Voting doesn't pay. When you calculate the odds that your individual vote will actually sway an election, it is clear that your time can be more valuably spent elsewhere. The more passionate you are about the issues though, the more incentive you have to vote. For a middle of the road person neither candidate will be terrible, and so it isn't worth voting when the odds of making a difference are so remote. For an extremist though, it can be the "end of the world" if the other side gets in. Even if the odds of their vote actually counting are remote, they must do all they can to stop this great evil.
Because of this phenomenon, some political strategists say it doesn't pay for candidates to appeal to undecided and independent voters, since these people don't vote anyway. Instead they should "energize their base" and appeal to the more extreme elements of their party, since these people turn out to vote when they have a reason to.
We therefore have a classic dilemma. It would clearly be better for society if everyone voted, for then politicians would appeal to the middle, and the government's policies would better reflect the will of the people. On the other hand, each individual would receive this benefit whether he himself voted or not, and since everyone values their own time, it pays for people to stay home and let everyone else vote. Now steps should be taken to make voting easier, but the underlying problem would still be there.
Let me therefore propose a simple solution. Pay people to vote. If we would pay every voter $50 to vote on election day, it would cost the government up to $10 billion every other year. While that seems like a lot of money, it is less than half a percent of our annual federal budget. Isn't it worth spending well under 1% to help ensure that the other 99% is being spent in a better manner? I think it's quite clear that the improvement in government we would have if everyone voted would be worth far more than the total amount spent on the program.
Now there is something unseemly about paying people to vote. Voting is the right thing to do, and we should do it whether we are paid to or not. Therefore, to make this idea more palatable, it can be that the money will not be given to the voters themselves, but instead sent to the registered charity of each voter's choice. Charities will only be able to see the names of those who agreed to make them the recipient of their voting dollars. The charities will then naturally call those on their list come election day, and ask them to please vote so they can get their donation. If the charities must agree to spend voting dollars in the US, and if religious charities would also be allowed to receive funds under this program, much of the religious right would support this idea. A friend of mine said it should be $50 if you want the money for yourself, and $100 if you designate a charity to receive it. (Perhaps that $100 could even be made a "deduction" for tax purposes.)
There can be many permutations of this idea, but the basic concept is what's important. In a land of freedom and free markets, people will only vote if they have an incentive to. Unfortunately, those centrists and moderates who are least likely to feel that incentive are the ones who we need to vote most of all, so that politicians have a reason to be concerned with average American. Paying people to vote is a way of returning a small portion of the great benefit citizens give our country when they partake in our political process.
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
I understand the desire to get people out to vote on election day -- but for the most part I can't help but reach the conclusion that, in a federal republic, people deserve the government they have. If people want change, they'll seek it. If not... bring on the mediocrity.
I do agree with the point that the fewer the actual voters the more likely candidates are to appeal to extreme elements of their "base." That is certainly a danger, but thus far our two-party system has managed to force both major parties toward the center.
The more people there are who vote, the more responsive our government will be as well as the more moderate its polices will be. The problem is that any given individual can get the benefits of living in a society of active voters whether he himself takes the time to vote or not. Everyone therefore wants to be a freeloader and get the benefit without having to contribute. It's a classic dilemma, and one that occurs in many areas. I'm therefore proposing one of classic solutions. "Society", in furtherance of "her own" best interest of good governance, should make it in the self-interest of individuals to act for the greater good. If you had two otherwise identical societies, one of which paid people to vote and one of which didn't, the former would in short time have a much more balanced, responsive, and effective government. It's quite clear that we would all gain from such a rule. Why oppose it?
My version of this is to offer a tax credit for voters. I got so fed up after the 2002 elections I actually made a website about it! See http://www.taxcreditforvoters.us
Benefits: make voting a habit for everyone; change campaign issues to address all voters, not just likely voters; use a tax credit as it should be used--to reward behavior that benefits society even if it doesn't benefit the individual.
See the (simple, one-page) website for more observations on this idea.
There is already a consequence to not voting. It's not being able to have a say in the result. Think more carefully about the consequences of paying for voting (no matter where the payment goes) and you will discover that in the end (if the method is 100% successful) everyone will get $50 from the government to vote but that everyone will pay more than $50 to finance the operation. The reason is that the taxpayer will also have to pay to support the infrastructure that will need to be set up to keep track of who votes, write checks or credits to everyone who votes, track down voter fraud, oversee departments of people who do these jobs, pay rent on buildings for offices for these people, etc.
On the other hand, this money could have gone to pay for more computers, windows, buildings, fountains, boots, clothing, jewlery, and a million other private sector items that would bring up the quality of our lives but instead you would force me to choose instead to pay everyone on my street to vote.
Giving money to the government is the least efficient way to spend your money in my mind, why do people have this love of having the government spend their money? If you have too much money, go ahead and send it to me and I'll send you a picture of what I did with it which is better than what you will get from the government.
Not a bad idea, but instead of paying people to vote, how about a vote-tax you get back when you go to the polls? That way, the country still makes a profit off of people who still refuse to vote instead of losing money regardless.
Some comments to "troyrock"--try to think back about who taught you that government should be run like a business. It shouldn't be. It is a public service. Of course, it should be properly managed, but subverting public service with a profit motive is a political sickness. "Paying people to vote," which I think more properly should be a tax credit for voting, is not subject to your simplistic cost/benefit analysis and the Reaganesque notion that government is inherently inefficient so let's starve it and let the liberals divert their political money into shoring up programs to care about the common welfare (the #1 item in the Preamble to the Constitution, by the way) so that conservatives can use their money for their own bank accounts and for gaining and holding power.
A tax credit for voting encourages social behavior that is priceless--if there were a tax credit just for voting, nearly everyone would vote (see how people dutifully scrape receipts together all year to get small tax deductions on tolls and parking, etc.)--and the most immediate and significant impact would be that political campaigns, their messages and plans, would be geared toward all voters, not just likely ones. Winners of elections would win a quantity of votes that would be beyond reproach (as opposed to 27% of eligible voters going for Bush & Gore each). This would strengthen our domestic and international credibility.
Paying taxes provides the means for us to band together and organize our lives in this land where we live together. Spending money on handouts to the rich is certainly not going to shore up our democracy. A tax credit for voting will, and would measurably improve our country's culture and cohesiveness. Participation is the best means of energizing people. We need to become a nation of leaders and participants, instead of what we are becoming: a nation handlers and consumers.
paying people to vote or even giving themtax credit won't change that much the situation.I am from a country where you have to vote (Brazil).it's not only considered a right but also a duty. If you don't show up you end up having to pay a fine.does that make democracy more efficent? hardly! peoplewill go there and mark the name of many politiciansor not choose any and so on....so you see a lot of people voting buta lot of votes being invalid or annulled...
In the case of the US, by offering to pay peopleto vote you expect people to change their minds andbegin appreciating the voting process.but I don't believe it would make that much difference..some people would show up just for the money andthen randomly select any candidate...a small fraction,may realise that they enjoy voting andbegin appreciating voting. but probably most of the peoplewho would show up when paid are people who don't care thatmuch but want the money....also, people who originally appreciated the processwhen they were not paid may consider thatdemocracy is not been served by payingvoters and end up deciding not to vote....
that can create some difficulties... imagine asituation where candidate A would win if peoplewere not paid but candidate B will win when youpay people to vote. which one is a better outcome?when paying you have more people voting but howdo you know how much of these votes are reallybased on the preferences over candidates and issuesand how much is just people choosing any candidateas long as they get paid???I would prefer the first outcome electing candidateA? wouldn't you?
I'm weary of the condescension from the "talking heads" and the self-styled experts. It's so easy, and so pointless, to say that "people" (which ones? a significant percentage as compared with voters today?) would be too cavalier, too stupid, or too self-centered to care about how they vote. I disagree strongly with paying people to vote, but advocate a tax credit for voters. People who find it beneath them to take the credit can uncheck it on their tax return. People who don't owe taxes after deductions and other credits would receive a check like any other taxpayer owed a rebate.
The main thing is that a tax credit for voting can get people into the habit of voting. Right now, candidates not only seek to advocate a more convincing position but they also have to make people WANT to vote, based on fear or charisma. If people know they are going to vote, and know that they will not be choosing between voting and child care or work projects or staying home in bad weather, as voters they will pay more attention to the campaigns. In general, just as in a jury, people who enter a voting booth take it seriously. Getting them into the voting booth is the trick; just as importantly, creating the perception that everyone will vote is pivotal to creating more useful campaigns directed at all voters' needs rather than the desires of only likely voters.
I have to say that, while I find this idea intriguing, I also passionately disagree with it. Our parties are already quite moderate, so by encouraging everyone to vote, all we would end up with would be an even less informed electorate. In watching the debates, I have seen numerous occasions when candidates have been forced to adopt positions contrary to the interests they generally serve in order to appeal to an unsophisticated electorate. For example, John Kerry claims to be for raising minimum wage, but many economists would support the contention that raising the minimum wage most negatively affects minimum wage earners, the very people John Kerry aims to support. As he is quite obviously an intelligent man, I do not doubtthat, in reality, he would not seek to raise the minimum wage, hurting poor people, but he has to maintain that position because most voters would be unable to understand the complexities which ultimately make this a bad idea. Ultimately, paying people to vote would further exacerbate this problem, as a less sophisticated electorate would force politicians to adopt more and more simplistic positions in order to appeal to the least common denominator. If anything, I would support making voting more difficult,requiring some form of voter competency testing to demonstrate that people had the capacity to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, that would be too susceptible to corruption and a quasi-fascist environment in which certain "unacceptable" opinions could be considered a reason to keep one from voting. An alternative, of which I would be more supportive, would be restricting voting to those who pay federal income tax. The colonists who fought the Revolutionary War did so why rallying under the slogan, "No taxation without representation." While I believe that they were right in believing taxes merited representation, I would also contend that the opposite is true, one should pay taxes to support the costs of their representation, and so it might make sense to limit voting to those who pay. One benefit of restricting voting to those who pay federal taxes would be an enhanced accountability. It is always quite easy for one to support federal programs of which they are the beneficiaries without bearing the cost, much as it would be wonderful if I could purchase an automobile or a plasma television with someone else'smoney. However, when one is making decisions about spending their own money, the purse strings inevitably become much tighter.
I have to say that, while I find this idea intriguing, I also passionately disagree with it. Our parties are already quite moderate, so by encouraging everyone to vote, all we would end up with would be an even less informed electorate. In watching the debates, I have seen numerous occasions when candidates have been forced to adopt positions contrary to the interests they generally serve in order to appeal to an unsophisticated electorate. For example, John Kerry claims to be for raising minimum wage, but many economists would support the contention that raising the minimum wage most negatively affects minimum wage earners, the very people John Kerry aims to support. As he is quite obviously an intelligent man, I do not doubtthat, in reality, he would not seek to raise the minimum wage, hurting poor people, but he has to maintain that position because most voters would be unable to understand the complexities which ultimately make this a bad idea. Ultimately, paying people to vote would further exacerbate this problem, as a less sophisticated electorate would force politicians to adopt more and more simplistic positions in order to appeal to the least common denominator. If anything, I would support making voting more difficult,requiring some form of voter competency testing to demonstrate that people had the capacity to make an informed decision. Unfortunately, that would be too susceptible to corruption and a quasi-fascist environment in which certain "unacceptable" opinions could be considered a reason to keep one from voting. An alternative, of which I would be more supportive, would be restricting voting to those who pay federal income tax. The colonists who fought the Revolutionary War did so why rallying under the slogan, "No taxation without representation." While I believe that they were right in believing taxes merited representation, I would also contend that the opposite is true, one should pay taxes to support the costs of their representation, and so it might make sense to limit voting to those who pay. One benefit of restricting voting to those who pay federal taxes would be an enhanced accountability. It is always quite easy for one to support federal programs of which they are the beneficiaries without bearing the cost, much as it would be wonderful if I could purchase an automobile or a plasma television with someone else'smoney. However, when one is making decisions about spending their own money, the purse strings inevitably become much tighter.
An interesting idea.... however costly to the government and difficult to see the return on the investment for the country.
In Australia, the incentive is reversed - you are fined if you don't vote. As such higher turnout meaning good representative government. Still may pose problems where the fine is not a huge sum of money to certain people. Combined with proportional representation and it really leads to the wishes of the people rather than parties canvassing support in certain key states or counties as in other countries..