38 Comments - Just Observing - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 4:54 am: Horrible idea — what a mockery. - state worker A - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 5:54 am: While it is important to get people involved in voting, I think this method will only bring some people to the poles to conduct ‘blind voting’. Their only goal would be to get a chance at winning the lottery and they will not vote for the issues at hand. Now that I think about it, that would be the same as when some people who vote straight party lines without looking at the issues at hand. Why can’t they use the unclaimed lottery prizes to pay off some bills – except don’t put it in the general fund. - anon. in the stykes - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 6:13 am: No it’s a terrible idea ! They’d vote sure …but for a chance at the dough not issues! Talk about a potential for fraud ! Besides is the lottery still ours or has Bladgo leased it out yet ? He’s probably already robbed the un-claimed prize money like he has every other , even the most obscure accounts IE: collegiate plate acct’s & of course more prominently the states (5) pension systems. I agree with “state worker” pay a few bills & maybe a cost of living adjustment or raise to the thousands of M/C people who have seen one in like 4 years. It’s “numb n*&$@ ” ideas like this is why Ill. is in crap shape & with “inovative” thinking like that is why Ill. will stay that way.. Jbt better get up & start getting her act together or it’s 4 more years of just this very thing probably worse !!! - Leroy - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 6:48 am: And the entrenched power structure in Illinois is going to benefit from this idea how? You know, the entrenched power structure that would have to pass this bill…. - Gregor - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:04 am: As opposed to te politicians chasing dream money, you mean, Rich? I don’t like the idea either. Also don’t forget, you then get such lovely people on the voter rolls getting called for jury duty. I don’t want unmotivated citizens in either place. - the Other Anonymous - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:36 am: There are a whole bunch of precinct captains in Chicago who would use their skills at voting more than once to manipulate this system. Plus, it’s offensive. - The Conservative - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:42 am: An un motivated voter, what a noval idea. A large percentage of the voting public has no clue as to why they are voting for or against a candidate. Now you want to add the possibility of winning a few bucks to the mix. We need to tighten, not loosen the guide lines for voting. Must be able to speak, read and understand English might be a good start. - Anyone but Rod - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:44 am: We probably could not end up with worse public officals than we already have. We have scraped the bottom of the barrel. Just ask Fitzgerald. - SilverBackDemocrat - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:52 am: I think it is a fair idea. I want every single person to vote, although that will not ever happen; therefore, if having a lottery will increase voting numbers, do it. Every person who votes would have a chance. After someone wins the first lottery for voting, everybody and their brother will be at the polls. Based on my experience from the people that I know and associate with, (hardly any “0″ Republican friends that I associate with in my private life) mainly Democrats, 99% of their family is Democrat (you know what I mean-everybody has the crazy, nut-ball uncle or cousin that makes up the 1% who are black-balled), but only about a quarter or half of them vote regularly if at all. With that said, I hope the Government’s across this country do something to help increase numbers of people who vote. If it is a lottery, so be it. If you are against the lottery to help get people to the polls, give your lottery number to someone else. You never know, maybe that person can win your money. - ZC - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:58 am: Put me on the wrong side of blog opinion - I LOVE this idea. Who knows if it would truly work (my bet is not), but it deserves to be tried somewhere in the U.S. Viva federalism! Potential big losers from this idea: powerful interest groups who have disproportionate influence in the primaries and even some in the general, entrenched incumbents who like low turnout (again, especially in primaries), the “true believers” of all stripes who aren’t that more intelligent - really more zealous and tunnel-visioned - and who have _enormous_ sway in the primaries, and maybe older and richer voters who disproportionately stock the electorate. If declining turnout of the less-well informed, the poor and the young were such a good thing for democracy, then our country should have been on nothing but an upward track (in terms of the quality of our elected officials) since the mid-70s. How’s the data match up with that assertion? Reality check: there is NO WAY this is gonna become law in Illinois. But I would love if Arizona went through with it. I think it might be their gain, our loss. - Turk - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 8:02 am: No!!!! - zatoichi - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 8:14 am: Extra money that does not get swept into some other account or sucked up by some obscure law? Please. Neutral on the basic concept, but it seems kinda like Publisher Clearing House. If Rod can find $5M when he needs some PR, may be the money is there. Vote early and vote often. - Yellow Dog Democrat - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 8:24 am: I think only people with Bachelor’s degrees should be allowed to vote. Bring back the Poll Test!! Seriously, I agree with ZC, that it probably won’t help. The #1 thing that Illinois can do to increase voter participation is allow same day voter registration. The three states in the nation with the highest voter turn-out are those that allow same day registration. That’s because transience is probably the top barrier to voting. - SilverBackDemocrat - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 8:29 am: In addition to what Yellow Dog stated, I think we could include a 30-day voting time frame. It would help identify who has or who has not voted yet. Peer pressure works, unless you are a socio-path. - Dejavu - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 8:59 am: Just leave it to the Democrats to think this is a great idea. They have always counted on their voters to be poor and ignorant. That’s why they are in terrible schools with no chance to escape. Their only dream or chance in life is to win the lottery. Very sad. - Prez of the FTPC - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:19 am: Silly idea. You vote because you have a sense of civic responsibility and choose to participate in the process to make life better for your community and, ultimately, for yourself. Can you imagine teaching this in schools? “Hey kids, don’t want to vote? Don’t care about your community’s future? Have no sense of political self-worth? Well, HOW’S ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS?!” Talk about dumbing it down. - Coloradem - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:21 am: Leave it to republicans to oppose this idea. They don’t want any additional incentive for poor folks to vote because poor folks don’t vote for republicans. What the hell. They’ll just have Diebold had them the election anyway… - anon - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:23 am: I agree with the above posts - it’s a horrible idea. I wonder how many people play the lottery, if only once or twice a year, as oppsed to voting. I bet you the number of people who play the lottery twice a year far outweighs the number who vote twice a year. But I do agree that we probably wouldn’t elect any worse candidates. At least the numbers would go up. If the federal government can make us sign up for selective service, why can’t they make everyone at age 18 register to vote, not make vote, but at least register. - Wumpus Extremus Maximus - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:28 am: Coloradem, please tell me you are being sarcastic. You cannot be cereal! The demorcrats will demand recounts until they win and bring out the dead to vote. - fightforjustice - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:51 am: Sam Cahnman has a better idea about boosting turnout in primary elections by making the voter’s party decision a private matter, not a permanent public record. - ZC - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:54 am: At the risk of sidetracking this discussion, but on a related topic, about this is-higher-turnout-or-lower-turnout better: is there anybody here with insider info and recollection about the 2002 Democrat gubernatorial primary? Is there a professional consensus about who would have benefited the most (Vallas, Blago, Burris) if turnout in the 2002 primary had been higher? My guess is Burris, but could Vallas have gained a competitive advantage over Blago with higher levels of turnout? For those of you who both hate this lottery idea in principle and dislike Blago, could be food for thought … - Uncle Slappy - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 10:20 am: I think we already have enough people entering the polling place without having a freaking clue … now we need MORE of these goobers voting to keep the same or organization-backed corrupt goobers making and selectively enforcing our laws? Are we going to make voter registration drives into free bingo night, too? The Dem. machine would love this idea, since it would bring out their mindless constituents in droves, like it used to when they gave them a few bucks or a bottle of cheap wine to vote. Yep, why don’t we just go back to the days of Mayor Thompson and Al Capone? - VanillaMan - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 10:36 am: In the old days they used to open barrels of whiskey and get a party started. It wasn’t until about 100 years ago laws were passed so that bars are now closed during voting hours. So, instead of whiskey, Arizona is trying money? Stupid and insulting. - Maroon - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 10:40 am: Don’t we do that in Illinois already with respect to campaign contributions? Play the lotto and buy a $100K ticket on the governor, then win an un-bid $10M contract! - Ecks - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 10:57 am: I’d like to start off by expressing my sadness at the arrogant attitudes many of the posters on this blog have exhibited. The suggestion of literacy, language, and education requirements-memories of Jim Crow aside-betray a contempt of the political plebians of America. That aside, I think the lottery idea is terrible. Getting more people to the polls is always good for democracy (whether that democracy produces the results you want is another issue entirely). However, motivating people with greed and self-interest is the WRONG way to go about it. Those two vices comprise the biggest problems with politics everywhere; they should be discouraged at every turn. - Uncle Slappy - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 11:13 am: So, Ecks, you think it’s ok to vote for a candidate because of his or her physical appearance? Or due to the fact that the candidate will see that the garbage cans are in place, or a tree trimmed? Let’s not forget that we’re in Iraq right now because the mindless masses believed that slop that anyone with an IQ greater than that of a sweatsock could see though, yet these same people are now screaming to get out. They vote for an administration that destroys Social Security and our ecomony; they bitch about, then vote the puppet back in again. Do you really think it’s a bad idea to require someone to know and understand the issues before they enter a vote which affects all of our lives??? I’m not talking about race/ethnicity/religion/class or education-based requirements … just a freaking current events/civics course with a 65% passing grade, or something along those lines. Nope, I guess it’s better to just entice more people who don’t give a damn with a free lottery ticket. God help us all. - NW burbs - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 11:31 am: Australia uses the stick (instead of carrot) approach. You get fined if you don’t vote — it’s compulsory. Others have said essentially the same thing as Ecks, but I’ll repeat his sentiment because I agree. Ecks wrote “However, motivating people with greed and self-interest is the WRONG way to go about it. Those two vices comprise the biggest problems with politics everywhere; they should be discouraged at every turn.” - Eagle I - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 12:18 pm: Three will get you five that if this came to pass the first two winners would be dead residents of Cook or St. Clair counties. - BigBob - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 12:52 pm: Great idea. How about a big prize by township, municipality, county, and state. Multiple prizes in both the primary and general elections. I want to win big and win often. I wonder could I get points credit on my Harrah’s gold card? But just voting is not enough. Maybe poll watcher should administer a quick current events test to make sure a voter is truely informed. Also, a potential voter should have to recite the pledge of allegiance and national anthem before receiving a ballot. - Jake from Elwood - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 1:12 pm: Aren’t we already playing the lottery when it comes to selecting political candidates? Thank you very much but that is a big enough game of chance for me. - BigBob - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 1:29 pm: Jake from Elwood 1:12, it is not enough for me. I want a big payoff for taking the time to vote for candidates I have never heard of. Too many voters vote for only those candidates they have heard of. I think there should be bigger prizes available for those voters who take the time to vote for all races on the ballot. Maybe a multiplier for each race voted on. - cermak_rd - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 2:30 pm: I agree with the sentiment that the attitudes of many here toward a large part of the electorate is arrogant. Just because they don’t share your issues does not make them ill-informed or stupid. I’m for trying just about anything to get our embarassingly low voting rate up. - Dejavu - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 2:59 pm: If they don’t read the papers, watch the news, know the candidates and issue. Have never bothered to voted. Sorry that makes them ill-informed and stupid. - Justice - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 3:16 pm: Hey, I thought you could already get paid to vote in Chicago?? I know the dead vote there, always have. Really though, it scares me to have to bribe someone to vote. That idea is really out of touch with a democracy. How about using the money to fund the State workers and teachers pension fund that has been robbed by Rod-boy. The wheels on the bus go thump thump thump!!! - Left Leaner - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 3:24 pm: This is the kind of idea you like to flirt with, but never actually bring home to “meet the parents.” - anon. - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 4:12 pm: Geez !!! They’ve made voting about as easy as it can be, lax rules, motor voter & they still can’t get’em to the polls …but paying someone or a chance at $$$ just for “signing up”. What do you think other fedgeling democracies {and those that wish they could be} are thinking !?? Like the lotto most folks thast buyem’ wouldn’y normally gamble. What they going to do in 2 years or is it just for presidential & governors races !??? Take the “cash” & pay off some state debts damn it !!!!!!!!!!! - NoGiftsPlease - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 7:45 pm: How about working it like the state and you only get entered once … if you vote in the “right” primary? Maybe then you could get some of the state employees who have felt discouraged from voting in the primaries in the past. Ha ha. - Buck Flagojevich - Tuesday, Jul 25, 06 @ 9:18 pm: Maybe the voter turnout would be higher if higher quality candidates were in the race. Kerry, Bush, Blago, JBT and on and on. That’s a quality group there. UGH! Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.