Using incentives to "nudge" people into their duties is at odds with the notion of a self-governing citizenry. In a republic, citizens are supposed to be motivated by civic virtue, not by self-interest or acquisitiveness. It will be sad when civic pride and honor is replaced by such tawdry schemes that appeal to the baser angels of our nature. It's a hollowing out of republican self governance. It trivializes and diminishes what it means to be a citizen.
Very true but, welcome to 2016. We're not our fathers and mothers society any more.
We might be if we were taught. When was the last time our schools taught young people the meaning of citizenship in the American democracy and what the consequences are for not fulfilling your role?
In Centre County, PA one gets a 2% reduction in property taxes for paying early. A small lottery (say a $5,000 or $10,00 prize) would cost the county less, and likely be more effective in encouraging early payment. I understand the negative sentiment toward a lottery for voting. I'd like to see turnout increase, but I also would not want elections to be decided by voters who show up and randomly check a box only because they want a chance at a cash prize. But for some applications, this may be a good idea. Small stakes lotteries are of a different nature than the Powerball variety.
1
Based on the comments I've read thus far, it seems a lottery here might encourage people to actually read the article before commenting.
2
I am not sure it is a good idea to coerce people into voting. Nonvoters may have legitimate reasons for not voting, and to coerce is not to show respect for those reasons. Some voters might think they are not informed enough to cast sensible votes and others might be content with whomever or whichever party is in power.
John Stuart Mill warned of the uninformed voter when he said the vote is more than an individual choice, but it is also the exercise of power over the others. Perhaps the informed nonvoters are uncomfortable with exercising power over others.
John Stuart Mill warned of the uninformed voter when he said the vote is more than an individual choice, but it is also the exercise of power over the others. Perhaps the informed nonvoters are uncomfortable with exercising power over others.
Well, I for one would like to see a lottery for primaries and midterm elections. The turnout is so low and the stakes so high. The only reliable voters are those on the fringes. In the end, the entire country is stuck with their choices. I always find it sad that voter fraud is such a hot issue to some, and a nonexistent problem, but getting people to vote is the real problem. This is not something Republicans should be against. Small voter turnout is how you end up with Donald Trump as your party leader. You would think they would learn.
How about the names being entered into a lottery of all the readers who share this article via social media?
This is not surprising... the initial response gets a fixed ratio 1:1 reinforcer, the receipt..."I've bought a dream (i.e. I might win)". This is then connected to a variable ratio reinforcer ("Sometimes I win"). Variable ratio reinforcement is the schedule that supports the most durable responding... a nod to BF Skinner. Let's continue to close the gap between what we do and what we know!
Even the totalitarian state has learned well from the western world.
Instead of a progressive economy with a fair tax system where all pay their fair share towards the overall good, they have gone with the tried and tested way of pulling the wool over people's eyes while giving them false hope of riches.
One in a billion. ( or 2 )
Instead of a progressive economy with a fair tax system where all pay their fair share towards the overall good, they have gone with the tried and tested way of pulling the wool over people's eyes while giving them false hope of riches.
One in a billion. ( or 2 )
Games have powerful motivational effects. That's why they're increasingly being used as training tools by the US military, major corporations, and educational institutions.
Superstar performers in diverse fields ranging from business to sport to science to artistic endeavors appear to be working because they play so hard, but they are in fact playing games of their own choosing.
All of this is documented through both academic citations and numerous quotations in my new book, A Celebration Society. The book proposes a new design for society based on sustainable abundance coupled to gamification of all manner of activities. It offers a solution to the coming crisis of technological unemployment.
Superstar performers in diverse fields ranging from business to sport to science to artistic endeavors appear to be working because they play so hard, but they are in fact playing games of their own choosing.
All of this is documented through both academic citations and numerous quotations in my new book, A Celebration Society. The book proposes a new design for society based on sustainable abundance coupled to gamification of all manner of activities. It offers a solution to the coming crisis of technological unemployment.
My main takeaway is the disturbing fact that Sweden wants to achieve zero traffic deaths while the USA doesn't care if people speed (and possibly kill someone) so that we can make money.
2
The effect of many of these lottery experiments is likely dependent on relative income. It is highly likely that those thus motivated do not have high earnings.
2
On a case by case basis, some things may be better handled with a lottery. The credit union being a good example.
But there are some things which are symbolically important because they represent collective responsibility. Schools, for example. You mean the poor should primarily fund aspects of school financing in certain states via this tax on fools? Why? Why shouldn't K-12 be equally and 100% Federally funded, all the same per capita? We're in this together, unless you're Republican, in which case it's everyone for themselves.
No one would dare have defense funded by lottery.
Why should such self-centeredness be rewarded?
But there are some things which are symbolically important because they represent collective responsibility. Schools, for example. You mean the poor should primarily fund aspects of school financing in certain states via this tax on fools? Why? Why shouldn't K-12 be equally and 100% Federally funded, all the same per capita? We're in this together, unless you're Republican, in which case it's everyone for themselves.
No one would dare have defense funded by lottery.
Why should such self-centeredness be rewarded?
Cynical evidence of just how primitive the human mind really is.
The addictive neurochemistry of remote potential reward is the wrong impulse to emphasize.
Selfishness & gambling on personal gain should not be made the means to compel civic duty & responsible behavior.
Using lotteries only reinforces our most primitive, limbic, reptilian dopamine responses to compel cooperation, almost as bad as using fear & intimidation..
Social responsibility is also an evolutionary adaptation, but far more complex & evolved than reward-seeking lab-rodent addictive impulses of self-gratification of anticipating winnings.
Social responsibility is it's own reward if emphasized over self-interest & addiction (which is entirely what compels people to be scratch-ticket addicts).
The addictive neurochemistry of remote potential reward is the wrong impulse to emphasize.
Selfishness & gambling on personal gain should not be made the means to compel civic duty & responsible behavior.
Using lotteries only reinforces our most primitive, limbic, reptilian dopamine responses to compel cooperation, almost as bad as using fear & intimidation..
Social responsibility is also an evolutionary adaptation, but far more complex & evolved than reward-seeking lab-rodent addictive impulses of self-gratification of anticipating winnings.
Social responsibility is it's own reward if emphasized over self-interest & addiction (which is entirely what compels people to be scratch-ticket addicts).
1
Hmm, maybe we can tell the rich that every dollar they receive in corporate welfare is a special ticket where they can win even more free money.
Intermittent positive reinforcement is extremely powerful for promoting desired behavior. Not using it robs us of an efficient and affordable way to make life better and safer for all of us - - and more fun. If I might get a prize for keeping fallen leaves out of the gutter or clearing the snow from my sidewalk within 6 hours after it falls, it would be both more likely that I'd do those things and more pleasurable for me to perform the tasks. If each day that a kid shows up in class with a completed assignment might bring a small or even a large gift card, even the kids who didn't collect would end up winning. In animal training and in human interactions, assuming that you can get results just because it SHOULD happen is a losing proposition.
3
An experiment worth trying is offering rewards for information leading to the capture and conviction of violent offenders and gun traffickers, serious rewards. Just to start the discussion, say $50,000 for gun trafficking, $100,000 for shootings, and $200,000 for murderers. The idea is to offer enough to get over the issues of resentment and lack of cooperation with police, and to offer enough to make everyone vulnerable, even by fellow gang members. It seem to be one of the few methods to obtain cooperation from potential witnesses that currently don’t trust law enforcement. Add witness protection and relocation if desired. One current $13 billion super carrier would fund rewards for 260,000 gun traffickers or 65,500 murders.
Almost 75% of firearm homicides committed primarily with handguns in low income Hispanic and black neighborhoods. Reducing the violent crime rate will also the reduce the number of police shootings, as the US has pretty much left the police to address the problem. The program improve the lottery of getting shot in the favor of everyone in the neighborhoods.
Almost 75% of firearm homicides committed primarily with handguns in low income Hispanic and black neighborhoods. Reducing the violent crime rate will also the reduce the number of police shootings, as the US has pretty much left the police to address the problem. The program improve the lottery of getting shot in the favor of everyone in the neighborhoods.
I came here looking for a comment that said: "Hey, great idea! Let's try that here and see what happens!"
But all I found were a few "wet blankets" harshing my mellow with a bunch of needless negativity.
But all I found were a few "wet blankets" harshing my mellow with a bunch of needless negativity.
5
If only we could set up a lottery to motivate the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. But they already have more money than any jackpot could offer.
Perhaps they can enter to win a four year term as president of this country - that would automatically disqualify Trump for paying no fed taxes - saving the country the grief of a two year bombardment of campaign ugliness every four years.
Perhaps they can enter to win a four year term as president of this country - that would automatically disqualify Trump for paying no fed taxes - saving the country the grief of a two year bombardment of campaign ugliness every four years.
1
That’s how they get you buy church raffle tickets—a very bad investment if it’s not for a good cause.
5
Food for thought. Making choices an economic behavior not a moral one (?).
Still likely a tax on poor. Would the very wealthy be motivated by potential winnings.
What effect on Rule of Law? Which to some degree is morality based.
Still likely a tax on poor. Would the very wealthy be motivated by potential winnings.
What effect on Rule of Law? Which to some degree is morality based.
Yeah, I'm scratching my head wondering how we became a world and a nation of IDIOTS!
4
You mean how we became a world and a nation of HUMANS?
Amazing isn't it? "It increased turnout by 46 percent among residents who had heard of it."
Yes out here if there is incentive enough then no public outreach meeting or voter day is too difficult! But don't tell the progressives or liberals that; heaven forbid they might come to the same conclusion as the more conservative of us have said all along, e,g, where there is a WILL they will find a way.
Yes out here if there is incentive enough then no public outreach meeting or voter day is too difficult! But don't tell the progressives or liberals that; heaven forbid they might come to the same conclusion as the more conservative of us have said all along, e,g, where there is a WILL they will find a way.
Did you read this article?
The Lesotho health lottery certainly took the prize here. I personally would like to see the health clinic lottery plan become universal here.
6
Supporting one's government is not a game, Ms. Rosenberg. Let's elevate the conversation, not diminish it. The poor are more inclined to buy lottery tickets, and gamble, than people with money so it's just another tax increase on the poorest without due process. Like the Sin tax on cigarettes, alcohol and now marijuana in some states. The lazy lawmaker's solution. NO.
10
Let's not peddle the same tired outrage. Both positive and negative reinforcement are proven tools for influencing human behavior. Your credit card may give you cashback every time you shop so you use it more. The IRS penalizes you with interest if you don't pay your taxes on time, so you make sure that return is postmarked by the deadline. So what if this is a "game"? The point is to use the most effective and efficient way to influence how others act. If it works, what does it matter? Would you rather elevate your precious ideals to the point where elections mean next to nothing because of low voter turnout? Do not let perfection (or rather elevation) be the enemy of good (or in this case democratization).
The analogy of the poor buying lottery tickets misses the mark because the only cost of these lottery tickets is showing up. Not showing up can have far larger consequences than the cost of a free lottery ticket.
But if the lottery incentive gets more poor people to vote, doesn't that mean that the poor would then also have a larger say in government and thus could then better push to enact policies to help alleviate poverty?
Lotteries are primarily evidence that large numbers of people are ignorant of statistical probabilities.
13
Lotteries are also evidence that large numbers of people actually behave like normal humans. It's why a candy bar may cost $0.99 instead of $1.00 and why IKEA makes you walk the entire store to get a pack of tupperware and why Costco customers are more likely buy something after getting a free sample.
The difference between these and the state-run lotteries is that they're not buying anything. Their behavior is changed, which is a good thing. Make your doctor appointment and get a reward? Everybody wins. This has nothing to do with people rushing out to spend money they can't afford on the million-to-one shot at riches.
1
This column is marvelous and inspiring—please keep it going forever.
15