Using prizes/the lottery to get people to vote

[wonky]

Story today in the LA Times:

Alarmed that fewer than one-fourth of voters are showing up for municipal elections, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission voted Thursday to recommend that the City Council look at using cash prizes to lure a greater number of people to the polls.

On a 3-0 vote, the panel said it wanted City Council President Herb Wesson’s Rules, Elections and Intergovernmental Relations Committee to seriously consider the use of financial incentives and a random drawing during its elections, possibly as soon as next year.

At first blush, I think this is a neat idea. I like the idea of more people voting, and I have the feeling that people would start to pay a little bit more attention if they had a concrete reason to. (This may be naive.) But I also get the weirdness of bribing people to vote.

What do you think? Great idea? Terrible one? Depends? Worse than the problem? Fixing something that isn’t broken in the first place?

The article suggests that it may not be legal. Should it be?

(Note: I don’t care if it’s legal. If you want to discuss that, start a GQ thread.)

[Oakminster]

Horrible idea. Low information voters marking ballots at random doesn’t help anything.

[pancakes3]

I agree. Voter turnout is only a symptom of voter apathy. Incentivizing it doesn’t really address the ignorance aspect nor the accountability aspect.

[chiroptera]

Another agreement. I want internally-motivated and informed voters at the polls, not an increase of poorly informed or apathetic voters jst showing up for a chance at getting paid for doing so.

[not_what_you_d_expect]

If they have some money to throw at this problem, I’d rather they offer free classes to the community about the importance of voting and how best to go about it.

I don’t really like the idea of voting to get a free TV or something.

[ZipperJJ]

@not_what_you_d_expect

If they have some money to throw at this problem, I’d rather they offer free classes to the community about the importance of voting and how best to go about it.

Maybe they could use the lottery to boost turnout for that instead!

[Terr]

Why would you want to compel someone who doesn’t care or know enough - to vote?

[monstro]

When I was a little kid in school, we would sometimes be given a pizza party if the class met some ambitious goal, like selling the most candy bars.

So pizza for the whole polling precinct if we get a 90% turnout. I’d be down for that.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@Terr

Why would you want to compel someone who doesn’t care or know enough - to vote?

Unless one thought that the apathetic and uninformed vote would favor their own party…

[la_fille_intellectuelle]

@jsgoddess

Story today in the LA Times:

At first blush, I think this is a neat idea. I like the idea of more people voting, and I have the feeling that people would start to pay a little bit more attention if they had a concrete reason to. (This may be naive.) But I also get the weirdness of bribing people to vote.

What do you think? Great idea? Terrible one? Depends? Worse than the problem? Fixing something that isn’t broken in the first place?

The article suggests that it may not be legal. Should it be?

(Note: I don’t care if it’s legal. If you want to discuss that, start a GQ thread.)

Well when it comes to the lottery which is used as a funding source for education (politician slush fund) I would say shame on them.
You know for a fact that the majority of those that purchase lottery tickets are minorities.Elections are that in “name only” & the minorities will “rock the vote” for those that keep the government cheese flowing.My vote would go to someone conservative that I felt was going to give “some” effort.
If you gave me a free bottle of Chanel No.5 I’ll pretend to vote liberal but actually take you for all your worth.

[Shodan]

It may be counter-productive. Paying people to do something they usually do for free doesn’t always work.

Regards,
Shodan