POLITICS ASIDE:Vote and win

Would you vote for $100,000?

OK, before you answer, bear with me for a second.

A story in the week’s New York Times detailed a plan in Arizona, which is on that state’s November ballot, to award $1 million to a voter in every general election as an incentive to go to the polls (or turn in that absentee ballot).

It would act essentially as a lottery, with voters’ names going into the pool.

You can probably imagine the arguments on both sides. It would encourage people to vote -- which is a good thing as elections would be less and less about victories of small groups over other small groups. But it also creates a less-than-honorable reason for people to vote.

Yeah, it just might be a bribe, huh?

While the initiative is structured so it would supersede state law, there’s also the matter of federal laws that prohibit paying people to vote.

So it’s far from a done deal. Not to mention it still has to get voters’ approval. (Can it possibly lose?)

But it got me thinking.

Newport-Mesa averages somewhere in the 125,000-voter range for a good turnout. The Arizona prize is based around a base of 2 million voters. Quick little math and, voila, you could think about offering $65,000 or so just to Newport-Mesa voters.

Just because of our housing market (which hasn’t dropped yet), why don’t we round that way up to $100,000.

So, every two years (this is for general elections, remember), this area would need access to that money -- and that could be had for $1 million.

If you figure some smart Newport-Mesa investor could get a 5% return on that money, a $1-million donation to a “Newport-Mesa Voter Fund” could rake in $50,000 a year, easily covering the $100,000 gift while growing in the process. (Maybe 10 years from now the prize can be $150,000.)

Anyone out there crazy, I mean, generous enough to make such a donation for the civic good of this community?

It’s good to be the incumbent

I’ve written in the past about the power of incumbency and how 90% or more of incumbents at the federal level tend to win reelection. (I even mentioned it last week when talking about our annual Daily Pilot most influential list.)

Well, chalk up another benefit.

A story in Wednesday’s Pilot discussed how county political parties are increasing the amount of endorsements they do in what traditionally have been non-partisan races ? city council races at the top of the list.

The county Republicans -- and, still, most political discussions here begin and end with the GOP -- have expanded their backing of candidates this year. Newport Beach City Council members Keith Curry and Leslie Daigle both have early party stamps of approval, as does Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor.

Newport Beach City Councilman Dick Nichols does not. Make of that what you will.

Everything I’ve ever read, and just about anyone I’ve ever talked to, says such endorsements have weight with voters. So it’s no surprise candidates would seek the support. (Non-incumbents have a chance in August to get the GOP’s backing.) And it’s no surprise the parties would want to give it: It’s a way to get loyalty from politicians.

The question is: Should it matter? Do party differences really matter at such a local level?

Let me know what you think.