Why Vote? Because I will become a millionaire. Maybe.
I heard about this one on WDSU, but found the article on the web.
The basic story is that a man in Tucson, AZ wants there to be a lottery associated with elections. One lucky voter, selected at random, would win $1 million dollars.
The story would be that this inducement would make it more likely for people to vote, thus increasing voter participation, and making the world a better place to be.
I am not sure that first it would work. I am also not sure it would make the world a better place to be.
This brings me to several questions.
1. Do you want voters – those that would not have voted without the lottery – to come to the polls?
2. Do you think these voters be more “informed” or less informaed than the average voter. Does it matter?
3. Some demographic groups are found to be more likely to play the lottery. Will some demographic groups be more likely to vote as a result?
4. For the non-voters, would this make you want to vote?
5. What is the expected value of this inducement?
I can answer the last one – say there are one million voters in a state. Then the probability to win the prize would be 1 in a million. If you have taken your QBA classes, the expected value of this arrangement is $1.
Last question – if you agree with the policy of giving people something worth $1 and asking them to vote, would you agree with people giving someone worth $1 and asking them not to vote?
–CT
November 7th, 2006 at 9:08 am
No, I do not think people should be offered an incentive to vote. Offering a lottery would attract more people to vote, but will these individuals really be concerned or educated about major issues. Many would just show up at the polls for a chance to become a millionaire. Surely offering the lottery would change the outcome of many elections, but will these changes be in the best interest of the public as a whole. Voting is a privilege that individuals should exercise on their own. Offering money as an incentive is like buying a vote. Is this legal?
Dr. Turner, Econ 211, 3m
November 8th, 2006 at 8:52 am
Here’s the exact wording on Proposition 200 in Arizona.
“Would establish a ‘voter reward’ random drawing every two years with a first prize of $1 million or more in an effort to increase voter participation. Voters who cast ballots in primary or general elections would be eligible to win. The money would come from the Arizona Lottery and private donations.”
With 99% of precincts reporting, 66% of Arizona’s population has voted against Prop 200. There will be no lottery.
–CT
November 8th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I believe that offering money is a great incentive to get people to do anything. However, paying people to vote would be wrong. I am sure that everybody would vote if they knew they would receive money. Even people addicted to drugs would vote just to get the money. A lot of people that don’t even know what they are voting for would vote. I feel like paying people to vote would only hurt the people who care and help the people who want the money.
November 9th, 2006 at 11:10 am
I really wouldn’t want voters at the polls who are just there to win money. Especially if they’re not smart enough to consider the fact that you mentioned that the more people who vote, the less likely the average voter is to a win riduculously large amount of money. The voters would definitely be less informed because if they didn’t care before about who won, why start now? I’m sure they would flip random little levers and be on their merry little way, content with the fact that they just entered to win a million dollars.
This is the kind of people I would expect to see at the polls if this whole Prop 200 was passed.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
If there would be an incentive to vote then yes, there would be more people at the polls. There would be more ignorant, stupid, uninformed people at the polls. People who are just voting not because it is their duty as an American citizen to vote but, because they want their chance at the million dollar prize. Do you want those kind of people electing the leaders of the country? I certainly don’t. That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard….getting $1 million to vote.
December 3rd, 2006 at 7:04 pm
This is a non sense idea to get people out to vote. Candidates are already not allowed to campaign within a certain area/feet of the polls which makes it even worse. You may as well make this a popularity contest and forget the fact that the candidates running have morals and issues. Candidates already are gambling when they spend all that money campaigning in hopes to win, this would only make it more exspensive. Candidates work to hard to have such as incentive like this that would bring nothing to the table but more drama at the end of the night.
December 7th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I personally do not think this is a good idea to try to persuade people to vote. This proposition may make people forget the basis of what they are voting for. People vote for candidates they think will best represent them or for an amendment they feel will best affect their surrounding area. Turning the vote into a lottery may cause uninformed people to simply vote for someone or something just to have their name entered into some kind of drawing. This in return may affect people elected into office or laws to be passed simply because someone wanted to become an overnight millionare. It also seems to make a mockery of the voting system.
December 7th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
I strongly disagree with a monetary incentive to get to the polls and vote. Adding this incentive would just result in uninformed people voting who usually have no desire to vote at all. These people would not be voting based on how well a candidate would serve the running position; they would just vote straight ticket no matter what their beliefs may be. Oh wait, many people vote that way today. So, having this lottery chance of winning money to vote sounds good on paper, but in today’s economy it’s a dreadful concept because the winning and elected candidates would not truely represent the TRUE and LOYAL voters’ opinions.