|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sunday, July 16, 2006 :::
I try to avoid hyperbole, and sometimes succeed. But if this isn't the dumbest idea in the history of the universe, I don't know what beats it:There's going to be a new reason for Arizonans to go to the polls this year: They could win $1 million.
The Secretary of State's Office certified Thursday that backers of the voter lottery plan had submitted more than enough signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
But the measure is worded in a way to actually encourage people to vote both in the primary this September as well as two months later when the actual initiative will be on the ballot. If it is approved in November, it will be retroactive: One lucky person who voted in this year's primary and another who cast a ballot in the general election each will get $1 million. Link from Instapundit.
Not only do they want to provide an incentive for uninformed people to vote, but it's only a significant incentive for people who either can't estimate expected values or are risk-seeking.
Really, what's dumber? Nominating John Kerry for President on "electability" grounds? Giving the Sudetenland to the Germans? Financing "flake.com", a "cereal portal"? I'm not convinced.
UPDATE: Chris Lawrence defends the plan.
UPDATE 2: It occurs to me that saying "this is the dumbest idea ever" and then "Chris Lawrence defends it", without any retraction, may be construed as a slam on Lawrence, which I don't intend. I think he defends it surprisingly well (surprising for the idea, not for him), or I wouldn't have added the link. But not convincingly.
It had actually occurred to me that the current set-up provides no rational incentive to vote, and it was slightly unfair of me not to mention this. The odds of one's vote counting are very, very low. And it's possible that you think you know what I mean, but still overestimate the odds. Very low. So this proposal wouldn't initiate the concept of encouraging voting by taking advantage of humans' inability to handle probability, it would just add another layer.
Chris also points out that ignorant people already vote, for which I give him no credit.
His intriguing point, as far as I'm concerned, is that some component of the population is uninformed because it knows it will not vote, and — given a reason to vote ahead of time — may inform itself. I find this, as I said, intriguing, but it strikes me as a weak enough push that the electorate will still be more ignorant than the ceteris paribus electorate. We may end up with a slightly more involved citizenry, but I think we'd still get a less involved electorate.
So, maybe it's less dumb than nominating Kerry for President on electability grounds. But it's still dumber than nominating Kerry for President.
UPDATE: Tabarrok weighs in. Relatedly, Ilya Somin argues that it may be rational for people to vote but irrational for them to get informed.
::: posted by Steven at 9:48 PM
|
|
|
|
