Voter Reward backers add retroactivity clause

[demdave]

Backers of the recently filed Voter Reward initiative, which would offer $1 million to one lucky voter each election, added a twist Monday.

.
.
.
They refiled the initiative with a retroactivity clause that would give $1 million to a winning voter in the upcoming 2004 election,
.
.
.
"We're going to tell voters that if you want to set up a system where you can become a millionaire, you better get out there and vote for this initiative," said Mark Osterloh, an unsuccessful Democratic gubernatorial candidate who is the initiative's chairman


http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0805reward05.html

[juajen]

1. Offhand, I sorta, think that might be a good idea

As you can tell, I am somewhat tentative. I think a voter's reward should be a government they participate in, but realistically, we do need to get out the vote. Too many people sit on their hands and let others make their decisions.

[pw]

2. $1 million would pay for a lot of taxis

to get people to the polls. Think of the kinds of people who would be tempted to vote by that kind of reward.

In some states, of course, offering any inducement to people to vote, even if not for a specific candidate, is unlawful, as would generally make sense.

[demdave]

3. I expect all gambling initiatives to pass if this goes through

That would be the voter base.

[Thor_MN]

4. Hmmm, do we really want the polls to be filled with

people who randomly check off boxes in order to have a chance of winning money?

I walked through a snowfall to vote in the last general election. Granted, it was 2 blocks, 30 plus degrees and the snow was melting almost before it hit the ground, but I made the effort because it was something I cared about.

While I don't have any brilliant ideas on how to do it, shouldn't we be trying to get people to care about their government rather than merely bribing them to vote?

[meisje]

6. so your saying certain people should not vote???

Is your vote any more valid that someone who plays the numbers? How demovratic of you!

[Mokito]

8. I understand his point

It's not that his vote or any other vote is more or less important than another person's vote. Yet he has a point in fearing that this will make people come to the voting booth just and only for the money, not the vote itself, inconsiderably checking the first, the last box or whichever catches their eye first on the vote. Morphing the whole democratic voting process on itself into a process of chance instead of choice.

[sandnsea]

9. Maybe the 1st time

Sometimes things still pop up on ballots that I somehow missed. But I bet after people voted their first time and realized that something on the ballot was important and they didn't know enough about, they might go home and learn something for the next time.

I hope!!!

[belab13]

5. Pavlov disagrees

this initiative subverts the entire voting process and would be quickly be pirated by the corporate cancers that have already wrought havoc on the American legacy. We are at the brink... no more bad moves

[vision]

7. I have no problem with this

I don't really think that you would have a large percentage of people randomly filling boxes. Quite the opposite IMO as those who sould be drawn to vote would pay more attention to the who is running. They would have an investment in the process and the chance to win. Many know don't vote, because 1) their vote doesn't matter, election 2000 should prove that wrong, 2) that they don't benifit. Well a chance to win a million is certainly a benefit.

Fantasy Football and Football Leagues are about to start, of course there are some that pay in the pot and randomly choose but more pay attention and do some research and this is for a coulple hundred bucks. I see these same people paying attention to politics if they thought they could directly benefit. If they pay attention, than the Republicans are toast.