Sunday, December 11, 2005
voter lottery
Dr. Mark Osterloh, who ran unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination for Governor against Janet in 2002, proposed a million dollar lottery in 2003 as a way to encourage voter turnout. It seems he's still pushing that idea:
I think the idea has merit. Voter turnout is typically dismal, the economy is poor and disenfranchisement is high. Why not offer a chance to win a cash incentive? Those of us who already vote in every single election could use the boost and a cash prize like that might motivate some of our apathetic neighbors.
White's argument is typical Republican straw-man. What makes her think current voters are by and large educated about the issues or candidates? Her party wins predominantly by misleading voters about candidates and issues. Representative democracy hinges on the enfranchised participation of all eligible voters, whether they fully understand all the nuances of public policy or not.
I would argue that the possibility of a million big ones would motivate most people to do a little research before heading to the polls. Of course there will always be uninformed voters, just as there already are now.
Shame on Judy White for discouraging full and complete voter participation in the process. It makes one wonder if she might fear higher voter turnout because that historically works in the Democrats' favor?
(Tucson, AZ) -- One man wants to make one eligible voter a millionaire simply by doing his civic duty. Dr. Mark Osterloh wants the state to give one voter one-million for casting a ballot. Osterloh is the man whose initiatives have expanded health care for the poor and established public funding for campaigns and created a citizens' committee to draw legislative district boundaries. Osterloh wants the initiative to make the 2006 ballot. According to Osterloh, only about half of eligible voters register and only about half of registered voters vote. Osterloh wants to get people out to the polls and he says the money would come from uncollected state lottery winnings and the people who run Arizona's lottery would run this, too. But the initiative already has some skeptics. Judy White, chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party, says she doesn't think this is a very good way of getting people to the polls because it will bring people who are uneducated about the issues or candidates.
I think the idea has merit. Voter turnout is typically dismal, the economy is poor and disenfranchisement is high. Why not offer a chance to win a cash incentive? Those of us who already vote in every single election could use the boost and a cash prize like that might motivate some of our apathetic neighbors.
White's argument is typical Republican straw-man. What makes her think current voters are by and large educated about the issues or candidates? Her party wins predominantly by misleading voters about candidates and issues. Representative democracy hinges on the enfranchised participation of all eligible voters, whether they fully understand all the nuances of public policy or not.
I would argue that the possibility of a million big ones would motivate most people to do a little research before heading to the polls. Of course there will always be uninformed voters, just as there already are now.
Shame on Judy White for discouraging full and complete voter participation in the process. It makes one wonder if she might fear higher voter turnout because that historically works in the Democrats' favor?
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
As a footsoldier in Salmon's camp during the election, I can safely say Osterloh is as nutty as a fruitcake. This is the socialist geek who put commercials on TV about riding his tricycle. It is a testament to the pathetic state of our schools that Osterloh received a higher degree. His positions betray that he has few critical thinking skills.
Judy White is on point. And your response to her is telling. White said that a lottery would drive the uneducated to the polls. And you said that works in the Democrats' favor. Seems to me those two points lead to the conclusion that the uneducated vote Dem. You want to be a member of the party that includes the apathetic and the know-nothings? Good choice, pal.
Think money would encourage the voters to LEARN anything about the candidates of issues? it certainly would not. Arizona would experience a high volume of voters going to the polls, randomly selecting anyone, or even writing in BS candidates like Mickey Mouse, just for a shot at cash. What utter foolishness!
You're right. All too often, the voters who DO vote don't pay enough attention to the issues in a campaign and they make up their mids at the last minutes. This is scary enough for me. I'm not about to support further chaos and stupidity to slip into the electoral process. In essence, this dumb proposal would only make thinking, learned voters more cynical.
Perhaps your public education failed to teach you this country enjoyed a limited franchise at its inception. One had to be a white, property-owning adult male to vote when this nation was founded. We've seen that limitation erode over time. Under this regime, I wouldn't have been allowed to vote because I rent. Granted, some court could decide a leasehold estate constitutes property ownership for voting...but I doubt it.
I think that those who disenfranchise themselves by choosing not to vote is a GOOD thing! In essence, we have a de facto limited franchise. I think expanding the franchise and making Senators popularly elected has done nothing but degrade the quality of our legislators. When was the last time, except Reagan, that we had a president the quality of Washington or Jefferson?
And let's talk about misleading the public. That Jabba-the-Hutt-wannabe, fat cat, rich land developer, Jim Pedersen lied through his teeth that the Redistricting Commission would be non-partisan. And the California Dems who slipped over our borders to foist the CCEC on us were not honest either. The CCEC has been ANYTHING but fair or clean. Dems lie just as much, but most likely MORE than Republicans do, buddy. I think the Redistricting Commission and CCEC are proof enough that the Arizona electorate cannot be trusted with the ballot initiative powers it has currently...and you want to encourage MORE people to vote? You're just as fruity as Osterloh.
Judy White is on point. And your response to her is telling. White said that a lottery would drive the uneducated to the polls. And you said that works in the Democrats' favor. Seems to me those two points lead to the conclusion that the uneducated vote Dem. You want to be a member of the party that includes the apathetic and the know-nothings? Good choice, pal.
Think money would encourage the voters to LEARN anything about the candidates of issues? it certainly would not. Arizona would experience a high volume of voters going to the polls, randomly selecting anyone, or even writing in BS candidates like Mickey Mouse, just for a shot at cash. What utter foolishness!
You're right. All too often, the voters who DO vote don't pay enough attention to the issues in a campaign and they make up their mids at the last minutes. This is scary enough for me. I'm not about to support further chaos and stupidity to slip into the electoral process. In essence, this dumb proposal would only make thinking, learned voters more cynical.
Perhaps your public education failed to teach you this country enjoyed a limited franchise at its inception. One had to be a white, property-owning adult male to vote when this nation was founded. We've seen that limitation erode over time. Under this regime, I wouldn't have been allowed to vote because I rent. Granted, some court could decide a leasehold estate constitutes property ownership for voting...but I doubt it.
I think that those who disenfranchise themselves by choosing not to vote is a GOOD thing! In essence, we have a de facto limited franchise. I think expanding the franchise and making Senators popularly elected has done nothing but degrade the quality of our legislators. When was the last time, except Reagan, that we had a president the quality of Washington or Jefferson?
And let's talk about misleading the public. That Jabba-the-Hutt-wannabe, fat cat, rich land developer, Jim Pedersen lied through his teeth that the Redistricting Commission would be non-partisan. And the California Dems who slipped over our borders to foist the CCEC on us were not honest either. The CCEC has been ANYTHING but fair or clean. Dems lie just as much, but most likely MORE than Republicans do, buddy. I think the Redistricting Commission and CCEC are proof enough that the Arizona electorate cannot be trusted with the ballot initiative powers it has currently...and you want to encourage MORE people to vote? You're just as fruity as Osterloh.
I may be "fruity," but I wonder what made you so bitter.
I received an excellent public school education (in New Jersey, no less), and I am well aware of the limited enfranchisement and citizenship enjoyed by an elite few at this country's inception. That you would bring this up to argue for continued limited enfranchisement is beyond me.
You were a "foot soldier" in Matt Salmon's campaign. OK, you're a partisan. That's fine, you're welcome to comment here and express your opinions. And upon reading through your blog, I'm not so inclined to give what you say much credence. You want to be a deluded right-wing loon, that's your perogative.
But I still stand by my assertion that increased participation in the electoral process is a good thing for ALL of us. Encouraging people to vote is a good thing because it gives them a sense of power and control over their own lives. The positive effects, like so much that happens in a representative democracy, would not be immediate.
I don't know Dr. Osterloh, so I can't speak to his sanity. But at least he's trying to come up with ideas to enfranchise more eligible voters. In my book, that's better than discouraging people from voting because they're presumed to be "ignorant" or "lazy".
We can have an honest and open conversation or we can continue slinging insults back and forth at each other. I'd prefer the former, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the latter.
I received an excellent public school education (in New Jersey, no less), and I am well aware of the limited enfranchisement and citizenship enjoyed by an elite few at this country's inception. That you would bring this up to argue for continued limited enfranchisement is beyond me.
You were a "foot soldier" in Matt Salmon's campaign. OK, you're a partisan. That's fine, you're welcome to comment here and express your opinions. And upon reading through your blog, I'm not so inclined to give what you say much credence. You want to be a deluded right-wing loon, that's your perogative.
But I still stand by my assertion that increased participation in the electoral process is a good thing for ALL of us. Encouraging people to vote is a good thing because it gives them a sense of power and control over their own lives. The positive effects, like so much that happens in a representative democracy, would not be immediate.
I don't know Dr. Osterloh, so I can't speak to his sanity. But at least he's trying to come up with ideas to enfranchise more eligible voters. In my book, that's better than discouraging people from voting because they're presumed to be "ignorant" or "lazy".
We can have an honest and open conversation or we can continue slinging insults back and forth at each other. I'd prefer the former, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the latter.
And another thing about your comment about "quality" presidents.
Reagan did far more harm than good for this country. He eviscerated the social safety net, ignored a public health crisis, armed terrorists and presided over one of the worst trade deficits in our history. And all the credit he received for "ending Communism" in eastern Europe was more the result of a containment policy that started with Harry Truman than anything Reagan himself did.
If you believe that the only great presidents were Washington, Jefferson and Reagan, I wonder what you think of Lincoln or either of the Roosevelts (FDR was a Democrat and TR was a Progressive/Bull Moose, so I think I know how you feel about them).
I'm not even going to touch your comment about popularly-elected Senators degrading the quality of our legislators, except to say that the 17th Amendment was ratified with good reason. There was a steady disintigration in the process of electing Senators prior to the Civil War, which increased rapidly after the war ended. You can read more about it at the Senate's website: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm.
Reagan did far more harm than good for this country. He eviscerated the social safety net, ignored a public health crisis, armed terrorists and presided over one of the worst trade deficits in our history. And all the credit he received for "ending Communism" in eastern Europe was more the result of a containment policy that started with Harry Truman than anything Reagan himself did.
If you believe that the only great presidents were Washington, Jefferson and Reagan, I wonder what you think of Lincoln or either of the Roosevelts (FDR was a Democrat and TR was a Progressive/Bull Moose, so I think I know how you feel about them).
I'm not even going to touch your comment about popularly-elected Senators degrading the quality of our legislators, except to say that the 17th Amendment was ratified with good reason. There was a steady disintigration in the process of electing Senators prior to the Civil War, which increased rapidly after the war ended. You can read more about it at the Senate's website: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm.
Marcus Kelley (New American Rebel) is still mad that his candidate (Salmon) lost the election. Wah, wah, wah...
# posted by 
: 1/17/2006 2:58 PM
: 1/17/2006 2:58 PM
There's a reason our government's representative rather than majoritarian.
This would appear to be an effort to make it more majoritarian.
Any suggestion that this would lead to better government would imply a belief that a) voters with superior insight exist but they aren't voting and, b) these better voters can be enticed to vote by a chance of winning money. That combination seems unlikely.
Now, it's possible that we can increase the number of people who are satisfied that they're represented in government, but that would only seem to be necessary if someone was planning changes to government that would be less satisfying to the current block of voters.
I apologize in advance if this concept of "common sense" is in any way offensive.
Post a Comment
This would appear to be an effort to make it more majoritarian.
Any suggestion that this would lead to better government would imply a belief that a) voters with superior insight exist but they aren't voting and, b) these better voters can be enticed to vote by a chance of winning money. That combination seems unlikely.
Now, it's possible that we can increase the number of people who are satisfied that they're represented in government, but that would only seem to be necessary if someone was planning changes to government that would be less satisfying to the current block of voters.
I apologize in advance if this concept of "common sense" is in any way offensive.
Links to this post:
<< Home
