MB Civic

To the Editor:

“Who Wants to Be a Millionaire Voter?” (editorial, July 21) objects to the Arizona ballot initiative that would turn election day into a gambling event, awarding a random voter with $1 million. The proposal, which you rightly call “daft,” is also undemocratic.

It would distort the motives of voters. It would probably incite people to act against the public’s and their individual interests. However irrationally, voters participating in such a lottery might allow the unlikely prospect of dramatically increased prosperity to affect their attitudes toward policy proposals and those who advocate them.

I can imagine a world in which politicians would not intentionally exploit that psychological dynamic, but we do not live in that world.

Edward Lacy
Dayton, Ohio, July 21, 2006

•

To the Editor:

As an actuary, I think the Arizona voter lottery proposal is an ingenious idea to increase voter participation.

It deserves classification as a potentially very cost-effective “get out the vote” campaign.

It is particularly ingenious because it would probably increase participation among low-income groups under-represented at the polls who are the clientele of state lotteries.

Lotteries increase the regressiveness of state revenue-raising. Why not use their appeal to the poor to better advantage for once?

A voting lottery in every state! Let 50 (or 51, counting the District) flowers bloom!

Paul J. Donahue
Brooklyn, July 21, 2006

•

To the Editor:

Re “Arizona Ballot Could Become Lottery Ticket” (front page, July 17):

A voting lottery is a bad idea. It’s the quality of the voter, not the percentage of voters, that matters for a democracy. If people are too lazy or uncaring to make the effort to vote, then I don’t want their desire for quick money to influence the working of government at any level.

The aim of Mark Osterloh, who is behind the initiative in Arizona, to enhance voter interest is well intentioned. But there is no reason to believe that a lottery for voters would actually work or that current nonvoters would become more interested. The risk is not worth the downside consequences.

The Arizona government could better spend the $1 million proposed prize each election on improving voter facilities in poor areas of Arizona.

Thomas Crowley
Chapel Hill, N.C., July 17, 2006