Ethical versus non-ethical considerations; duty versus self-interest; principle versus pragmatism. These are some of the critical distinctions necessary to coherent ethical thought. They are also among the many critical distinctions that those promoting an abomination called the Arizona Voter Reward Act don't comprehend at all. Let us hope and pray that the Arizona voters whom the act will "reward" are more astute, which means they will vote down the provision in September.

Actually, those voters aren't even the ones the Arizona Voter Reward Act is aimed at. You see, the proposed measure is designed to increase voter participation by entering all Arizona voters who actually make it to the polls in a million dollar lottery. It is the creation of Mark Osterloh, a Democrat, who believes that voter turnout needs a boost.

There were incentives that Osterloh might have considered other than turning the civic duty of public elections into an arm of state sponsored gambling. In the 19^th Century, New York political boss used to recruit voters with beer. Of course, they were expected to vote more than once in each election, which the lottery proposal could also encourage. More votes, more chances to win the million bucks! Or give every voter a chance to win a walk-on part on "The Sopranos," for example. Who wouldn't want to meet Tony and his family? Or male voters could guarantee themselves a place on Paris Hilton's list for future dates; I'm sure she'd get to them eventually. Female voters would eventually hear from George Clooney, or better yet, Bill Clinton. Well, winning a million dollars is pretty good too.

Osterloh believes that if people won't do their civic duty, pay attention to their government, and participate in democracy---in other words, do the right thing because it's right, their obligation as citizens---then money will do the trick. What a concept! Next we may have proposals that create million dollar lotteries for husbands who don't cheat on their wives, or people who go to church or kids who do their homework or parents who hug they're children. Why not? Good behavior is just a lottery ticket away!

Osterloh, who appears to be well intentioned, is also thoroughly deluded. In radio interviews he has opined that once voters know that they will be going to the polls to qualify for the million dollars, they will be motivated to learn about the issues so their lottery-entry vote can also be an informed and responsible vote. Right, Mark: these people couldn't be bothered to register to vote once every two years, but if they know there's a chance of a million bucks in it for them for just pulling the lever, they'll run out and subscribe to "U.S. News and World Report."

The Arizona Voter Reward Act isn't just misguided; it's also insidious. Every responsible voter will now be voting to enter a lottery, even though he or she wanted to vote to be a responsible citizen. A solemn and historic process will become a gambling exercise. The Act won't just fail to improve the electoral process; it will thoroughly degrade and undermine it by forcing serious voters to choose between rejecting a free chance at a million dollars or accepting the state's insulting incentive, which in effect bribes them to discharge a duty that they wanted to discharge without any prodding at all. When the state starts paying its citizens for good conduct, the conduct loses all ethical content. The process is inherently corrupting; what was good conduct becomes simply a service for pay, motivated by cash, not conscience. Osterloh and his many supporters believe that once Arizona passes such an act other states will follow, and they're probably correct. Why do your duty for nothing when you can get a million bucks to do it? Being a good citizen doesn't require you to be a sap. But doing something for a million bucks isn't citizenship; it's commerce.

Facile and shallow-thinking social architects like Osterloh often manage to spread their own ethical ignorance far and wide; they are the Typhoid Marys of ethics rot. Osterloh's infectious fantasy is that achieving the desirable objective of more citizen participation in democratic elections is worth robbing the institution of its dignity, integrity, and seriousness of purpose. He is wrong, and inexcusably so. It should be obvious that one cannot increase the number of responsible voters by replacing responsibility as the motivation for voting.