Ariz. Measure Would Give $1M to a Voter

[wakeme2008]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Voter-Reward.html

May 23, 2006
Ariz. Measure Would Give $1M to a Voter
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 5:06 a.m. ET

PHOENIX (AP) -- An Arizona political activist is placing his bets that a proposal to pay one lucky voter $1 million will drive people to the polls.

Dr. Mark Osterloh, a Tuscon ophthalmologist who has run unsuccessfully for governor and the Legislature, filed paperwork Monday to put the idea before state voters on the 2006 ballot.

''Who do you know that doesn't want to be a millionaire? What's the worst thing that could happen? Everybody who's eligible to vote could be voting,'' he said.

..more at link.....

[Journeyman]

1. Why do they want to encourage the politically uninvolved to vote?. . .

Such voters could be easily swayed not by reason or self-interest, but by flash & filligree and a little fear for good measure -- perfect candidates for BushCo's nonsense.

This is only slightly more idiotic than the "Rock the Vote" campaign, another effort designed to get ignorant citizens into the polls. Let's encourage political awareness and enlightened self-interest, first, then we'll see about motivating people to effect change in all our lives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Disagree, rock the vote was meant to bring the kids

to the pollls... then we complaint because efforts to get the vote out are made?

Now this... this is stupid but for OTHER reasons, chiefly... it is MY civic duty to go vote, not because I will get rich, but because it is MY civic duty

Americans shuold be ashamed of themselves. You watch, even our now reviled neighboor to the south, the Presidential elections will have more than 60% if the eligible electorate vote, and 60% is a low turn out down there.

[Journeyman]

3. Just because someone is brought to the polls. . .

doesn't make them an educated voter -- democracy is dependent on quality, not quantity, and simply stuffing the ballot booth is no guarantee the ballot box will reflect wisdom or even self-interest.

To hell with this idea we should "be ashamed of ourselves" because the ignorant and the disinterested don't vote. Look at the 2004 election, and the huge numbers who were motivated to go to the polls for the sole purpose of voting against gay marriage -- and once there, they were manipulated into voting a slate of candidates who now govern in contradistinction to the interests of the lugheads and nitwits who voted, first, to protect the "sanctity of marriage" (though I suspect most of them considered it in terms of voting against 'them queers'), and then, voted for people they believed would support their hatred. Is this the type of democracy we should cherish? And then believe it especially good if we can get the lunkheads to vote our side of the ticket?

Two illusions of democratically-ruled countries were shattered in the early part of the 20th century by the rise of totalitarian movements in the European nation-states. The first was that the politically neutral and indifferent masses could be manipulated and prodded to act against their own interests and, in the proper situations, could easily become the majority in a democratically ruled country, proving that democracy could function according to rules actively recognized by only a minority. The second illusion shattered by the political involvement of these disinterested masses was the belief that democracy rests upon the involvement and participation of an enlightened citizenry. On the contrary, by drawing the disinterested into the process, and turning it on its head, totalitarianism showed that democracy rests as much on the silent indifference of the inarticulate as on the articulate and visible institutions and organizations of the country.

Rather than seeking merely to get-out-the-vote, we should instead be far more interested in cultivating an educated citizenry who will act for the good of the nation because it will be in their own interest to do so. Once a people is properly involved and motivated, they'll seek the polls for themselves.

[ConcernedCanuk]

4. "cultivating an educated citizenry" - The PNACers wouldn't like that

.
.
.

and they go to extreme lengths to prevent it.

They just want your taxes to fund their wars,

Also your bodies for cannon fodder

AND . .

The PNACers are succeeding

(sigh)

[krkaufman]

7. "cultivating an educated citizenry"

Rather than seeking merely to get-out-the-vote, we should instead be far more interested in cultivating an educated citizenry who will act for the good of the nation because it will be in their own interest to do so. Once a people is properly involved and motivated, they'll seek the polls for themselves.

This approach is why I believe The Left needs to take a full, 50-state approach; the broad approach may not result in immediate victories, but we must not surrender whole swaths of the country to the propaganda of the Right.

[krkaufman]

6. Thanks for the simple insight.

I initially liked the thought of drawing more to the polls through this lottery-like windfall, knowing the country to be more progressive/liberal on a per-issue basis, but am swayed by your insight that it would likely just bring more-malleable, less-informed voters to the polls -- not necessarily producing a "better" result.

[Demeter]

5. I Highly Doubt This Would Withstand a Constitutional Challenge

It strongly smells of vote buying.

[Fridays Child]

8. And it's unfair because 'pukes would get twice as many chances to win...

...since their votes probably get counted twice. x(

[Tiggeroshii]

9. I like that idea. n/t