An Eye Doctor’s Vision: Vote And Get Rich
July 22, 2006 on 8:12 pm | In Main, National |
I must confess to being something of an Arizona-o-phile. Though I only visited the state briefly more than 20 years ago, I have always been impressed with its physical beauty, the can-do attitude of its people, that phenomenal Arizona Highways magazine, and the fact that a good Tex-Mex restaurant is never more than a hop-skip-and-a-jump away. The state insect is the two-tailed swallowtail — whatever that is (sounds great, though). And to top it off, three of my favorite politicians hail from the Grand Canyon State: John McCain, Bruce Babbit and Barry Goldwater.
That’s why I was particularly taken aback when I heard about a scheme to increase voter turnout there. Mark Osterloh, an ophthalmologist from Tuscon and a noted politcal gadfly, has succeeded in getting a proposal on the ballot in November that would reward those who vote in statewide elections and primaries with entry in a special $1 million lottery.
I will assume that Dr. Osterloh, a Democrat, is acting in good faith and that he is motivated by nothing beyond getting more people to the polls so that we can have a better representative democracy. But is bribing voters the way to do it? In fact, as this editorial in The New York Times points out (online registration required to view it), bribing voters is illegal. But Osterloh and his supporters argue that since no one is being paid to vote for a specific candidate, then the lottery proposal does not violate a federal prohibition against buying votes.
As a Times article last week explained, in 2004 when voters sensed there was a lot at stake, turnout in Arizona was 77%. But in 2002, when Dr. Osterloh lost a longshot bid for governor, turnout was 56%. Both are above the national average.
[Earth to Dr. Osterloh: Polls have consistently shown that well more than half of Americans can’t even name their own congressman. I have a hunch they’re the same people who don’t vote.]
I don’t know about you, but I sleep better at night (especially every year in the first week of November) knowing that the people who enter the voting booths are doing so out of a sense of civic duty and/or a desire to effect a change in public policy. If you are so disengaged from public debate that the only thing that will get you to the polls is a chance at a million bucks in state funds, then you should simply stay home.
The thought of legions of voters coming into town halls just to turn a voting machine into the electoral eqivalent of a one-armed bandit is more than I can stomach. It desecrates the institution of democracy in much the same way that a one-night stand cheapens love-making.
I am all for increasing voter turnout, too, but the body politic needs to energize itself on the fuel of excitement about the issues — not at the prospect of a 1-in-12-million chance of getting rich. If the proposal passes in November, I suspect Goldwater will roll over. I, on the other hand, will move to Arizona and vote for McCain for president and hope he appoints Dr. Osterloh treasury secretary. If you can’t beat ‘em …
10 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Powered by WordPress with Pool theme design by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
Valid XHTML and CSS. ^Top^
This is the exact reason why most of the rest of the world look at us in America, like we are from outer space! Over 70 percent of the earths population don’t know what toilet paper is, so maybe they can use the paper this idea is writen down on! Now, this clown wants to have a lottery for people who vote? Is this the democracy we have lost over 2,000 young lives to spread into Iraq? This idea is dumber than you-know-what on a pig!!!!
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 22, 2006 #
The question “Is This Democracy?” could be placed from a different angle: is it democracy when 50% or 56% or 60% of the population vote and the rest are disengaged? And if the vote is then split, you face a situation where 26% of the voters elected our new political leader(s). The rest of the voters were clearly are against or uninterested. Is that the majority rule?
I am clearly against the lottery idea. But has anyone seriously think about mandatory voting in this country? Australia and Belgium do it and they have super high voter turnout. I am of a view that voting is not just a privilage, it is a duty. I sense that this idea will find many who will oppose it, but maybe discussing it will at least enlighten us all on the issue … Mandatory voting, combined with Instant Voter Runoff system could do miracles to alter the voting pattern in the US by bringing more voters to the polls, making results more just and bring in the revenues from the non-voters! OK, fire off all you critics!
Comment by Fritz Frigan — July 23, 2006 #
As Dorothy Parker might have put it: You can lure a voter to a polling place but you can’t make him (or her) think. In the 2004 election, Republicans used the the coin of being righteous and earning one’s way into Heaven (through rejecting gay marriage and perceived Democratic moral decay) ather than money, to lure evangelicals and fellow travelers to the voting booths. Was that really any different than offering them a $1 million lottery prize?
Moreover, what sort of extra voters would be lured in by this money? Surely not the most thoughtful ….
Comment by Tom Shachtman — July 23, 2006 #
Fritz,
Thanks for your comment. I’ve heard of the idea of compulsory voting before. It strikes me as just as crazy as the lottery. It may work in Europe, but Americans have a long history of resistance to compulsory civics. And I don’t think it could ever be enforced and, as such, it would just be another one of those meaningless laws on the books.
Comment by Terry Cowgill — July 23, 2006 #
Compulsory voting is not the answer. In America, people are feeling more and more estranged from the government. It is the responsibility of the PRESS, both electronic and print, to bring the government back in touch with the public. Local, independent papers, radio and television, local access television, the internet all must make the effort to get Americans involved in the day to day operations of our great country…and that means day to day involvment, one way or another with our government. It is also important for our schools to do a better job with students (from grammer school and up)getting them to understand the importance of active involvement in our goverment…not only voting, but an active involvement in the running of our country.
Comment by Marshall Miles — July 24, 2006 #
This doctor is a cheapskate. One measly million to get up off the couch, go and stand around, probably fill out a form…
There will probably be, like, old people there too.
When I heard this I was like, no way, but my fiance said, nuh-uh, like, way, ’cause we could sure use a million bucks.
My fiance said with a million bucks he could build like a really huge meth lab with lots of safety stuff so he doesn’t get blown up again, but I still think it should be 100 million if I’m gonna go waste my time, you know what I’m saying?
(signed)
Young Woman with Nose Ring and Ill-Fitting Hip-Huggers #4
Comment by The Winged Avenger — July 25, 2006 #
I have been troubled for years by the righteous (and lefteous) telling us it is our duty to vote, while reluctantly admitting we are not so legally bound. Are we in fact better served if voters make something of a random selection, as surely happens when it is compulsory, and surely would happen with a lottery?
I submit that when we do not vote, we are casting the passive vote that the candidates have not engaged us.
The civic “duty” (someone please coin the right word here) is for politicians to reach the voters, with ideas and plans that inspire and effect positive change. If politicians cannot articulate why they will make a difference, is it in fact apathetic to skip the vote?
Yeah, it is, because there is always a superior choice. That is why I vote, but the selection is too often pathetic.
Comment by peter halle — July 25, 2006 #
“Are we in fact better served if voters make something of a random selection, as surely happens when it is compulsory, and surely would happen with a lottery?”
I think we are. In mandatory elections a voter has an option to vote for none or against all the candidates. Let me explain on an example:
With the current system, if there are 100 voters in Salisbury, and 50 voted and the majority was achieved by 26 votes or 26%…you can see where I’m going. The elected official is given a mandate by just 26% of the eligible voters. We know that 24% were against him/her and we guess or assume that others were “passively voting against because they were not engaged” - but we are not sure - there could be some other reasons why they did not vote.
Let’s say in mandatory voting we achieve 90% voters turnout. 10 people did not show up and face small fines. Of the 90, 26 voted for the same candidate, 24 against and 40 voted against both (or all) of them! Now we have a situation where the leading candidate received 28.88% of the casted votes. Now, let say that Salisbury has a voting ordinance that no official can be elected unless he or she gets 40% of the casted votes minimum. In the case above, 40 voters actually voted their displeasure with all the candidates and democracy was served. We would need new elections with new, more engaging candidates. I think that this would envigorate the political process ( by making sure that candidates do engage the voters with their ideas + it may bring more candidates to run for offices).
Comment by Fritz Frigan — July 26, 2006 #
it’s the young people with nose rings and hip huggers that know more about the candiates and politics than “The Winged Avenger” ever could.
Comment by anon — July 27, 2006 #
Voting requires involvement. Beavis and Butthead are alive and well in the US. They are the “undecided” voters we are bombarded with in the days before the election. For example, a show of hands of those that think this country is a democracy? You’re wrong. Our form of government is a constitutional republic. Ask any “undecided” voter and he/she will tell you with the certainty of ignorance we live in a democracy; you can read it in the Lakeville Journal and other MSM sources. Must be true, everyone says so.
IF you do not care enough about your town, state and country to be informed about the candidates and their positions on what will affect your life, do us all a favor and stay home watching MTV Rock the Vote.
Not voting is voting. In the last presidential election I grew quite weary hearing about Kerry’s loss and the whiner stating they would never vote again. Let’s see, you finally get motivated enough to spend an hour of your time to elect the POTUS and your guy loses. In true whiner fashion, you sulk for the rest of your life. Oh yeah, you did not bother to vote for anyone else because, you don’t know them and it doesn’t matter, and you were late, and the lines were too long, and …
Paying people to vote? Great idea for a sitcom. Why don’t people vote? Lots of reasons, publik skool edukayshun, decline of the English language, plain ignorance, Joe LIEberman revealing his true opinion of democrats, and on and on.
Anon: so certain of its post there is not the courage to print its name. Let’s you and I hook up and do a man in the street poll for the Journal.
Comment by Paul Bartomioli — July 30, 2006 #