Deseret News | Use free-market principles to boost voter turnout

Reader comments
Bob Bernick Jr.: Use free-market principles to boost voter turnout

Dave | 12:33 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

I believe the voter turnout figures are based upon the percentage of registered voters that vote in the elections. When one scrutinizes the poll books they will find the names still listed of people who have moved from the area years ago. Let's clean up the poll books before we have a heart attack about the voter turnout, Bob.

Oh, great | 5:55 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

what next to get the rabble into the voting booth to elect the "distribute the wealth group", how about the "old timey" bottles of whiskey. This has got to be the most ridiculous editorial in recent memory. And where does this poll pay come from? Oh, yeah those hard working tax payers. Stick it to them again.

Don Nelson | 6:53 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

I don't want people to vote. When people do not vote, it increases the strength of my vote. The more people who vote, the less power of my vote. Please stay home. Maybe one day, I will be the only voter; then I will rule.

Remember, an organized minority can defeat the will of an apathetic majority.

Comments continue below

Laurels | 7:53 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

This article was certainly creative.

Incease pay of legislators: Not sure this would make a difference. Most don't have the luxury to take a 3 month leave from their jobs, because their jobs won't be held for them. I'm not sure $30k a year would be enough to entice people to permanently leave their jobs.

Easier to register and vote: I don't see how they could make it any easier. My entire family has already voted in the Nov. 3 election. The ballots were mailed two days ago. Requiring picture ID at the polls helps to prevent against voter fraud. This is not an onerous burden. If you can get to the polls, you can bring picture ID.

Pay voters to vote: People claim they don't vote due to disenfrachisement, or a feeling that their vote doesn't matter. Ultimately, it is laziness. Bribing people to do their civic duty is not going to create a vibrant democracy. This suggestion is so ridiculous it makes me think you either don't understand the basic tenets of democracy or you have thrown it out there to stir up discussion.

Fair Voter | 8:11 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Countries that use the more competitive and representative proportional representation electoral system have a higher percentage of voter turnout compared to countries (like ours) that use the single-member district, winner-take-all electoral system.

Instead of doubling state legislative salaries, make them the median salary of working Utahns. This, lawmakers are incentivized to raise the earning conditions for their constituents. (HT to economist Richard Vedder for this idea).

And instead of paying people to vote, or giving them a tax credit, make votes tradeable. Votes for president and governor might trade for more than votes for city councilmember. (HT to journalist Jeff Greenfield for this idea.)

Dave | 8:15 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

The people that don't vote are doing us a favour. Leave well enough alone.

RedShirt | 8:35 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

I have a better idea that would cost even less money that what was proposed here. We move tax day to be the day before elections.

You will get a much larger turnout, and people will care a lot more about the canidates being elected.

Micah Bruner | 8:39 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Utah Code Annotated Section 20A-3-103 already requires that employers give employees time off to vote. There are certain requirements, and most may not qualify due to the language in subsection (2), but it at least provides those who work a lot of hours the chance to have some time off.

As for paying people, this would certainly provide motivation to get people to the polls. The only problem, it is the wrong motivation. If we start paying people to vote, we will be promoting the worst part of democracy - an uninformed electorate.

We should not need more motivation than the fact that the people elected WILL change some aspect of our lives.

Democracy should promote involved and informed citizenship. These ideas are creative, but essentially would prove the downfall of our democratic society.

Silence implies consent | 9:12 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Many wring their hands about low voter turnout, but in English common law, silence implies consent. If the masses are really upset, they will vote. If things are going along fairly well (i.e. Best Managed State in the Union), they tend to stay home and accept the direction of the status quo. This is why the countries in the world with the highest voter turnout are places like Iraq, Afghanistan, and certain African republics; where things really are messed up. Today's voter who stays home is still voting in a sense--they are saying that things are generally going OK.

Ultra Bob | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

A few days ago I received the response “So you would prefer that the uneducated, ignorant, lazy and no-goods of society vote in an election“, when I proposed a financial incentive for voting. I, of course, responded Yes, all people should get to vote.

Seems like there are several Utahns that hold that opinion.

I think it is the same people who demand government not be “momma” to people are the ones who want to deny the vote to others in our society. Previous elections indicate that it is much more profitable when only certain people are allowed to vote.

As to legislators salaries, when they spend millions to get elected, it is obvious that the salary in the last thing in their minds.

How about we institute a Draft. Like the military, and have ordinary citizens serve.

@ Ultra Bob | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

All citizens already have the right to vote. That is already in place. Their reward for taking advantage of this right is that they have input into who representst them. If they opt not to avail themselves of that right, that is their choice. The only people denying them their right to vote is themselves by not taking their responsibility as citizens in a democratic society seriously. Paying them to vote is symptomatic of the general feeling of "entitlement" that permeates our society in general and which you trumpet louder than most on a regular basis.

Real Solutions | 10:06 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

How about we make election day a holiday so people actually have time to vote. Don't bribe them, we already have enough uninformed, apathetic voters. However, additional efforts should be made to inform voters of the candidates and the issues in an objective manner, so people can make an informed choice and not simply vote for whomever the radio, tv or their religious elder tells them to.

Doug Van Duker | 11:21 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

If you accept the underlying premis, the proposed ideas are all good. Unfortunately, I DON'T agree with the assertion that a higher voter turnout is necessarily a good thing.

Paying people to vote will get more voters--but intuitively, how many of these new voters do you think will have a CLUE about what's on the ballot?

Is obtaining a higher number of UNIFORMED voters going to improve the process? That perhaps depends on how much money your campaign has and how much name recognition your candidate has over the opponet. Those with more money to spend (generally incumbents) will almost certainly do better than a challenger.

Frankly, my thought is that the goal of elections should be to improve government.

Sadly, a majority of the current incumbents are in legislature for 1 of 2 reasons: 1) Their legislative position is beneficial to them in furthering their outside career--how many legislator are also employed directly or indirectly by another government organization? (hint count the number of educators & school administrators, realators, and businessmen--then look at their legislative assignments). 2) The "power-broker" types with higher office asperations.

Thankfully, there's still a civic-minded minority.

Lew Jeppson | 11:35 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Well Bob, It sure would help if more races were competitive. For example it is a complete, and I mean COMPLETE, waste of time for a Democrat to run for office in counties like Davis and Utah. Can you give me one good reason, Bob, why a Democrat should run in any part of the state outside of Salt Lake or Carbon Counties? And why should anyone vote in the general election anywhere outside of these two counties? After all the Republican slate will win regardless, and the electoral vote will always go to the Republican presidential candidate.

As a general rule outside of the two above named counties voting (in the general election) is a complete waste of time. The LDS culture is naturally suited to one party voting, so that is the end of that. Your ideas are well intended but amount to arranging the deck chairs on the TITANIC.

Lew Jeppson | 11:45 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

One way, perhaps, would be to not only not close state liquor stores on election day, but rther to have free booze at the polls. Of course the police may need to do random DUI stops around same. But that's more revenue for the locals, right? This is of course tongue in cheek like you Bob (?).

Ultra Bob | 3:24 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

To Doug Van Duker | 11:21 a.m. Oct. 16, 2009

Says “Frankly, my thought is that the goal of elections should be to improve government”.

Right on Doug. Only thing is, what do you mean when you say “improve government”?

Do you mean less government involvement, more or less services, more or less regulation of business, more or less money given to business incentives?

To me, the term improve government, would start with the broader representation of the electorate.

Right now the government mainly represents business interests. Many people say that is the main purpose and business of government.

As such, the people who have the incentive to vote are those who will benefit from the main business of the government.

If a broader representation of our citizens voted maybe our government would be more inclined to represent all the people instead of just a few.

A. Voter | 4:33 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

I have always voted since the age of 21 even when out of the country for the military, or out of state on business. Bob prefaced his comments more or less implying that his ideas were a cynical joke. Voting today takes only a very minimal effort, not less than picking up a pizza for dinner.

I really don't want those that are paid $10 to vote and those not willing to make the effort to study the candidates or issues. Citizen apathy and political ignorance are the primary problems, not the ease of voting.

Perhaps we should reduce the voting age to 10 years old. My fifth grade students are more informed than Utah's non-voters. I would rather have them vote than have internet voting, or pay those over 18 to vote. Anyone that can't make it to the polling center can always vote absentee or vote early. I do may banking on line, but my voting franchise is much to important for that.

Homeschooling Mom | 8:06 p.m. Oct. 16, 2009

I'm mentoring youth ages 12-16 this month on the principles in The 5,000 Year Leap.
There are youth in this club who want to learn so they can be leaders who understand what public virtue and serving within the political arena should really mean.
I'm doubtful that money will increase the quality of contenders.
Change,and improvement has to come from our homes. Adults, children and young adults need to discover the value of public service.
The Founding Fathers understood this and it's just as important in our time. Sadly many great leaders (statesman) do not want the negativity associated with running for office (I think).
Money is not the answer for candidates nor for voters. As a nation, we are not taught to value the responsibility we have to read, discuss, and ponder before voting for a candidate.
I never learned the value of politics until now in my 44th year. Maybe in ten + years I will be a worthy candidate. It isn't something I would look forward to but I do consider it a responsibility as a citizen.
P.S. I also have concern with the use of the word democracy...

Clair Ellis | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Generally, people who don't follow the election don't vote. We see that in the undervote for some races. In our county, the undervote in largely unpublicized school board races is about 25%. That is, one-fourth of the people who took time to register and vote skipped that part of the ballot.

I have skipped judicial votes on the ballot when I knew nothing about the judge. It's a reasonable decision. I let those who knew that judge make that decision. For me to just flip a coin and vote would be wrong. It could reward or punish an undeserving candidate randomly.

Likewise, if I know little about any other election, I should skip it and let my fellow citizens make that choice.

Joyce McCloy | 12:22 p.m. Oct. 17, 2009

Voter turnout is related to the public's interest in the contest. If you want better voter turnout, 1) have more compelling candidates or contests. 2)media, including this paper - do your job and educate and inform the public about contests, actually REPORT. 3) political parties and candidates - do your job better!

Whatever you do, stop using the age old problem of low turnout as an excuse for dangerous and unwise election "reforms" such as internet voting. Internet voting is vulnerable to all sorts of attacks plus opens the voter up to coercion and or vote selling.
In our country, people are FREE to vote or not, and they do when they have the information or desire to do so.

Chaos | 1:48 p.m. Oct. 22, 2009

the definition of "informed voter" as used by those who see it as a qualification for voting usually means "someone who votes like me". Those who have a different opinion are "obviously" uninformed.

If more voters were "informed", I think we would have a different set of elected representatives. Clearly, uninformed voters are already voting in droves in Utah and have been for some time.....

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.