|
United States2180 Posts
...by paying people to vote.
So before beginning this proposal, I need to come clean with the confession that I have never voted in a national election, and unless something similar to my proposal is adopted, do not intend to in the future.
I do so since I believe that my actions and my rationale with regards to voting are entirely independent of the actions and rationale of other registered voters. Therefore, the probability that my vote will influence the outcome of an election multiplied by the realized differences on my way of life (whether it be social or economic) is never worth the time it takes to drive out, wait in line, and vote, nor is it worth the money I would have paid somebody to fill out a form for me. This is even assuming I know which candidate's proposed policies are better for me and assuming I believe the candidate's positions on such policies. I honestly don't know anything about what either candidate in this year's Presidential elections stands for policy-wise other than brief talking points that get recycled over and over again on 24-hour cable news.
Anyway.... the intuitive problem that has become increasingly visible in recent election cycles is the decoupling of election results and popular sentiment. Such contests, whether as a cause or result of non-uniform voter turnout, devolve into ones where the victor is determined by the loudness of, rather than the number of, supporters [citation needed]. A pretty well-publicized example is Wisconsin's recent recall election, whose results demonstrated extreme disparities in voter turnout across age and other demographics. Other elections in recent memory, have elicited similar turnout disparities.
So all you students of political science (and economics and psychology) out there: What are the pros and cons of implementing a "voter's credit" to encourage people to vote in national elections?
How it would work:
1.) When you vote in a national election, either in a ballot box or absentee form, you will receive a confirmation receipt. You can attach your voter's receipt to your tax returns, just as you attach your W-2 or 1099s, in April and claim your "voter's credit."
2.) Shift tax day and election day to coincide. Included with every tax return form is an absentee ballot. If that ballot is folded up, sealed and attached with the tax returns, the taxpayer is eligible to receive a "voter's credit."
These two approaches are equivalent from an economics perspective, minus some minor present-value discounting and inconvenience in the first case, and will indubitably increase voter turnout. Since not all people are strictly rational and most people, in fact, display time-inconsistent decision-making behavior the second option gives people a more immediate reward (not a psychology student so I don't know why this is nor do I know of any sources to support this finding).
So the way I see it, for a relatively small fee, let's say $5 per voter every 2 years, we dramatically increase voter turnout and turn national political campaigns, which unlike voters tend to behave rationally toward the objective of getting the candidate elected, into ones that aim to educate and change peoples' minds instead of ideological circle jerks aimed at mobilizing a political base [citation needed on the circle jerk part].
Assuming transparent and efficacious implementation, benefits such as improved transparency, accountability, and representation would immediately follow.
The costs, however, are nontrivial. Even a $5 credit every two years is almost a billion dollars of tax revenue per annum. Furthermore, minorities who have been traditionally able to defend their interests by turning out disproportionately, would lose such an advantage.
Also poignant is the notion that voting is a right, not a privilege. "If people aren't going to vote that's their problem, not mine."
My take on this is that in order for democracy to work, at least theoretically, you need something approaching uniform representation. While the effect on actual decision-making by government is unclear, the effect on how political campaign are run would be obvious, as stated above.
Some invalid criticisms, however, would be:
"What about bums/illegal immigrants. They don't file tax returns." While this statement is true, it does not stop them from voting using traditional means. They simply will have a harder time collecting their $5. Illegal immigrants aren't really supposed to be voting anyway under current rules, either.
So let's not spout out nonsense here :p
TL;DR
This is a blog. Nobody is making you read it, lol.
  
|
Problem: Politicians do not want the vast majority of people to vote. If they did voting could be done easily online.
Adding more people to the pool would change the demographics to such a degree that most of our politicians would not be re-electable, probably.
|
People already do get paid to vote. Why do you think such a large portion of the population pays no taxes, draws benefits from others paying into the system, and are loyal to the party that keeps them oppressed ?
;]
|
So bribery is your choice to fix democracy?
|
Voting is a right.
Rights are enshrined privileges that we can choose to exercise, an incentive to vote invalidates the concept of a right. There should be no incentive to do so, just our own initiative.
|
Yeah how did european countries and USA get into the debt problems? Because they voted for parties that promised extravagant benefits. The system works, people vote what they think is best for them and politicians do a lot of what they promise. Except the costs are externalised so they tend to run out of control.
|
Not a bad idea in my opinion. More voter turnout would be a good thing, I think. Its disheartening to see how few people vote, though their justifications are valid. Providing a little incentive might be all it takes.
However, I have a hard time imagining something like this ever getting passed. Especially with the pathetic rhetoric that is always present these days
|
Pay people to vote?
Watch the gas prices going down right now, that's as close to getting paid you're going to get in this current day.
|
Money from the federal government to encourage people to vote?
As in the majority of whatever Congress voted for it keeps a popular majority indefinitely?
|
Why not just combine all forms of government in one?
|
On June 25 2012 12:01 DigiGnar wrote:
Why not just combine all forms of government in one?
No checks or balances?
|
To me, the problem is that it's impossible to vote for one person or one group of people who have the capacity to do what is best for an entire country. It's an antiquated concept in the modern world. The fact you feel your vote is meaningless is part of that - there is no investment or responsibility at a national level - but at a community or regional level, there could be. In a nutshell I'm saying one set of laws and rules is never going to be suitable for a country of diverse people and communities.
I don't have a solid solution but I've been thinking about this for years... and I believe the future of governance is about giving local communities the power to create their own legislation, to ultimately have control over their own fates. This could be at a community level small enough that decisions made are actually relevant to the people they impact and the people involved are visible enough that people really know what they're on about rather than just seeting propaganda on television. As for the "national" governance it could really be stripped back to a kind of trading network with a few basic principles to uphold around human rights.
Like I said, I don't have a solid solution but the way we currently govern ourselves is absurd and meaningless. In saying that, you should vote. If you don't, that's fine, but you don't have any right to complain about anything at all the government does because you've given it up by not voting.
Another issue is that the people in control like things the way it is. It's easy for them to stay in power with the status quo, and a change of governance this radical would probably only come about by revolution. And that's pretty terrible in itself, because there was never a mechanic built into our current governmental systems to allow us to change to another kind. It was just assumed "this is the fairest way, and we will do this forever"...
|
As much as in my ideal world we'd always have 100% voter turnout, if that turnout is coming purely for money and not having researched the issues before hand that would be terrible. The political game could quickly focus on the 'casual' vote with one or two big quick policy announcements and those who're completely disengaged are sure as hell not going to care what other issues are at hand, they're simply going to consider it a mild inconvenience in their day for a bit of cash. Serious concerns would, I think, be drowned out very quickly in results.
The solution is to make it easier to vote (and ensure if there's 100% turnout that can all be managed) and a system where politicians can be held to account by those they represent at any time with a right to recall any elected position, though I admit I'm unsure of a logistical solution to this at the time of writing. People don't vote because they don't care, don't believe it'll make a difference or they don't trust the people they're meant to be voting in. Paying might get them to vote, but it doesn't solve the underlying issues.
|
Voting in local and state elections is more important than voting for president, because it is basically how your tax dollars that you have to pay are being spent.
|
United States2180 Posts
I basically agree with the thrust of what all of you have said.
On June 25 2012 14:14 Imabomb wrote:
Voting in local and state elections is more important than voting for president, because it is basically how your tax dollars that you have to pay are being spent.
State and local elections are often decided by just a handful of votes. Unless you're the <10% of Americans who live in a swing state, the same isn't true for national elections.
Except this guy:
On June 25 2012 11:57 Praetorial wrote:
Money from the federal government to encourage people to vote?
As in the majority of whatever Congress voted for it keeps a popular majority indefinitely?
This guy:
On June 25 2012 12:01 DigiGnar wrote:
Why not just combine all forms of government in one?
who appear not to have bothered to read the OP, and who I believe are operating on the false assumption that this is reddit and you get karma for posting, lol.
In response to
On June 25 2012 11:46 Praetorial wrote:
Voting is a right.
Rights are enshrined privileges that we can choose to exercise, an incentive to vote invalidates the concept of a right. There should be no incentive to do so, just our own initiative.
Just because something is a right doesn't mean we shouldn't incentivize it. Life is an inalienable right, for example, yet people commit suicide all the time. Should we get rid of mental health services and suicide hotlines? Maybe, but I think that failing to provide an incentive for people to exercise their rights, when that exercise is good for the social welfare by means of transparent governance, is inconsistent with insights from economics and psychology.
On June 25 2012 11:38 shinosai wrote:
Problem: Politicians do not want the vast majority of people to vote. If they did voting could be done easily online.
Adding more people to the pool would change the demographics to such a degree that most of our politicians would not be re-electable, probably.
I proposed using the tax returns and absentee ballot systems simply because they have been proven to work, and to implement voter's incentives on top of these systems would not introduce significant additional risk of fraud. Realistically, an electronic system is cheaper and more efficient, provided proper validation is implemented.
On June 25 2012 13:29 Iyerbeth wrote: Paying might get them to vote, but it doesn't solve the underlying issues.
I believe one of the underlying issues is that national political campaigns are circle jerks with the objective of mobilization rather than education or persuasion.
Even if this devolves into
The political game could quickly focus on the 'casual' vote with one or two big quick policy announcements and those who're completely disengaged are sure as hell not going to care what other issues are at hand, they're simply going to consider it a mild inconvenience in their day for a bit of cash.
such trivial policy debates would be a welcome step forward compared to the extravagant sideshow of politicians giving vacuous televised speeches to crowds of hardcore supporters that national politics have become.
Edit: Why do all my blogs have such terribly low ratings?
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
So more uninformed people would vote? The problem with democracy is that regular people are given a power to decide the country's future. But these people have no idea what's best for their country, they don't even know what are the outcomes of their voting decisions.
That's why USA's deficit gets bigger and bigger. No one wants their taxes raised or their benefits cuts. It's fine until you turn into Greece.
|
United States2180 Posts
On June 25 2012 14:49 T.O.P. wrote:
So more uninformed people would vote? The problem with democracy is that regular people are given a power to decide the country's future. But these people have no idea what's best for their country, they don't even know what are the outcomes of their voting decisions.
That's why USA's deficit gets bigger and bigger. No one wants their taxes raised or their benefits cuts. It's fine until you turn into Greece.
I'd argue that the way things are has uninformed people voting with a higher turnout than informed people.
I think you're stretching too far with your links of causality. Debt and loss of services as a result of insufficient revenue and inefficient expenditure aren't simply a result of too much representation. It's a general willingness by people not to bear the costs of externalities.
|
On June 25 2012 12:01 DigiGnar wrote:
Why not just combine all forms of government in one?
They call that Tyranny.
|
Just some questions from an outsider:
Why do you have to register to vote? Does make 0 sense to me.
Why are you not allowed to vote while in jail? Does also not really make sense to me.
Why are there so many "limits" to why/who can vote in the US?
In Switzerland it works like this:
If your Swiss:
Receive documents by mail.
Fill in your vote(s).
Send Mail back in the following weeks (or drop it into the urn).
/end.
But voters turnout is still pretty bad  .
|
On June 25 2012 17:56 Velr wrote:
Just some questions from an outsider:
Why do you have to register to vote? Does make 0 sense to me.
Why are you not allowed to vote while in jail? Does also not really make sense to me.
Why are there so many "limits" to why/who can vote in the US?
Long story short, many politicians and interest groups don't actually want everyone to vote, just the people that would vote for *them*. So for example, as the poor Latino population (can't really speak for the affluent subsection) is unlikely to vote Republican, given the vehement anti-immigration stance of most of the Republican candidates, the Republicans have a large incentive to stop this group from voting. It's a simplification of course, but you get the idea.
Doesn't Australia have a system where you're penalized if you *don't* vote? I think that's somewhat similar to what's being proposed here. We could definitely do with a higher turnout in voting - some political/special interest groups certainly have an interest in having fewer and fewer people vote, and creating some incentive to vote (positive or negative) may help. Of course, it's not ideal, but you have to weigh the costs and benefits. Would you rather have higher civic participation (albeit with some doing it half-heartedly), or lower participation, though in theory representing a more spirited/passionate group?
I think a healthy democracy needs passionate voters, but it also needs lukewarm voters. The passionate ones (myself included) can sometimes we blind to other possibilities, or focus on one thing too strongly, losing perspective on the importance of their pet issues, and the more lukewarm voters *can* balance this. It varies according to different countries of course, but overall I'd be in favor of something penalizing people for not voting. Of course, ideally this would be coupled with something like changing the voting day to something more reasonable, and giving people a day off to do it. As it is right now in the States, there are many (mostly poor) workers who don't vote not because they don't care, but because they can't take the time off without jeopardizing their jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
