The lottery and it's distribution of wealth mis-management....

[rightwinger]

The lottery is a good analogy of our system of wealth distribution

One person reaps millions while the rest get shut out. The only difference is that lottery winners don't have Congressmen writing the rules to make it easier for them to win

 

[editec]

The lottery is a good analogy of our system of wealth distribution

One person reaps millions while the rest get shut out. The only difference is that lottery winners don't have Congressment writing the rules to make it easier for them to win

So far as we know.

Of course at the state level where most lotteries take place?

We still don't really know.

FWIW, I think they're on the up and up.

 

[Katzndogz]

Liberal Lottery

Divide up the pot into as many tickets as were sold so that everyone wins.

 

[rightwinger]

Liberal Lottery

Divide up the pot into as many tickets as were sold so that everyone wins.

Conservative lottery: Everyone pays in their dollar, only the one percent gets to win

http://allmyeyes.blogspot.com/2010/11/wealth-distribution-for-dummies.html

 

[Big Black Dog]

This OP sounds like more horse shit from a liberal... The lottery is what it is. If you don't like the rules, don't play.

 

[longknife]

Did you know that the United States once used a lottery to gain operating funds?

Oh yeah - one ticket hit the jackpot but there were tens of thousands of lesser winners too.

Give it a break.

 

[tjvh]

I didn't buy a lotto ticket because I'm smart enough to know I'm more apt to be struck and killed by a meteor.

 

[Flopper]

I bet that can be proven otherwise if they would try my way instead... I mean look, if many, many more people had a chance at 5 million bucks a piece, and the odds dropped tremendously for them to win, the ticket buying would be off the charts..

Big lottery payoffs create buying frenzies due to all the free advertising. The more tickets they sell the more they make. A 5 million dollar payoff hardly even makes the news.

It's a 5 million dollar pay off, but it is part of the over all pay off in the big game for many, otherwise you would still have the big number as you say, but it would just be divided up between many more people instead of given to one winner in the amount of say 300 million after taxes to one person. I think nothing would change other than maybe buying more tickets for the big number game, because more people figure they would share in that big number winnings. Lets say they have 600 million showing, and people know that they would share in that 600 million, I think the ticket buying would be off the charts at that point, where as people would know that they are fixing to share the winnings with who ever wins in the amount of millions themselves. People I've talked to said yes they would like to win 5 million in a sharing of the big pot in that way.

Lotteries rely heavily on publicity by the media. A half billion dollar grand prize creates headlines that stimulate big increases in sales which mean big profits. A number of small prizes simply does not catch the attention of the media nor buyers. Every time there is a power ball jackpot of half billion spread all over the media, my wife insist we buy lottery tickets which we rarely do.. Whenever there is a big jackpot, there is a line at the lottery machine near us. It becomes the conversation in the workplace, barbershops, and bars across the country.

Believe me, the people that run these lotteries know what their doing. If many small prizes would increase sales, they would be doing it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Why is it that the lottery isn't being managed much better than it is ? What I mean by this is how come so much money goes to one ticket holder ? In the latest round we see record levels of cash being generated, but then you have only one big time winner ? Why not have say hundreds of winners, otherwise a far better distribution of wealth spreading than what we are seeing now in this program ? Why Not ? Otherwise if the pot is in the hundreds of millions, then why not have say enough people drawled upon to give each one at least 5 million a piece ?

Why not just not play?

 

[oldfart]

Because they sell more tickets by offering a giant prize rather than many small ones

A friend of mine was an experimental psychologist at Michigan State in the 60's. He was a part of the funded research that is the basis for lottery and casino prize patterns. First they discovered that the design of optimal reinforcement schemes for lab rats pushing a bar for food pellets and for people at slot machines were identical. The same basic equation can be used for both, which is great if you want to curb your research costs as lab rats are petty cheap.

The final results were that you needed to have two types of reinforcement. The first is the big jackpot which is advertised and gets people to play in the first place. In casinos this is the progressive slot machine jackpot. Very few people win, but the chance is enough to attract players. If this were it, most players would get discouraged and stop playing. Enter the smaller prizes. If you win even small sums on a regular basis you keep coming back. This is why the average little old lady in tennis shoes wins $200k a year at the slots and spends $260k to do it. But if she never won, she wouldn't keep coming back!

 

[beagle9]

Big lottery payoffs create buying frenzies due to all the free advertising. The more tickets they sell the more they make. A 5 million dollar payoff hardly even makes the news.

It's a 5 million dollar pay off, but it is part of the over all pay off in the big game for many, otherwise you would still have the big number as you say, but it would just be divided up between many more people instead of given to one winner in the amount of say 300 million after taxes to one person. I think nothing would change other than maybe buying more tickets for the big number game, because more people figure they would share in that big number winnings. Lets say they have 600 million showing, and people know that they would share in that 600 million, I think the ticket buying would be off the charts at that point, where as people would know that they are fixing to share the winnings with who ever wins in the amount of millions themselves. People I've talked to said yes they would like to win 5 million in a sharing of the big pot in that way.

How would you select the winners?

If there are multiple winning tickets the pot is already divided.

But how would there be multiple winners if multiples did not hit the numbers?

They would draw all night or for a week if have to on the big game, until they have enough winners to distribute the 5 million dollars a piece to enough winners to make the math work out, then give it to all those who won in the 600 million dollar game they participated in.