Reward voters with prizes for voting?

gurramok

Just noticed from recent results of the US election that there was a propostion in Arizona to give $1 Million to a random voter every 2 years funded from lottery & private donations!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/AZ/

Would this go down well if applied here in a effort to increase voter turnout?

Dave!

Then people would vote just to win the money -- thus you would have people who know nothing about politics voting for whoever the dart lands on, just so that they could get the money.

I don't think that that would improve the state of politics in Ireland to be honest.

Wishbone Ash

DaveMcG wrote:

you would have people who know nothing about politics voting for whoever the dart lands on

I suppose that argument could be used about countries where voting is cumpulsory.

Andrew 83

Wouldn't agree with that, people should vote because they've been convinced to by the candidates.

leeroybrown

This is something I definitely don't want to see. I would rather that people voted because they were interested in doing so, were persuaded to do so or felt an obligation to do so. I'd rather see someone I wouldn't vote for get elected by the current means than someone I would vote for get elected because of a lottery.

Victor

Several countries have mandatory voting and people are fined (a modest amount) for not voting.

How about giving everyone €20 of their own money to vote?

mickoneill30

DaveMcG wrote:

thus you would have people who know nothing about politics voting for whoever the dart lands on, just so that they could get the money.

I don't think that that would improve the state of politics in Ireland to be honest.

I'd say a large proportion of people in Ireland vote the same way anyway (without the winning the money bit).

brianthebard

Victor wrote:

Several countries have mandatory voting and people are fined (a modest amount) for not voting.

How about giving everyone €20 of their own money to vote?

What countries are they?

Andrew 83

brianthebard wrote:

What countries are they?

Belgium for one off the top of my head. Countries with compulsory voting do still have a surprisingly high amount of people who don't bother despite the penalty (surprisingly high when you take into account that they're being fined and it only takes a minute or two I mean), I think some people don't vote out of protest of it being compulsory.

Andrew 83

From wikipedia:

Countries that have some form of compulsory voting:

* Argentina
* Australia
* Austria (presidential elections only)
* Belgium (see Belgian electoral system)
* Bolivia
* Brazil (non-compulsory for 16 & 17 year olds and those over 70)
* Chile (registration is optional, once registered voting is then required)
* Congo, Democratic Republic of the
* Costa Rica
* Cyprus
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* Egypt
* Fiji
* Greece
* Guatemala
* Honduras
* Lebanon (men only)
* Libya
* Luxembourg
* Massachusetts (US State) - Article LXI of the Massachusetts Constitution, ratified on November 5, 1918, states that, "The general court shall have authority to provide for compulsory voting at elections, but the right of secret voting shall be preserved." The authority is not currently exercised.
* Mexico (not enforced)
* Nauru
* Panama
* Paraguay (ages 75 and older voluntary)
* Peru (ages 70 and older voluntary)
* Singapore
* Some parts of Switzerland
* Thailand
* Turkey (not enforced)
* Uruguay
* Venezuela (not enforced)

Countries that previously had compulsory voting, but have abolished it:

* Austria
* The Netherlands

In some countries, eligible voters are required to register, but voting itself is voluntary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

simu

gurramok wrote:

Just noticed from recent results of the US election that there was a propostion in Arizona to give $1 Million to a random voter every 2 years funded from lottery & private donations!

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/AZ/

Would this go down well if applied here in a effort to increase voter turnout?

It's insulting to an electorate of what are supposed to be adults. It's desirable to increase voter turnout so that everyone gets a say but there's no need to resort to tactics more suited to junior infants! We should try to get non-voters to understand the importance of voting and appreciate in a wider, historical sense how unusual it is to actually get to vote instead of encouraging the silly dreaming about the extremely improbable you already get with the lotto et al.

mcgarnicle

Surely the right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. If I know about the various parties, decide they have nothing to offer me and chose not to vote for any of them how is my stance any less legitimate than someone that votes?

Dave!

mickoneill30 wrote:

I'd say a large proportion of people in Ireland vote the same way anyway (without the winning the money bit).

Indeed. That doesn't mean we should encourage it, though.

redspider

Well, I would vote for prizes, thats for sure !! ;-)


> thus you would have people who know nothing about politics voting

We have that anyway.


I think that voting should be made easier to access (so that turnout can be higher). eg: Postal votes could be made available to all. A voter would collect their voting slip at a station (Post Offices could suffice) and they freepost it. And there are other ways. People are voting with their feet by not voting!

Also, information packs should be handed out in secondary schools to 17 year olds as to why it is important to register and to vote. Many 17-year olds want to change the world and politics is one way of doing it and they should be encouraged to do so. Currently, they just dont bother top vote when they are 18, 19, 20, etc.

Also, to promote voting, the Government should put more items out for plebiscite, more referendums/da, etc.

redspider

oscarBravo

redspider wrote:

Postal votes could be made available to all. A voter would collect their voting slip at a station (Post Offices could suffice) and they freepost it.

Or someone else could post it for them. Heck, they could even fill out the ballot for them - or at least make sure they fill it out "correctly".

We have a public secret ballot for a reason.

redspider

oscarBravo wrote:

Or someone else could post it for them. Heck, they could even fill out the ballot for them - or at least make sure they fill it out "correctly". We have a public secret ballot for a reason.

Voting in polling stations is currently open to the same problems. Many people, especially older people are helped with their vote. The 'monitors' dont say diddly squat. So filling out in a postal situation would be similar to filling out in a polling station. There may e more because more older people are likely to vote. The current method seriously disenfranchises many of our older ill citizens.

Also, in many polling stations, the booth is actually facing out into the public area, so your vote cant be done in total secrecy, given the size of the voting papers normally.

In terms of a postal vote, lets put the option out to a vote to the people. What would people prefer ??????

redspider

seamus

mcgarnicle wrote:

Surely the right not to vote is as important as the right to vote. If I know about the various parties, decide they have nothing to offer me and chose not to vote for any of them how is my stance any less legitimate than someone that votes?

That's pretty much my view on it. Democracy is about offering people the choice to choose their own leaders. Choosing to not vote is as legitimate as choice as voting for a particular candidate. Choosing not to vote is essentially saying "I vote for whomever my countrypeople vote for".

Dave!

seamus wrote:

Choosing not to vote is essentially saying "I vote for whomever my countrypeople vote for".

Indeed, so if you choose not to vote because you don't like any of the candidates, then you're stuck with whomever the others want!

I'd always vote for the lesser of the evils rather than not vote at all, but each to their own. I don't think voting should be compulsary.

Hagar

I still say that there should be a box marked "None of the Above" on every ballot paper. If that is the choice of the voters the "above" should be disqualified from that particular election and new candidates found.