The idea is that instead of voluntary voting only, which would only get the 'ideologically motivated' people to vote, or compulsory voting which would force everyone to turn up to vote (even if they don't want to)...
Why not pay people after they turn up to vote? And make it a sizable amount, e.g. amount_payed=(minimum wage)*7 . This means if they really don't want to vote, then they could just miss out on getting the money. This thought would have the side effect of having more influence on the poor than the rich, but that can be a good thing too.
Of course, if the government can't afford to be paying people to vote (with a reasonable amount of money), then just implement compulsory voting.
Hmmm... also what do you think about getting payed to vote, and making voting compulsory as well?
----
Difference between this idea and "Voter Rebate" from xaviergisz:
This idea is almost the same with Voter Rebate except for one point. It uses a much simpler system of "flat rate" payout of amount_payed=(minimum wage)*7 . This has multiple effects: First it means that this would be cheaper to implement. Secondary, voter fraud would not have as much financial impact on the payout budget. Thirdly, we do not have to get the IRS to work out every single payout, making the voting process fast and smooth.
Oh and as a side effect, since the flat rate payout is by 'percentage' mostly going to the poor or middle class. It will act as a mini stimulus to the economy, as these people will immediately spend it on food, debt, items. This will help small business grow as a result.-- mofosyne, Jan 19 2012 Voter Rebate [xaviergisz, Jan 19 2012] Get Paid To Not Vote Get_20Paid_20To_20Not_20Vote [mofosyne, Nov 22 2014] (sp. "paid")-- hippo, Jan 19 2012 1. Where would the money come from? A magic money tree? Or out of everyone's collective pockets through taxation or inflation? 2. Why should there be any further incentive to vote, beyond the thrilling and gripping engagement with real issues and genuine alternative models of society competing at grassroots level?-- pocmloc, Jan 19 2012 It's not necessarily a bad idea to give every member of a constituency a handout just for passing GO, as it were, and this is one way of achieving that.
In my opinion, subsidies or handouts for particular industries or activities, whether they are for car manufacturers, solar panels, banks, pharmaceuticals or whatever, are far more problematic than this idea.-- spidermother, Jan 19 2012 pocmloc, its from taxes of course, and unless you have more people on the dole than workers, paying everyone a flat rate of (minimum wage)*7 is much more achievable than tax cuts.
Also in reality, voting is boring for the majority of the people, and to ensure the legitimacy of a democratic voting system, there must be maximum amount of people participating.
This idea is an effort to reconcile the need for 'compulsory voting', while giving people the choice not to turn up to vote.-- mofosyne, Jan 19 2012 In Australia, you can (and usually do) get fined for not voting; in a way, that's also more problematic than this idea, since whatever prevented a person from voting will likely prevent their paying or otherwise resolving the fine, which can land them in a whole mess of trouble due to compounding non-payment sanctions.
//2. Why should there be any further incentive to vote, beyond the thrilling and gripping engagement with real issues and genuine alternative models of society competing at grassroots level?// Bwaaa-ha-ha-haaa!-- spidermother, Jan 19 2012 change that to get paid NOT to vote, and you might have something here.-- theircompetitor, Jan 19 2012 Yes but a democracy where the politics is so boring, and the choice so restricted, so that all the candidates are from the same ruling establishment of self-serving vested interests, is sick at its core. Fiddling with the symptoms like this will likely make it worse. Deal with the underlying problems instead.-- pocmloc, Jan 19 2012 Oh, goody! Then I'll sell my blood! At last, a retirement plan I can count on. Bun! [+]-- Grogster, Jan 19 2012 [Grogster], no offence, but it appears that you are very keen on bunning almost every idea that you read. Not necessarily a bad thing. Your thoughts?-- daseva, Jan 19 2012 This is excellent. Just have the nominal payment be taken out of your tax return, or have it calculated in to your taxes. That is, assuming you pay any taxes...-- RayfordSteele, Jan 19 2012 Vote early, vote often!-- DrBob, Jan 19 2012 [daseva], thanks for the (almost) hyperbole! To answer your observation, I read everything on HB --- most of the ideas I have no comment on therefore no bun OR bone. I issue a bone when I feel it is deserved. I issue a bun when I feel it has merit. If I do either one I will throw my two cents into an annotation.
This idea has merit and is without a doubt half baked, and also another way to bolster one's bank account (albeit on a microscopic scale) --- what's not to like for someone who is also eccentrically inclined? (speaking only for myself, of course)
Votes are bought and paid for, and have been for generations. This idea is an extension of that sad fact.
My bun stands!-- Grogster, Jan 19 2012 All the people who only showed up for the money would just walk into the booth, tick the first box, and go collect their cash. It would entirely defeat the point of the voting process.-- Alterother, Jan 19 2012 Said it before. Probably going to say it again some day, <knocks-on-wood>, want folks to vote? Make 'em earn it.-- 2 fries shy of a happy meal, Jan 20 2012 [Alterother], while i think this is not a good idea, that could be addressed by randomising the order of candidates on the ballot paper.-- nineteenthly, Jan 20 2012 Agreed, but then you'd just be randomizing the votes. The same fuckup perpetrated by different means.-- Alterother, Jan 21 2012 It would mean increasing the noise level, which would probably drown out smaller parties.-- nineteenthly, Jan 21 2012 //randomizing the votes. The same fuckup// No, no, no! Think like a statistician. Unbiased noise is *way* better than biased.-- mouseposture, Jan 21 2012 What about only those who paid taxes (actually paid, not got back more than they paid, this includes bailouts) are allowed to vote? This prevents the masses from being able to vote themselves largess from the public purse.-- copycat042, Jan 21 2012 [copycat042] The idea is elegant, but they'd find (i.e. legislators would offer them) ways of dispensing largesse that would still benefit them. You really think you could stamp out all the possible loopholes?-- mouseposture, Jan 21 2012 copycat042, Jan 21 2012
The idea behind this is that we want everybody to be able to vote, and if you only allow people to 'vote if they pay "postive amount" of taxes, then the argument 'mouseposture' said will hold true. Ergo: If we ban guns, then only criminals will have guns.
Anyhow, the idea is that this is a 'flat rate' payout of (minimum wage)*7 . If the government can not even afford to do that, then there is something wrong with the current government. I mean, this is not like the 'dole' where you pay unemployed money every week.
Also compared to 'Voter Rebate' by xaviergisz. Since the money is a flat rate, you will find that the poorest will actually spend the money faster than the richer ones (who would simply just bank it. Good on them!). Which incidentally would provide a little bit of an economy boost. Ya know, maslow hierarchy of needs.-- mofosyne, Feb 02 2012 Voting is like cooking. Everyone should be free to cook, according to his or her inclination. That does not mean I should compel each individual to cook me a meal.-- bungston, Feb 02 2012 bungston, Feb 02 2012
That is why this system would be useful. We won't be forcing voters to vote. They will want to vote, if they want the cash.-- mofosyne, Feb 03 2012 Another reason to consider. In america, for some reason there is no holiday on voting day.
This might be because business don't see the point in paying people to vote. So this alleviates this issue somewhat.-- mofosyne, Nov 21 2014 random, halfbakery