Comments on: The Irony of Voter Vouchers http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/the-irony-of-voter-vouchers.html Advancing liberty with responsibility by promoting market solutions for Missouri public policy Thu, 24 May 2012 12:24:42 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Bill H http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/the-irony-of-voter-vouchers.html/comment-page-1#comment-5236 Bill H Fri, 05 Feb 2010 04:04:55 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=13190#comment-5236 The great thing about participation in a representative republic is that you are free to participate if you want - and free not to participate as well. When there are issues which significantly impact a person, he will become more interested and involved. For example, many people have more interest in who wins American Idol than who becomes their Senator or Representative. However, if the election of the Senator may make a significant impact in his life, then he may become involved - both politically and monetarily. The great thing about participation in a representative republic is that you are free to participate if you want – and free not to participate as well. When there are issues which significantly impact a person, he will become more interested and involved. For example, many people have more interest in who wins American Idol than who becomes their Senator or Representative. However, if the election of the Senator may make a significant impact in his life, then he may become involved – both politically and monetarily.

]]> By: David Stokes http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/the-irony-of-voter-vouchers.html/comment-page-1#comment-5230 David Stokes Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:56:47 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=13190#comment-5230 I have had the pleasure of meeting Professor Webber on a few occassions. He is truly dedicated to the idea of promoting greater citizen involvement in our democracy. Prof. Webber was a friend and fan of George Parker, the founder of Pachyderm Clubs (which were founded in Columbia, MO), who passed away recently. (It does not follow that Mr. Webber is necessarily a Republican, just a believer in the type of citizen involvement that Mr. Parker stood for.) Prof. Webber also sent me a nice note after he read my policy paper on government in Missouri, which I very much appreciated. I agree with the goals Prof. Webber has in this article. It can be frustrating, working in a job such as ours here at SMI, to realize how little interest in public policy and government so many people have. I fully understand the economic argument against such activism - that the time and effort spent in casting an informed ballot is wasted when you consider the incredible odds that your vote will ever make the difference. But just because I understand it, and just because it is correct in its immediate focus, does not mean I agree with it. But, despite my total agreement with Prof. Webber's goals, I have to respectfully disagree with most of his recommendations. Not because he in wrong on the outcomes - he is totally correct that candidates would pay more attention to the general public if everyone had these vouchers. My disagreement is mostly consistent with the general themes here at SMI - that if you want to be active go ahead and do it and if you don't, well, that is fine, too. Basically, I agree with Bill McClellan's views as articulated in the Post-Dispatch that if you don't want to be informed or active, then that increases the power of my vote and activities. So better for me if you are choose to be a passive citizen in politics, for whatever reason. (I also have some partisan opposition to this idea, which this is not the appropriate forum for.) Finally, the concerns that Caitlin listed above that I most share are the ones involving political machines and party pressures. The knowledge that every voter had these vouchers would absolutely be abused in certain areas, especially those dominated by only one party (and I am referring to both parties, here). I enjoyed Prof. Webber's column tremendously. I love the passion he brings to our democracy and I wish more people had it. I just think vouchers, despite how well they work in many other areas, are not right here. I have had the pleasure of meeting Professor Webber on a few occassions. He is truly dedicated to the idea of promoting greater citizen involvement in our democracy. Prof. Webber was a friend and fan of George Parker, the founder of Pachyderm Clubs (which were founded in Columbia, MO), who passed away recently. (It does not follow that Mr. Webber is necessarily a Republican, just a believer in the type of citizen involvement that Mr. Parker stood for.) Prof. Webber also sent me a nice note after he read my policy paper on government in Missouri, which I very much appreciated.

I agree with the goals Prof. Webber has in this article. It can be frustrating, working in a job such as ours here at SMI, to realize how little interest in public policy and government so many people have. I fully understand the economic argument against such activism – that the time and effort spent in casting an informed ballot is wasted when you consider the incredible odds that your vote will ever make the difference. But just because I understand it, and just because it is correct in its immediate focus, does not mean I agree with it.

But, despite my total agreement with Prof. Webber’s goals, I have to respectfully disagree with most of his recommendations. Not because he in wrong on the outcomes – he is totally correct that candidates would pay more attention to the general public if everyone had these vouchers. My disagreement is mostly consistent with the general themes here at SMI – that if you want to be active go ahead and do it and if you don’t, well, that is fine, too. Basically, I agree with Bill McClellan’s views as articulated in the Post-Dispatch that if you don’t want to be informed or active, then that increases the power of my vote and activities. So better for me if you are choose to be a passive citizen in politics, for whatever reason. (I also have some partisan opposition to this idea, which this is not the appropriate forum for.) Finally, the concerns that Caitlin listed above that I most share are the ones involving political machines and party pressures. The knowledge that every voter had these vouchers would absolutely be abused in certain areas, especially those dominated by only one party (and I am referring to both parties, here).

I enjoyed Prof. Webber’s column tremendously. I love the passion he brings to our democracy and I wish more people had it. I just think vouchers, despite how well they work in many other areas, are not right here.

]]> By: Dave Roland http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/02/the-irony-of-voter-vouchers.html/comment-page-1#comment-5227 Dave Roland Thu, 04 Feb 2010 19:59:39 +0000 http://www.showmedaily.org/?p=13190#comment-5227 Following up on #5, voter vouchers would force taxpayers to subsidize someone else's political preferences and activity. Also, IF one was going to pursue a program like this, I think people should have the option of simply pocketing the $50 (or however much the voucher ended up being). Following up on #5, voter vouchers would force taxpayers to subsidize someone else’s political preferences and activity.

Also, IF one was going to pursue a program like this, I think people should have the option of simply pocketing the $50 (or however much the voucher ended up being).

]]>