Vote to be a Millionaire! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Cynthetiq · 07-17-2006, 12:21 PM

Quote:

July 17, 2006
Arizona Ballot Could Become Lottery Ticket
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
LINK

TUCSON, July 13 — To anyone who ever said, “I wouldn’t vote for that bum for a million bucks,” Arizona may be calling your bluff.

A proposal to award $1 million in every general election to one lucky resident, chosen by lottery, simply for voting — no matter for whom — has qualified for the November ballot.

Mark Osterloh, a political gadfly who is behind the initiative, the Arizona Voter Reward Act, is promoting it with the slogan, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Vote!” He collected 185,902 signatures of registered voters, far more than the 122,612 required, and last week the secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot this fall.

If the general election in 2004 is a guide, when more than 2 million people voted, the 1-in-2-million odds of winning the election lottery would be far better than the Powerball jackpot (currently about 1 in 146,107,962) but not nearly as great as dying from a lightning strike (1 in 55,928).

“People buy a lot of lottery tickets now,” Mr. Osterloh said, “and the odds of winning this are much, much higher.” (And most of the time there is not much lightning in Arizona.)

If some see the erosion of democracy in putting voting on the same plane as a scratch-and-win game — and some do — Mr. Osterloh sees the gimmick as the linchpin to improve voter turnout and get more people interested in politics.

In 2004, the year of a heated presidential election, 77 percent of registered voters cast ballots in Arizona, but in 2002 — the year Mr. Osterloh, a Democrat, ran for governor in what might politely be called a dark-horse campaign — it was 56 percent. Primary election turnouts are much lower.

About 60 percent of the voting-age population is registered, though that includes people who are ineligible to vote, like illegal immigrants and felons.

“Basically our government is elected by a small minority of citizens,” said Mr. Osterloh, 53, a semiretired ophthalmologist who has helped write and campaign for various successful ballot initiatives.

Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington, said the idea of a voter lottery had come up in other states, but he could not recall any moving forward with it. And he’s glad.

“People should not go vote because they might win a lottery,” Mr. Gans said. “We need to rekindle the religion of civic duty, and that is a hard job, but we should not make voting crassly commercial.”

Editorial writers, bloggers and others have panned the idea as bribery and say it may draw people simply trying to cash in without studying candidates or issues.

“Bribing people to vote is a superficial approach that will have no beneficial outcome to the process, except to make some people feel good that the turnout numbers are higher,” said an editorial in The Yuma Sun. “But higher numbers do not necessarily mean a better outcome.”

The initiative calls for financing the award through unclaimed state lottery prize money, private donations and, if need be, state money. A spokeswoman for the Arizona Lottery Commission said its unclaimed prize pot fluctuated greatly, but it now stood at more than $1 million.

Mr. Osterloh said private donors could add their own incentives, like a car dealership offering a new car to a random voter.

But he may be getting ahead of himself. There is the not-so-small matter of whether such a voter lottery is legal.

Passage of the initiative would supersede a state law barring any exchange of a vote for money, legal experts agreed, but whether it would get around similar federal laws was a matter of debate.

One federal statute calls for fines or imprisonment of up to one year to anyone who “makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person, either to vote or withhold his vote, or to vote for or against any candidate; and whoever solicits, accepts, or receives any such expenditure in consideration of his vote or the withholding of his vote.”

“It’s clearly illegal,” said Jack Chin, a professor at the University of Arizona law school who has studied voting rights issues.

“This is cute and clever, but even though it responds to a real problem, it does so in a way that threatens to degrade the process,” Mr. Chin said.

But Mr. Osterloh, who has a law degree, and the lawyer who helped write the initiative, Anthony B. Ching, a former state solicitor general, said the laws were meant to stop individuals from buying or selling votes for particular candidates or parties. In this case, it would be a state-sanctioned program with a high purpose and, they add, offering the chance to win — voters opt into the program — was not the same as giving everybody money to vote.

“I don’t think the federal law would cover this kind of situation,” Mr. Ching said.

State political leaders so far are keeping their distance.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who will also be on the November ballot as a candidate for reelection, has declined to take a position. The leaders of the State Senate and House, both Republicans, did not answer messages seeking comment.

But Mr. Osterloh presses on. He predicted the idea would spread to the two dozen states that allow citizen ballot initiatives if it was successful here.

The local chapter of We Are America, a group seeking to register Latinos to vote after large pro-immigration demonstrations last spring, plans to promote the initiative in its voter education and registration drives.

“We’ve certainly tried everything else, and people don’t seem to turn out,” said Roberto Reveles, president of the group.

And some voters are giving it serious thought.

“I’m pretty up on the issues, so I don’t need it,” said Beverly Winn, a grocery store clerk here. “But who wouldn’t take money if they offer it?”

In Australia you can be fined for not going to the polls to register to vote. In America voter apathy is quite high. There are already lots of ways for voter fraud to happen from registered dead people to multiple votes per person. I see this as another way that someone can abuse the system, the ultimate "bribe" to convince someone to vote.

I vote no for this if I could.

What are you thoughts? Would this actually finally lure you to the polls?

Crack · 07-17-2006, 12:28 PM

What if I vote twice? 2 in 2 million chance (or 1-1 million?) Those odds arn't so bad!

Gatorade Frost · 07-17-2006, 12:30 PM

I would only vote on this if I were entered into a lotto for millions...

Ustwo · 07-17-2006, 12:52 PM

Since its been shown that less informed voters vote democrat such ploys like motor voting and now this will be rejected by republicans and pushed by democrats. (Now before this starts a needless flame war, that is not saying all democrats are uninformed, but IF you are uninformed you tend to vote democrat, and no I'm not providing links, I am busy making money to pay taxes here)

I've always thought the uninterested and uninformed should be kept away from the polls. This whole voting is a civic duty is kind of assinine.

Brewmaniac · 07-17-2006, 12:55 PM

I'd vote early and often!

frogza · 07-17-2006, 12:56 PM

Another case of rewarding people for doing no more than what they should be doing in the first place. It's pathetic. But then I'm of the mind set that if someone is too lazy or stupid to vote, I really don't want their oponion counting anyway. Let them stay home watching their reality tv and eating their big macs, it will leave more space for those of us who prefer to live rather than just exist.

Infinite_Loser · 07-17-2006, 12:58 PM

A reason to vote!

...Well, other than electing politicians.

Elphaba · 07-17-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Since its been shown that less informed voters vote democrat such ploys like motor voting and now this will be rejected by republicans and pushed by democrats. (Now before this starts a needless flame war, that is not saying all democrats are uninformed, but IF you are uninformed you tend to vote democrat, and no I'm not providing links, I am busy making money to pay taxes here)

I've always thought the uninterested and uninformed should be kept away from the polls. This whole voting is a civic duty is kind of assinine.

Ustwo, weren't you the one that posted that the majority of people with advanced degrees are liberals?

If someone doesn't view voting as a civic responsibility, I would prefer that they stayed home.

cyrnel · 07-17-2006, 02:51 PM

I hope someone is paying attention to what's random.

flstf · 07-17-2006, 04:35 PM

I don't understand what possible benefit can be derived by having people vote who's only reason for voting is to get a lottery ticket. Maybe a better plan would be to give those people a lottery ticket for not voting.

Ustwo · 07-17-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

I don't understand what possible benefit can be derived by having people vote who's only reason for voting is to get a lottery ticket. Maybe a better plan would be to give those people a lottery ticket for not voting.

Now THAT is a winner.

cookmo · 07-17-2006, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Since its been shown that less informed voters vote democrat such ploys like motor voting and now this will be rejected by republicans and pushed by democrats. (Now before this starts a needless flame war, that is not saying all democrats are uninformed, but IF you are uninformed you tend to vote democrat, and no I'm not providing links, I am busy making money to pay taxes here)

I've always thought the uninterested and uninformed should be kept away from the polls. This whole voting is a civic duty is kind of assinine.

Ustwo-heres a link, I have no life

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=949

Reese · 07-17-2006, 10:58 PM

There's no way I'd support this. People should vote because they believe in the candidate, not because they want to win a lottery. This basically turns the whole voting process into a coin toss and takes power away from individual legit votes.

little_tippler · 07-18-2006, 06:22 AM

A bad reason to go and vote... how twisted.

guthmund · 07-18-2006, 09:09 AM

I don't know.

On the one hand, it seems a bit distasteful, but on the other...

If a lottery drew more voters to the poll then a greater swath of the electorate would be represented, right? A true representative government, for better or for worse. I don't think it would do all that much damage anyway.

Zeraph · 07-18-2006, 09:21 AM

Shrug, hard to say. I think they might be just as informed as 80% of the current people voting. Apathetic =/= stupid. I'd say it's worth trying, but I realize I could easily be wrong.

Sultana · 07-18-2006, 10:23 AM

I'd rather have an interested, informed 5% of the populace voting over 80% voting only to try to win a wad of cash.

Eweser · 07-19-2006, 06:32 AM

I am of two minds: on one hand voting shouldn't be a "game", but on the other, I don't know that people who vote currently, without the lure of money, are all that informed about the candidates......and in some cases it actually might cause a person to get more politically informed/involved.

guthmund · 07-19-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sultana

I'd rather have an interested, informed 5% of the populace voting over 80% voting only to try to win a wad of cash.

How are the opportunistic 80% any different than the mass of single-issue voters that already make up the mass of the voting pool?

Is it the promise of monetary reward that's frowned on? How is that any different than voting for a candidate that promises to reward the voter's pocketbook by promising to cut taxes and larger "tax refunds?"

07-17-2006, 12:28 PM	#2 (permalink)
Crack Misanthropic Location: Ohio! yay!	What if I vote twice? 2 in 2 million chance (or 1-1 million?) Those odds arn't so bad! __________________ Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex. ~Halx

07-17-2006, 12:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
Gatorade Frost Rookie	I would only vote on this if I were entered into a lotto for millions... __________________ I got in a fight one time with a really big guy, and he said, "I'm going to mop the floor with your face." I said, "You'll be sorry." He said, "Oh, yeah? Why?" I said, "Well, you won't be able to get into the corners very well." Emo Philips

07-17-2006, 12:52 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Since its been shown that less informed voters vote democrat such ploys like motor voting and now this will be rejected by republicans and pushed by democrats. (Now before this starts a needless flame war, that is not saying all democrats are uninformed, but IF you are uninformed you tend to vote democrat, and no I'm not providing links, I am busy making money to pay taxes here) I've always thought the uninterested and uninformed should be kept away from the polls. This whole voting is a civic duty is kind of assinine. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. Last edited by Ustwo; 07-17-2006 at 02:05 PM.. Reason: Don't post while working and not paying attention

07-17-2006, 12:55 PM	#5 (permalink)
Brewmaniac Searching for the perfect brew!	I'd vote early and often! __________________ "That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

07-17-2006, 02:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
cyrnel Adequate Location: In my angry-dome.	I hope someone is paying attention to what's random. __________________ There are a vast number of people who are uninformed and heavily propagandized, but fundamentally decent. The propaganda that inundates them is effective when unchallenged, but much of it goes only skin deep. If they can be brought to raise questions and apply their decent instincts and basic intelligence, many people quickly escape the confines of the doctrinal system and are willing to do something to help others who are really suffering and oppressed." -Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media, p. 195

07-17-2006, 12:56 PM	#6 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	Another case of rewarding people for doing no more than what they should be doing in the first place. It's pathetic. But then I'm of the mind set that if someone is too lazy or stupid to vote, I really don't want their oponion counting anyway. Let them stay home watching their reality tv and eating their big macs, it will leave more space for those of us who prefer to live rather than just exist.

07-17-2006, 12:58 PM	#7 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	A reason to vote! ...Well, other than electing politicians.

07-17-2006, 04:35 PM	#10 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	I don't understand what possible benefit can be derived by having people vote who's only reason for voting is to get a lottery ticket. Maybe a better plan would be to give those people a lottery ticket for not voting.

07-17-2006, 10:58 PM	#13 (permalink)
Reese Delicious	There's no way I'd support this. People should vote because they believe in the candidate, not because they want to win a lottery. This basically turns the whole voting process into a coin toss and takes power away from individual legit votes. __________________ “It is better to be rich and healthy than poor and sick” - Dave Barry

07-18-2006, 06:22 AM	#14 (permalink)
little_tippler Leaning against the -Sun- Super Moderator Location: on the other side	A bad reason to go and vote... how twisted. __________________ Whether we write or speak or do but look We are ever unapparent. What we are Cannot be transfused into word or book. Our soul from us is infinitely far. However much we give our thoughts the will To be our soul and gesture it abroad, Our hearts are incommunicable still. In what we show ourselves we are ignored. The abyss from soul to soul cannot be bridged By any skill of thought or trick of seeming. Unto our very selves we are abridged When we would utter to our thought our being. We are our dreams of ourselves, souls by gleams, And each to each other dreams of others' dreams. Fernando Pessoa, 1918

07-18-2006, 09:09 AM	#15 (permalink)
guthmund big damn hero	I don't know. On the one hand, it seems a bit distasteful, but on the other... If a lottery drew more voters to the poll then a greater swath of the electorate would be represented, right? A true representative government, for better or for worse. I don't think it would do all that much damage anyway. __________________ No signature. None. Seriously.

07-18-2006, 09:21 AM	#16 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Shrug, hard to say. I think they might be just as informed as 80% of the current people voting. Apathetic =/= stupid. I'd say it's worth trying, but I realize I could easily be wrong.

07-18-2006, 10:23 AM	#17 (permalink)
Sultana Falling Angel Location: L.A. L.A. land	I'd rather have an interested, informed 5% of the populace voting over 80% voting only to try to win a wad of cash. __________________ "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." - Matt Groening My goal? To fulfill my potential.

07-19-2006, 06:32 AM	#18 (permalink)
Eweser Psycho Location: O-K-L-A-H-O-M-A	I am of two minds: on one hand voting shouldn't be a "game", but on the other, I don't know that people who vote currently, without the lure of money, are all that informed about the candidates......and in some cases it actually might cause a person to get more politically informed/involved. __________________ "Whoever wrote this episode should die!"