Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe Policy Ideas

During the last two presidential elections, we've witnessed what may about to staggering voter fraud. State governments, prompted by a certain national political party, have been allegedly turning away voters for all sorts of reasons, allegedly because these would-be voters displayed too much melanin.

We should have as many people vote as possible. This is a democratic republic, right? So, why don't we make state responsible for getting out the vote? Why not give them a little incentive?

Here's what I suggest: we tie federal spending to state voter turnout in federal elections. It'd work like this: in the next election, figure out which state had the highest percentage turnout of its registered voters. In my hypothetical world, it's Vermont. Vermont has 75% of its voters come out and vote. Vermont then gets 100% of what its entitled to get from the federal government in (pick your poison) highway funding, educational funding, etc. So, 75% is our top-tier goal. Let's say Mississippi rolls in next-best at 73%. Well, let's divide 73 by 75 and say that's the percentage that Mississippi can receive out of funds it would otherwise be entitled to, or 97.3%. A state in the 40%-range would get around half of funds it would otherwise be entitled to.

I want the vote, and I want the states to have an incentive to get things done. The good thing about this system? It resets every two years. Your state can jump way up if it gets its act together.

This is a pretty wild idea. Thoughts?

8 comments:

Dews said...

You know, the more I read this, the more I like it...

Maybe with something like this in place, states might be more inclined to punish the people that pull the standard Election day shit every year...

My favorites are the newsletters going out in minority neighborhoods saying to remember to pay all tickets before you can vote, reminding people to get out and vote on the day AFTER election day, and of course who can forget the hired mob that stormed the ballots in Florida?

SayHey Kid said...

Arizona tried something similar to your proposal, but not as broad. In 2006, they added a proposition to the ballet offering a lotto system. Whoever voted would be put into a pool or a "bucket". And a winner of 100k would be selected.

Just a shame those who came up with the idea ignored just about every privacy law ever enacted. It did get more voters out to vote against it though.

The problem with your theory is that states would fight for every nickel and perhaps mandate voting. It could get very ugly. Something similar to this happened in the 1870's when workers were forced by their employers to vote or be fired (Wow, funny how I remember this argument from highschool)

Dews said...

I dunno, if you can force people in your state to have Health insurance (Taxachusetts), just seems like this is the next logical step...

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...

You're right in that you cannot force someone to vote. It's a fundamental right in our democracy, and that means, just like speech, you can't force someone to vote.

However, this doesn't make individuals vote. It ties federal spending to voting. Congress's power to spend the money it colleccts is nearly plenary. This can happen I think.

SayHey Kid said...

True. But a right to vote shouldnt be forced upon. If that were the case, Texas would scramble to give back all of their "convicts" voter rights back.

That being said, the dealth penalty would no longer exist. Would be kinda cool

SayHey Kid said...

I see where your going with this DC&H. Would force states to actually monitor voting fraud, and hell, upgrade machines and even assist people who cannot get to a poll get there. Puts the burden of responsiblity at the state level.

Now i like it!!!! Good call

Dewey, Cheatem, & Howe said...

I win.

Can someone tell me how to put the labels in at the bottom of the post. Every time I do it I fuck it up.

Shane Rollins said...

There is only one flaw I see in this, though I do love the idea.

States are already participating in voter fraud and get away with it. They easily could simulate "votes" so it appears as the state met their percentage of 75 or whatever other number it might be so they could still get their funding.

That way they could still turn away voters and still count them as voted and the situation could get worse, then again this is a stretch.