Want to be a millionaire? Vote in Arizona!

Would-be Arizona millionaires to gamble on voting

By Randal C. Archibold
New York Times News Service


TUCSON, Ariz. -- To anyone who ever said, "I wouldn't vote for that bum for a million bucks," Arizona may be calling your bluff.

A proposal to award $1 million in every general election to one lucky resident simply for voting has qualified for the November ballot.

Mark Osterloh, a political gadfly who is behind the initiative, the Arizona Voter Reward Act, is promoting it with the slogan, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Vote!" He collected 185,902 signatures of registered voters, far more than the 122,612 required, and last week the secretary of state certified the measure for the ballot this fall.

If the general election in 2004 is a guide, when more than 2 million people voted, the 1 in 2 million odds of winning the election lottery would be far better than the Powerball jackpot (currently about 1 in 146,107,962) but not nearly as great as dying from a lightning strike (1 in 55,928).

"People buy a lot of lottery tickets now," Osterloh said, "and the odds of winning this are much, much higher."

If some see the erosion of democracy in putting voting on the same plane as a scratch-and-win game, Osterloh sees the gimmick as the linchpin to improve voter turnout and get more people interested in politics.

In 2004, the year of a heated presidential election, 77 percent of registered voters cast ballots in Arizona, but in 2002--the year Osterloh, a Democrat, ran for governor in what might politely be called a dark-horse campaign--it was 56 percent. Primary election turnouts are much lower.

"Basically our government is elected by a small minority of citizens," said Osterloh, 53, a semiretired ophthalmologist who has helped write and campaign for various successful ballot initiatives.

Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate in Washington, said the idea of a voter lottery had come up in other states, but he could not recall any moving forward with it. And he's glad.

"People should not go vote because they might win a lottery," Gans said. "We need to rekindle the religion of civic duty, and that is a hard job, but we should not make voting crassly commercial."

Editorial writers, bloggers and others have panned the idea as bribery and say it may draw people simply trying to cash in without studying candidates or issues.

"Bribing people to vote is a superficial approach that will have no beneficial outcome to the process, except to make some people feel good that the turnout numbers are higher," said an editorial in The Yuma Sun. "But higher numbers do not necessarily mean a better outcome."

The initiative calls for financing the award through unclaimed state lottery prize money, private donations and, if need be, state money. A spokeswoman for the state lottery commission said its unclaimed prize pot fluctuated, but it now stood at more than $1 million.

There also is a question of whether such a voter lottery is legal. Passage of the initiative would supersede a state law barring any exchange of a vote for money, legal experts agreed, but whether it would get around similar federal laws was a matter of debate.

Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who will be on the November ballot as a candidate for re-election, has declined to take a position. The leaders of the state Senate and House, both Republicans, did not answer messages seeking comment.

Here's the report from the print version:

Quote:

Would-be Arizona millionaires to gamble on voting

By Randal C. Archibold
New York Times News Service


TUCSON, Ariz. -- To anyone who ever said, "I wouldn't vote for that bum for a million bucks," Arizona may be calling your bluff.

.....
A proposal to award $1 million in every general election to one lucky resident simply for voting has qualified for the November ballot.

Mark Osterloh, a political gadfly who is behind the initiative, the Arizona Voter Reward Act, is promoting it with the slogan, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Vote!" ........

In 2004, the year of a heated presidential election, 77 percent of registered voters cast ballots in Arizona, but in 2002--the year Osterloh, a Democrat, ran for governor in what might politely be called a dark-horse campaign....

I think it is stupid, plain and simple. And beyond that, it is unethical and maybe against the law and the constitution.

Look, I am not posing as holier than thou here.

okie wrote:

Look, I am not posing as holier than thou here.

You're not?

I am not opposed to the idea, so of course I would take the money.

However, even if I were opposed to the idea, I would still take the money.

And I don't believe you wouldn't take the money, either.

I imagine there are sources so ghastly that I would turn down a million dollars from them, but it's impossible to imagine being so opposed to this idea that you would give up a million.

Apparently, you have little ethics, keltic. As I've said, this is no badge of honor here on my part, it is simply what everyone should do.

Go ahead and roll your eyes. Believe what you want. I don't want their dirty money. I'm perfectly happy without it. As I said, I do not buy lottery tickets...... I feel sorry for them, and don't want their money. If they want to waste it, I can't help it, but at least I won't be guilty, I'm staying out of it.