Last Tuesday, the North Carolina House of Representatives voted against holding a referendum on whether the state should have a lottery. This vote is an anathema to democracy and is a major setback for this state's educational aspirations.
By having a lottery, many of North Carolina's current budget problems would be solved. As passed by the General Assembly, the current budget is unbalanced and will require deficit spending unless more cuts are made to it. If the state instituted a lottery, its revenues would cover many of Gov. Mike Easley's education reform, thereby reducing the budget overrun. It seems that Easley's proposals will remain in the budget regardless of whether the lottery passes or not.
Additionally, many North Carolina residents already buy lottery tickets, driving to Virginia or South Carolina to play. If North Carolina approved a lottery, the money currently spent in other states would remain here. Moreover, the fact that North Carolinians already play the lottery in huge numbers immunizes the arguments against having a lottery, since any negative effects of the lottery are already present.
There are essentially two arguments against the lottery. The first is that the lottery and gambling are somehow immoral. The second argument is that the lottery is a cancer on poor people. The first argument is weak because it is based on religious faith, not consensus that addresses the main issues. The second argument is more insidious, however, since it is condescending toward the poor and also fails to recognize some of the key benefits of a lottery that would actually help the poor.
If there was a lottery, anybody buying a lottery ticket would be doing so out of their own free will. The poor are as capable as anybody else to make decisions on how to spend their money. If a poor person decides to buy a lottery ticket, he must benefit from it somehow, either financially or psychologically. Opponents of the lottery, however, argue that poor people should not be allowed to make own choices and should be protected from their desires by the government.
By not having a lottery, poor people are also prevented from becoming educated. The main beneficiaries of the lottery are schools, particularly those schools that are currently underperforming or under-funded. Since a disproportionate number of poor children attend bad schools, they will benefit the most from the lottery, which will give them an opportunity to get a good education and make something of themselves in the future.
Therefore, it only makes sense to have the lottery. Legislators should have shown political courage and voted on and approved the lottery by themselves, without having to resort to a referendum. After all, the reason the United States has a representative democracy is so that representatives can make important, informed decisions for the people. But, since it is clear that the legislature lacks the political chutzpah to approve the lottery, the next best option would have been to allow the people of North Carolina to make that decision for themselves. Unfortunately, opponents of the lottery apparently feel that the people of North Carolina cannot make a decision about the policies in their state.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.