Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ucfgrad93, Aug 16, 2014.
This is a very stupid idea.
What say you?
I can't believe an ethics commission had no problem with this.
I think we can make the announcement in the paper now.
Drain 1 vs Society 0
. . . . . and the drain wins as a sea of apathy follows the lead of gravity, down the pipe.
I don't think it's a stupid idea. It's only a chance to win something to entice people to vote. Not like they are giving every voter a payout. With such disappointing turnouts, you can't blame them. Churches do the same with raffles to draw people in.
If the main reason people are voting is a chance to win money, and they don't much care who they vote for, nor understand any of the ballot issues, isn't that the very definition of "low-information voters"?
Why encourage that?
Or more to the point, why pay public money to encourage that?
Uh huh. Having to bribe people into voting via a cash prize -- that's not embarrassing!
Okay, you're right. You've convinced me that this is a spectacular idea and a grand way to get people to vote.
For who, for what, who cares? Let's all vote just because we might win some money.
The point of voting . . . .
. . . . . oh sheeze . . . . .
Now normally, I like to cheer for the underdog.
Is it okay with everyone that I'm rooting for the drain?
Democracy works better with higher participation. I see nothing wrong with drawing in voters with a possible incentive.
You do have a point about low information voters. But those who continually vote are more likely to be informed voters(at least by general standards). And if something like this can get the momentum going, I don't see a problem.
You have any better ideas besides sarcasm?
On first glance, this seems like a terrible idea because it will increase the number of low-information voters to the polls.
But, there's a built-in assumption. Will every new voter remain a low-information voter? And, are all voters brought in by this program low-information?
Paying people to vote?
Wow, if there hasn't been any voter fraud up to this point, they sure seem hell-bent on introducing it now!
People's votes that come about only because they are paid for them are votes we don't need.
Not necessarily. If each voter only gets one entry, then you couldn't easily pretend to be other voters and still expect to get the prize. In fact, you would be doing the equivalent of putting money in other people's meters.
This may actually be illegal. If you remember there was a time when people paid people to vote a certain way. In Georgia we had a guy who was giving free hot dogs and Cokes to anyone wearing a "I Voted" sticker. He found himself in trouble over it.
On one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, I support the idea that voting should be compulsory, as it is in Australia. Whether compulsory or by offering rewards, you're risking that some people are going to vote randomly, or that they'll vote without thoroughly researching the candidates. I would guess (and hope) that if people who weren't voting at all are going to vote, they'll put at least slightly more effort into examining the candidates and the issues.
As LIVEFRMNYC stated, Democracy works better with more participation. We have pretty poor participation as it is, and it isn't like the people who are participating now are all well-informed voters. I can't imagine that getting more people involved would be harmful. I agree with your sentiment of disliking the usage of public funds to entice people to vote. Make it mandatory.
What incentive is there to not be a low-information voter? I see none.
Basically, show up, hand in a ballot, and you have the same chance to win cash as everyone else, including all the people who study the ballot, issues, and candidates. If the incentive is structured just to get people to show up, then why would anyone expect more than that?
Also, since a voter isn't required to vote on every ballot question, they could show up, get a ballot, make one mark on it, then hand it in. Or maybe hand in a completely unmarked ballot (AFAIK, it won't be an invalid ballot). Can't get much lower in the low-information ratings than that.
Why? What would make their vote any less valuable. Your assuming that those who would get enticed by the chance to win would just vote blindly. Many non voters are probably educated about candidates, but just don't show to vote. And it doesn't take much to get the summary of who candidates are and what they stand for.
If you really want a truly educated vote, then they should eliminate the party status next to the candidates, since most vote for a party down the line rather than just the individual.
Easy solution. If you fail to vote, you get moved up in line for jury duty.
Perhaps all voters - even the active 16% - have to sit through some sort of voter education prior to voting. A non-partisan issued FAQ/report on each of the candidates and ballot initiatives. You'll still have plenty of fools voting for D or R only, but perhaps some people will actually learn something and make an educated vote.
I know that's a pretty pie-in-the-sky hope, but offering a chance at $25-50k to vote seems pretty similar to me.
You would also be offering incentives for people who are not allowed to vote to try to cheat the system to do so.
How is that a punishment? I would LOVE to sit on a jury.
It's getting so bad they're going to start paying people to vote. People hanging on and telling other people to go vote just don't get it yet. The system doesn't work and hasn't worked for a long time. Eventually people are going to realize nobody is voting and the whole thing is sham. Then, and only then will we have a shot for real change.
Why should there be a punishment/consequence if you choose to abstain? As far as I'm concerned, not voting is a vote.
What if it's a really boring case, like getting stuck on an eviction case that miraculously drags on for 3 days in addition to the initial show-up day with $8/day parking fees?
But not voting is just as much of a right, as voting. People also have the right to say make no decision.
Exactly. That was my point.
You're right.....it does work better with more people involved. But not in this case. In this case you have the people who are ambivalent about the world around them that they can't even be bothered to vote for the people that will ultimately represent them in their local, state and federal districts. We're going to give those people a cash incentive to show up to the their local polling place and cast their ballot.
More likely than not.....they play eenie-meenie-miney-moe with their ballot.
If there was a way to offer a cash prize for informed votes I MIGHT could get on board with that. But the idea, as currently constructed, kinda sucks.