamber spokesman Farrell Quinlan said.

 

Osterloh rejected the criticism. Like people who do not bone up on the latest car models unless they are about to buy one, non-voters would take the time to learn about candidates and issues if they decided to vote, he said.

 

The idea's legality is also in question. Federal law makes it a crime punishable by a fine and imprisonment for up to two years to make, offer or receive "an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote." An Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor to "treat, give, pay, loan, contribute, offer or promise money or other valuable consideration" to induce a voter to go to the polls.

 

Several attorneys said the state law would probably not be a problem because the voter reward law effectively would provide an exemption for the drawing.

 

And an attorney consulted by Osterloh, Anthony Ching, said the federal prohibitions wouldn't be triggered because the chance of winning the $1 million is just a possibility; there is no expectation of something of value.

 

A voter would get one entry in the drawing for voting in either the primary or general election, or two entries for voting both times. Considering a combined 2.6 million ballots were cast in Arizona in 2004, the chances of winning would probably be better than the 1-in-4.5 million odds for the $1 million jackpot in the Arizona lottery.

 

"Here, nobody's giving anything," said Ching, a former top official in the Arizona Attorney General's Office. "The mere expectation that you may win ... doesn't have any value."

 

Other attorneys disagreed.

 

"I think it's illegal," said Gabriel "Jack" Chin, a University of Arizona law professor. "The chance (to win) is valuable. Somebody wins."

[SteveThaiBinh]

It's treating the symptom rather than the problem itself. The problem in many modern democracies is not low voter turnout, it's low popular involvement and interest in the political process, largely due to the behaviour of professional politicians.

 

On the other hand, anything's worth a go. Perhaps it will stimulate debate and get people more interested in politics. It's a shame that everything new has to be denounced as illegal and dangerous before it's even tried.

[Krookie]

Americans have got so pathetic we have to provide a gimmick to get them to vote.

[Petay]

But others warn that the raffle would trivialize the electoral process, distort the outcome and violate state or federal law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why? How is this any different from the lottery which we have in England (guess there's one in the US) and is that illegal? No.

 

I can't see any problem with it personally, but I'm not too politically-minded so I don't know a great deal about the whole thing, however I understand that the key problem is lack of voters, and the way I see it, this just promotes voting a heck of a lot more.

 

Although, I can see what Steve meant by addressing simply the symptom and not the actual problem, as there will be one crap politician in, and one lucky rich person.

 

Oh and Krookie, aren't you american?

[LadyCrimson]

Oh and Krookie, aren't you american?

You can be American and still think things that America's, ah, politics, churn out are pathetic.

 

I don't think this would do much good. If someone isn't voting, having a almost-no-chance odds of winning a bunch of money isn't likely to make 'em stop watching TV (or whatever) and go vote. Non-voting is either 'politically' movtivated or from laziness/not caring or the sensation that voting is 'useless'. To most of those minds, a lottery doesn't motivate. Sure you'd get a little boost perhaps but eh...I dunno.

[Volourn]

"You can be American and still think things that America's, ah, politics, churn out are pathetic."

 

Except he bashes all Amerikans. Talk about lameness. "

 

 

Anyways, I'm neutral on this issue. Potential legalities (which is an argument that suits only the anal) aside, the big issue is if it's actually worth spending $1 million of taxpayers' money on this.

 

I say if people don't want to vote than they shouldn't vote. I really hate the 'psh to vote' stuff.

[Krookie]

I was bashing the Americans who don't vote, actually.

[taks]

i'm guessing this will lose in some sort of constitutional battle. essentially, they're paying people to vote. i don't know for sure, however. maybe gromnir has a well-informed opinion.

 

taks

[Atreides]

Freedom gets boring after awhile.

[Arkan]

the big issue is if it's actually worth spending $1 million of taxpayers' money on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, it's not. The article said the money would be payed using unclaimed lottery money.

[Arkan]

But others warn that the raffle would trivialize the electoral process,

 

That's a good one, too.

[LadyCrimson]

No, it's not. The article said the money would be payed using unclaimed lottery money.

Which in my opinion would be better used being put into that states education or whatever other cause the state deems important, rather than a likely futile effort at bribing voters.

[Krookie]

No, it's not. The article said the money would be payed using unclaimed lottery money.

Which in my opinion would be better used being put into that states education or whatever other cause the state deems important, rather than a likely futile effort at bribing voters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That about says it. "

 

 

[taks]

No, it's not. The article said the money would be payed using unclaimed lottery money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which would otherwise be used to subsidize taxpayer initiatives. in the end, it is taxpayers' money.

 

taks

Edited August 4, 2006 by taks

[taks]

unfortunately, a lot of the people that don't vote, probably shouldn't. this type of incentive would bring out all the idiots. would anyone really want them deciding the fate of society?

 

taks

[alanschu]

Yes.

[Volourn]

"No, it's not. The article said the money would be payed using unclaimed lottery money."

 

Oh, I missed that. Then I say, go for it. Might as well use lottery money for lotteries.

[Walsingham]

Would only be good if you had a 'reopen nominations' option.

[Krookie]

This whole "million dollar vote" would probably increase the chance of people trying to vote more then once. Fox Five did a report on multi-voters. They said pretty much anyone could get back in the booth more then once.

[Darque]

I was bashing the Americans who don't vote, actually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's not a very wise thing to do.

 

People have the right to vote, and the right not to vote.

 

THAT is freedom.

[Krookie]

Yes, but people shouldn't vote JUST for the million dollars. That's what I'm trying to say.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Yes, but people shouldn't vote JUST for the million dollars. That's what I'm trying to say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In several democracies it's illegal not to vote, including Australia and Belgium I believe. Is voting just to win a million dollars worse than voting to avoid a fine?

[Volourn]

"Is voting just to win a million dollars worse than voting to avoid a fine?"

 

Oh SNAP! You win.

 

I think forcing people to vote is IMMORAL, and only IMMORAL countries force people to do something that they don't want to know when it hurts NO ONE.

 

 

P.S. I like Australia, and Belgium doesn't bother me; but this IMMORAL practice of theirs is IMMORAL.

[Krookie]

Did you say: IMMORAL?

[Arkan]

No, it's not. The article said the money would be payed using unclaimed lottery money.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which would otherwise be used to subsidize taxpayer initiatives. in the end, it is taxpayers' money.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We'll just have to disagree there.