What Would Get You to Vote?: Incentives for Voting
By Heather Rogers | 07/18/2012 | Electoral Reform, Featured, Headline | 45 CommentsThe June 5th primary election in California saw a near-record low turnout of voters across the state. Only 31.1% of eligible Californians voted in the election. The dismal numbers are likely to be a preview of what is to come in November.
Why vote anyway? Besides gaining some vague sense of having done your civic duty, is it worth the time and effort? The probability that your vote would determine the outcome of an important election is beyond improbable. So your vote doesn’t really matter, or does it?
Those who religiously turn up to vote in any given election are likely to be on the furthest sides of the political spectrum. Just as the very liberal are bound to be ardent supporters of President Obama at voting stations this November, strict conservatives will file out in droves to make sure he loses. At the same time, those with more moderate views, who make up the majority of the American population, are most likely to skip a trip to the polls.
The problem with leaving voting to the political extremists is that they will vote for politicians who most share their views, thus electing candidates who fail to represent what most Americans deem important.
Many complain that work schedules prevent them from making it to a polling station on election day and changes should be made to make the voting process as easy as possible. Polling places could be open later than 8 p.m., and there could be modernization of the voter registration system so that a person might vote in various locations, but these changes are not predicted to be enough to drastically increase participation.
A recent article by The Atlantic explored ways in which to incentivize the voting process. Norman Ornstein, the article’s author, noted his favorite: to have each voting receipt also be a lottery ticket. With such incentives, there would undoubtedly be a greater turnout come election season.
Ornstein writes how mandated voting laws, like what can be found in Australia today, would never work in the United States due to the aversion Americans have toward being “forced” to doing something.
In Australia, if a citizen fails to turn up at a polling place on election day without a legitimate and written excuse, they are penalized with a $15 fine. Such disincentive would incur outrage in this country. Implementing a creative incentive however, would create buzz around the voting process and get people excited to participate.
Share your ideas: what do you think would be a good incentive for voting?







Leave Your Comment →
45 Comments
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.18.2012
@craigschlesinger
My incentive to vote this election year: Gov. Gary Johnson and Judge Jim Gray! ‘Nuff said?
Amanda Le
07.18.2012
@amandale
I think only monetary/material incentives will work on Americans to encourage them to vote. Maybe a lottery?
Jessica Sanoh
07.30.2012
Hi there. I am an associate producer with the Huffington Post Live. We’re doing a segment tomorrow afternoon on whether or not the government should use incentives to encourage more Americans to vote. I’d really like to get more of your thoughts. Can you contact me at [email protected] or on twitter: @jaysanoh1? Thanks.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.18.2012
@bradschlesinger
A friend of mine detailed an interesting proposal of mandatory voting, but with the option to choose any candidate or simply check off a none of the above box. He proposes that those who do not comply and vote receive some sort of fine for not doing so, but those who do (even if you select none of the above) receive a tax credit. Don’t know how I feel about it, but interesting idea nonetheless.
Jane Susskind
07.18.2012
@jsusskind
Maybe a tax credit would be a good idea, but a fine for not voting would be crossing the line, in my opinion.
Brad R. Schlesinger
07.19.2012
@bradschlesinger
How about we just make election day like a national day off from work, school, etc. Or have voting last for one or two weeks so it is easier to people to adjust their schedules.
Jane Susskind
07.18.2012
@jsusskind
Voting incentives would definitely increase voter turnout America…but how would that affect the integrity of voting? It seems even more like buying votes.
Craig D. Schlesinger
07.18.2012
@craigschlesinger
Precisely. I know I drone on and on about public choice theory and its implications all over this site, so we have to be careful when incentivizing anything – especially voting. There’s already enough cronyism and fraud in the electoral process. My idea (not new or original by any stretch) is to make election day a national holiday so everyone can vote and not have to worry about work, school, or any other normal day-to-day interference.
Lauren Moore
07.18.2012
@laurendimitra
I like Australia’s idea, and that’s not buying votes at all. Fine people for not doing their civic duty!
Jessica Sanoh
07.30.2012
Hi there. I am an associate producer with the Huffington Post Live. We’re doing a segment tomorrow afternoon on whether or not the government should use incentives to encourage more Americans to vote. I’d really like to get more of your thoughts. Can you contact me at [email protected] or @jaysanoh1? Thanks.
Jane Susskind
07.18.2012
@jsusskind
Also, maybe we should reconsider the day we vote on, the hours polling places are open etc. If the polls were open until midnight, or were on a different day of the week, maybe more people would vote. I feel as though a lot of people do not want to go out of their way and rush to make it in time to get to the polls after work. Don’t know what the costs of keeping polling places open later would be, but it might be something to consider in a discussion about increasing voter turnout.
Faith Eischen
07.18.2012
@faitheischen
The politicians are disconnected from the general public… which in turn, makes it difficult for voters to feel motivated to vote for officials that seem irrelevant to their lives
Lucy Baltsen
07.18.2012
I think it is time to educate our young on exactly how the political system woirs. Many people do not even know how a bill is introduced into legislation, what committee’s are and how the electoral college works. This should be taught every year as much as the same reading, writing and arithmetic is taught year after year. We need to learn how important it is to vote and that every votedoes count. It would be good then to say you have to vote but I don’t agree with an incentive……you will then get people who will not educate themselves and just vote foranybody to get the reward.
Amos Cooper
07.18.2012
@adcooper12
It would be interesting if we could find a way to vote online. It would be difficult to pull off due to accurately counting votes and security concerns. But I would say it’s plausible.
Richard Boehme
07.18.2012
no.
Charles Dent
07.18.2012
Really…that is stupid.
Gary McCorvey
07.18.2012
Hell, no. Don’t want somebody who has to be paid to vote. They are now called Democrats.
Ronald Beaulieu
07.18.2012
Dumb idea. If people want to vote, they will. If they don’t, they will not. I am pretty sure in Australia not everyone votes still and it is mandatory.
Ariel H Fradin
07.18.2012
“The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.” – Winston Churchill
This is the real danger. An uninformed voter should not vote. Even in the voluntary system we have now, the vast majority of voters are terribly uninformed about the issues.
As much as I’d like greater voter turnout, I’d only want to see it happen if people were better informed.
Dino Sanfilippo
07.18.2012
My incentive for voting would be a third party candidate or a candidate who disagrees with the status quo. I vote regardless, but I find myself less and less enthusiastic with each election.
Jenna Corley
07.18.2012
Ridiculous!
Love Freedom
07.18.2012
I don’t want incentives for stupid people to vote! Viva the Republic!!
Robert Winslow
07.18.2012
By the way Gary, get your head out of your ass and look around, its a much better view.
Sue Ann Brueggemann
07.18.2012
My 401k that the Bush admin lost!
Mike Deason
07.18.2012
Goodness no! I would, however, favor a poll test that would require each voter to be able to at least know who the current president, vice-president, their state senators and respective representative are. A basic constitutional quiz based on a high school level civics class wouldn’t be a bad thing either. But that would be terribly unfair to the people who can’t tune out Jersey Shore and American Idol long enough to know a little more about the world around them.
Seanathair Browne
07.18.2012
Why not make people who DON’T vote have to do jury duty. I’m sure many more folks would vote if it got them out of this awful civil duty.
David Boyd
07.18.2012
there is no way the gop would go for incentives they would fight tooth and nail against, the excuse would be that it would give more an incentive for illegible voters to vote………And Dino just to vote for someone who runs on a third party ticket kind of goes along with what Ariel said about people that are uninformed…………
Richard Klima
07.18.2012
We need to get into the 21st century. Vote online with a pin number that is valid only one time or else on ATM type machines.
Mike Deason
07.18.2012
With choices like we have in the coming election, I’d probably take my chances with jury duty. :-)
Aidan King
07.18.2012
No way! Who would regulate that?! Oh that’s right, the Feds. Well that’s ok, as long as the pay doesn’t have campaign bias… BLECHUHMLALPAZ. So I’m opposed to that idea because it could be a turned into further legal bribery by politicians and big money baggers
Cara Thorsen
07.18.2012
A fine is NOT a motivation to vote…it’s just another tax.
Chad Anderson
07.18.2012
Bribing people to participate in a rigged/broken system is ridiculous! What would be worse would be to try to force them to vote. I’m sorry, but Obama doesn’t appeal to me at all, and Mitt pisses me off worse than Obama. I’m not going to be told “You have to vote” when none of the people on the ballot are anywhere near worthy of my vote. We have the RIGHT to vote but it is not MANDATED.
Duane Dichiara
07.18.2012
No. So let me get this straight you want to force people to vote who aren’t paying any attention? What possible public good would this do?
Robert Cooper
07.18.2012
Mike, A poll test, really? No, we should be making it easier, even if people are less informed right now. The idea is to get more people involved not less. The easier it is, the more people will hopefully get informed. But I do not agree with incentives for voting. And Gary, I’m a Dem.
Joseph Clarke Trout
07.18.2012
Voter participation should be mandatory and protected by the state. No institution should be able to interfere (just like with jury duty). The individuals should be given pamphlets at the time of voting to read which tell the stances of the people they have to choose from so that they may vote properly. Each candidate is only given the same amount of room to state their positions. System improved.
Dave Cluff
07.18.2012
No Way. You think the average voter is a moron. Wait till you see the average non voter. =D
David Benham
07.18.2012
Geeze! Bribe people to vote. Jury = awful civil duty. Poll tests. Throw out suffrage. We’re truly circling the drain!
Dave Renison
07.18.2012
ditto Duane.
Mike Deason
07.18.2012
Easier to vote, really? It’s pretty easy as it is now. You know what’s not always easy, though? Getting a drivers license. You know why? Because you have to pass a test to show that you understand the basic rules and laws that govern your right to drive. Voting is a very important civic duty and right as well, and one that people should not be engaged in if they do not have at least a basic understanding of the process. Oh, and let’s get rid of party ticket selections as well! A person should have to contemplate every candidate for every position.
Manuel Flores
07.19.2012
@mannyflores
We can see how incentives have affected Mexico in its election season. Now would we really want that here in the US? Incentives would just skyrocket corruption.
Heather Rogers
07.19.2012
@heatherrogers
That’s a really good point Manuel. We don’t have to look far to see a corrupt government. Taking steps like creating incentives for voting seem like a good idea but will they lead to corruption? I don’t want politicians to feel like they can buy votes.
Rebecca Woo
07.21.2012
@Rebecca Woo
All state have absentee voting provisions, although some states’ rules are fairly restrictive. Voters in states with lenient absentee rules have no excuse for not voting. In California where I live, anyone can become a PERMANENT absentee voter with no requirement for being senior, disabled, military, student, etc. I am against mandatory voting, because people hate being forced to do anything against their will and if coerced into voting, some people may out of spite just mark any old candidate or issue without any intelligent thought. My view on voting is – if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain about your elected officials or things that happen in your city, state or country over which voters have a say.
Timothy
07.22.2012
I’ll skip the incentive. I’m not particularly interested in lending my support to twisted politicians. At any rate, considering what happened in the republican primaries, voting is pretty much a farce. Either way, I would rather skip doing a bad deed for a day.
Rebecca Woo
07.29.2012
@Rebecca Woo
Ditto on the incentives. People should vote because they care what happens in their communities and their country, not because they’re getting free merchandise or a chance to win a free trip to Hawaii.
W. E. Messamore
07.24.2012
@W__E__Messamore
The question is– do we really want political decisions being influenced by the kind of people who would only willingly take part in them for the free lottery ticket? Were it implemented, I think this would be a disaster.