Someone in Arizona has offered legislation that would create a "voters' lottery".  Everyone who votes, under this plan, would be entered in a lottery to win $1,000,000.  That's right, ONE MILLION $$$$.  The idea is to encourage voter turnout.  It would work better by offering 1000 $1000 prizes. 

Yes, I agree. The more chances that one would have to win something..the better it would be. That's not half a bad idea! ;)

Great, a little something to attract the greediest and most avaricious voters.

Democracy: It Was Great While It Lasted.

With Republicans in charge of the electoral process, voting is a lottery. If you're a Democrat, there's a one in a million chance they'll count your vote!
;D

i just heard the guy on the radio and i just did a 180degree turn! i'm sold!

let's do it! fabulous idea.

How about paying voters $100.00 a piece not to vote at all? Fair enough. Only those who need $100 more than a vote would take it!

Someone in Arizona has offered legislation that would create a "voters' lottery".  Everyone who votes, under this plan, would be entered in a lottery to win $1,000,000.  That's right, ONE MILLION $$$$.  The idea is to encourage voter turnout.  It would work better by offering 1000 $1000 prizes. 


Well, I wouldn't mind a chance at a million.  Too bad there's no way to know if the people showing up know anything about who or what they're voting for. ???

Well, I wouldn't mind a chance at a million.  Too bad there's no way to know if the people showing up know anything about who or what they're voting for. ???


Thats why compulsory voting is a BAD idea and I'm not so upset that this country has a low voter turnout.  Theres quite a large chunk of the populace I'd rather not see vote.

[quote author=

[quote author=

How about paying voters $100.00 a piece not to vote at all? Fair enough. Only those who need $100 more than a vote would take it!


Do a Monty Brewster:

"Vote for none of the above!"  ;D

Thing is, most of the stupid people essentially look out for what they want.

I know what you're talking about, but remember, the religious filth already come out and vote in their masses, they aren't a major concern.
It's the mongolids that just don't know any better that don't vote and when quizzed what do you think they'll say?

"I want lower taxes."
"I want the bus to be cheaper."
"I want more jobs available."

They're of no harm.

I have heard many a rightwinger say he does not want poor people to vote.

The ruling class wants to raise payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for the rich.
The ruling class loathes public transportation.
The ruling class wants to outsource as many jobs as possible.

The ruling class is detrimental to us all.

I have heard many a rightwinger say he does not want poor people to vote.

The ruling class wants to raise payroll taxes to fund tax cuts for the rich.
The ruling class loathes public transportation.
The ruling class wants to outsource as many jobs as possible.

The ruling class is detrimental to us all.


Are you serious?  How many is "many"?  Five or a thousand?

I spent some time in the "right wing" (not the extreme minority....the moderate right where the majority of conservatives sit) and I never heard anyone say they didn't want poor people to vote.

I have heard people ponder how best to help people with little education actually make an educated choice. 
I have definitely not ever -- even in the far right -- heard of anyone who was against public transportation. 

Here's the problem with the socialist left (the counter to the far right of which you speak):  they are happy to appeal to the emotional center of anyone -- the under-educated particularly -- to get them to the polls and have their vote.  Policymaking cannot sit on emotion alone.

Here's what gets me from the Democrat side:  Public announcement:  "Joe Smith, the Republican lawmaker who wants you to put him in office again, voted against children today when he turned down the new tax increase for schools"  Truth:  Joe Smith voted against this bill because it was written poorly and did not adequately explain how the money would get into the classroom; and because it had an addendum on it that increased taxes in incremental amounts over a decade without an accountability measure to be sure the money was being used properly.

This happens all the time (from both sides).  I get tired of Democrats being painted as "nice and caring" as if they don't have big money behind them or as if they don't hide their own pork in bills that have nice titles so they can appeal to public emotion.

well, i don't think anyone says it outright, but when someone on the left says there are certain people who it'd be better if they didn't vote (and surely you hear this a lot? it'd be better if certain people didn't vote? even if a specific group isn't cited? i hear it all the time) usually the group they're referring to is gun-toting farmers/ranchers/"rednecks" in the sticks in red states. when someone from the right says it, they usually mean poor inner city people or minorities. but it gets said as, certain people don't know enough, don't have the aptitude to, or are too apathetic to vote responsibly. it's a code, because there are beliefs on both sides that are too impolitic to be said outright.

vis-a-vis public transportation this is much more partisan, and i think, frankly, the right wing typically IS opposed to it, by and large. they think it's "socialist." so when someone on the right starts talking about "budget cuts" or getting rid of bloated, big government, public transportation is typically among the bloated programs they mean. they're hardly ever talking about, say, the military budget or law enforcement.

historically, the auto and oil industries had an orchestrated campaign to get rid of the extensive streetcar system that used to exist in america, which would otherwise have doubtless been updated to a decent subway system -- which most cities in the country don't have. a little later, the airline industry actively lobbied to have the country's train system dismantled. and that's too bad, because flying is about the most fuel-inefficient way to travel and if we had a better rail system in this country we'd be in much better shape. but rail and subway systems are both public sector, autos and air flight tend to be private sector, so, in the name of fighting "socialism," we've basically made travel as inefficient as possible in this country, because that generates more private revenue.

well, i don't think anyone says it outright, but when someone on the left says there are certain people who it'd be better if they didn't vote (and surely you hear this a lot? it'd be better if certain people didn't vote? even if a specific group isn't cited? i hear it all the time) usually the group they're referring to is gun-toting farmers/ranchers/"rednecks" in the sticks in red states. when someone from the right says it, they usually mean poor inner city people or minorities. but it gets said as, certain people don't know enough, don't have the aptitude to, or are too apathetic to vote responsibly. it's a code, because there are beliefs on both sides that are too impolitic to be said outright.

Yes, I will say that I've seen this on both sides for a few different reasons.

vis-a-vis public transportation this is much more partisan, and i think, frankly, the right wing typically IS opposed to it

I guess it depends on where you are.  I have not seen this play out in the way you say.  I've seen both sides join to develop mass transit -- it helps a lot of people in a lot of ways and is also good for tourism.

better rail system in this country we'd be in much better shape. but rail and subway systems are both public sector, autos and air flight tend to be private sector, so, in the name of fighting "socialism," we've basically made travel as inefficient as possible in this country, because that generates more private revenue.


I think these issues are more complex and stem from things other than "fighting socialism" -- I don't think that is at the core of the auto/air vs. rail choice.  But I really haven't spent much time examining this.

Good points for discussion.  Thanks.

I guess it depends on where you are.  I have not seen this play out in the way you say.  I've seen both sides join to develop mass transit -- it helps a lot of people in a lot of ways and is also good for tourism.
i'd think it would play out differently a lot of times in local politics than national or even state politics, which is where the bulk of the corporate lobbying takes place.

Are you serious?  How many is "many"?  Five or a thousand?

I spent some time in the "right wing" (not the extreme minority....the moderate right where the majority of conservatives sit) and I never heard anyone say they didn't want poor people to vote.

I have heard people ponder how best to help people with little education actually make an educated choice. 
I have definitely not ever -- even in the far right -- heard of anyone who was against public transportation. 

Here's the problem with the socialist left (the counter to the far right of which you speak):  they are happy to appeal to the emotional center of anyone -- the under-educated particularly -- to get them to the polls and have their vote.  Policymaking cannot sit on emotion alone.

Here's what gets me from the Democrat side:  Public announcement:  "Joe Smith, the Republican lawmaker who wants you to put him in office again, voted against children today when he turned down the new tax increase for schools"   Truth:  Joe Smith voted against this bill because it was written poorly and did not adequately explain how the money would get into the classroom; and because it had an addendum on it that increased taxes in incremental amounts over a decade without an accountability measure to be sure the money was being used properly.

This happens all the time (from both sides).  I get tired of Democrats being painted as "nice and caring" as if they don't have big money behind them or as if they don't hide their own pork in bills that have nice titles so they can appeal to public emotion.

They're not against public transportation per se, they're against funding public transportation. It is not strictly partisan, mind you. The automobile and the airplane are much better ways of burning fossil fuels than rail, even rail reliant on coal. The real campaign against mass transit happened before your time. Government at all levels was so much in the pocket of the petrochemical industries it allowed them to uproot comprehensive local and long-distance rail service in favor of the extremely inconvenient bus routes you see today. You've still got Amtrak, but everyone knows Amtrak's a joke. The government has been killing Amtrak slowly for forty years.
The private passenger car, you see, is a great tool of class apartheid.

The Dems only get to do the "nice and caring" schtick because the Republicans make themselves so fascist and vile. And what about this "family values" nonsense the Repugs are always on about? The entire Republican agenda is destructive to the economic security of working and middle class America. Destroy economic security and you destroy healthy families. Just because you wave a Bible and a Pro-Life sign does not make you a supporter of "family values."

Talk about appealing to public emotion! The Republicans appeal to the white man's fear, rage, and jealousy with every breath  they breathe. The reason you associate "Democrat" and "emotion" is because the Repugs took all the negative connotations and heaped them on Democrats who support humane social policy. The negative connotations are "soft, wussy, vulnerable, tearful, and above all, female. That's right, the rightwing appeals to the misogyny at large. Ever listen to Phyllis Schlafley, Midge Decter, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, or Christina Hoff-Sommers?

My my, I did stir up a can of worms.  Lots of studies have shown that poor folks don't vote because thet don't believe it will make a difference in their lives, and to some extent they have been right, until recently.  Growning up, there was little difference between the reubs and the dems.  Since the 30's they both more or less accepted the wefare state.  But lately, the Repubs have become the Repugs, and want to dismantle the social safty net.  Hopefully, poor people will get the picture and turn out iun their own interesats, but I wouldn't bet the farem on it.  So if a bribe gets them out, and they vote THEIR interests, we all win - a society wityh a strong safty net and a thriving democracy.  The more people who vote, the better.  Oh, and I have voted for "none of the above" by writing myself in.

My my, I did stir up a can of worms.  Lots of studies have shown that poor folks don't vote because thet don't believe it will make a difference in their lives, and to some extent they have been right, until recently.  Growning up, there was little difference between the reubs and the dems.  Since the 30's they both more or less accepted the wefare state.  But lately, the Repubs have become the Repugs, and want to dismantle the social safty net.  Hopefully, poor people will get the picture and turn out iun their own interesats, but I wouldn't bet the farem on it.  So if a bribe gets them out, and they vote THEIR interests, we all win - a society wityh a strong safty net and a thriving democracy.  The more people who vote, the better.  Oh, and I have voted for "none of the above" by writing myself in.

The Bushies don't want to dismantle the welfare state, they want to dismantle the nation state...and they're doing it. Just hand over all the money and resources to a few greedy corporations, and the public can go to H-E-double toothpicks!
Ironic isn't it--the word "Republican" has at its root the word "Republic," from the Latin Res Publica, or "the public thing."
:D

People would just mark whatever in hopes of getting a prize.. but I like the idea to get people to vote.

You want a lottery, I'll give you a lottery.  The names of people who don't vote are put in for the drawing, the person whose name is drawn has their citizenship traded to another country that doesn't have free elections, for an immigrant who agrees to vote in every election.  ;)

You want a lottery, I'll give you a lottery.  The names of people who don't vote are put in for the drawing, the person whose name is drawn has their citizenship traded to another country that doesn't have free elections, for an immigrant who agrees to vote in every election.   ;)

How about a Shirley Jackson's "Lottery," kind of lottery. We'll draw the name of somebody who did not vote, and the non-voter will be stoned to death!
;D

Actually, I know in Belgium, citizens who do not vote get fined. If we did that in the U.S., we could pay off the national debt in one election cycle! I hate it when people say, "this is a FREE country, voting shouldn't be mandatory." Oh, it's a "free country," eh? You know what I had to do when I turned 18? Register for the draft! Of course, then there was no draft, they called it "selective service," so I wasn't too woried. As a matter of fact, I would have volunteered (surprise, surprise), but the state of my health did not allow it. The point is, in our "free country" there's tons of stuff you have to do (pay taxes, register your car, get a marriage license), so voting might as well be one of them. I'm also for making election day a holiday. Keep it Tuesday so as not to make it a "long weekend," and emphasize that today is the day you vote. I'm also for same-day registration and an adequate number of polling stations in each precinct, etc.

Democracy: It Was Great While It Lasted.

I might sound like a broken record, but shouldn't that be "Democracy: it would be great if we had it"?

Democracy is a lottery: when you have an electorate who can't be bothered to find out what the candidates are really like; when more than half the electorate when questioned are actually wrong about what a candidate stands for; when lies and slander are shouted louder than their subsequent rebuttals so that the dirt sticks and nobody does anything about the original lies... It's worse than a lottery: it's a joke.  A very sick joke.

I might sound like a broken record, but shouldn't that be "Democracy: it would be great if we had it"?

Democracy is a lottery: when you have an electorate who can't be bothered to find out what the candidates are really like; when more than half the electorate when questioned are actually wrong about what a candidate stands for; when lies and slander are shouted louder than their subsequent rebuttals so that the dirt sticks and nobody does anything about the original lies... It's worse than a lottery: it's a joke.  A very sick joke.

Not sure what sort of reforms you'd like to see in Britain. In America, I would like to see voter-owned elections (that is, radical campaign finance reform), and instant run-off ballots. That's a start. The two-party oligarchy is a disaster. I quote Galbraith again, he said to Jimmy Carter: "I'm going to tell you exactly what I told Harry Truman--We don't need two Republican parties. One is more than enough!" Unfortunately, on the national level that's what we've got. We have the center right and the far right. Reasonable people who come in and say, "this is nuts, let's pull our sh*t together," from Jerry Brown to Howard Dean get trashed as "kooks." The partisan spin machines and the media do the bidding of their corporate paymasters every time!
::)

You want a lottery, I'll give you a lottery.  The names of people who don't vote are put in for the drawing, the person whose name is drawn has their citizenship traded to another country that doesn't have free elections, for an immigrant who agrees to vote in every election.   ;)


I like it.  ;)

Having a lottery for voting is one of the dumbest things I've heard of this year. What's next? Having lotteries for completing high school?

You want a lottery, I'll give you a lottery.  The names of people who don't vote are put in for the drawing, the person whose name is drawn has their citizenship traded to another country that doesn't have free elections, for an immigrant who agrees to vote in every election.  ;)

I'll one-up ya.

The names of people who don't vote are put in for the drawing.

The winner, per district, wins the election.  With a one-term limit.

Nobody who runs for public office is fit to hold it -- I merely seek to take it one step further:  Nobody who votes for anyone who runs for public office is fit to hold it either! :)