It is an excellent idea on the one hand; but on the other hand, one wonders if it reflects democratic ideals? It would encourage the greedy, the uninformed, the indifferent, and the opportunistic to vote--while it would have little bearing on the type of person who has chosen not to vote on some internal value or principle, and who cannot be enticed by a next to meaningless chance to become rich (if indeed they are not rich already).
Certainly, millions are enticed to buy lotteries for a buck, or magazines and books for a bit more...simply on the basis that they have a one in a billion chance of winning some money. This is apparently lucrative for the companies who have mastered the approach of appealing to the superstition and greed of much of the public. I don't know, however, that it has any net benefit for those who are being fleeced by their own delusional thinking. Is expanding the voter body by appealing to the most irrational and gullible really a good thing?
Millions of people do NOT buy lottery tickets, even though they are relatively free (say a buck or two). Would these people rush to the polls to stand in line-ups because they feel it is their "lucky" day? Or because they had a "sign" from the stars? Or because the leaves, or a wild animal, or the food on their plate...did something just for them? Do we want people to vote their lucky numbers and the birthdays of their children translated into "meaningful" names and ballot box positions? <g> |
