By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
A New York based political committee has been accused of sending what many see as an intimidating letter to party voters who have chosen not to vote in previous elections. Whether this is considered peer pressure, inducing worry, or encouraging others to vote has not diminished the controversy and shows an insight into some of the tactics political parties use to generate more votes to their cause. Letters such as this raise questions as to the ethics of shaming voters to vote. The right not to vote is considered a lawful option of the electorate.
The New York State Democratic Committee mailed a letter last week to voters reading:
Dear [voter]:
Our records indicate that you are registered to vote in Kings County:
Who you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is a public record. Many organizations monitor turnout in your neighborhood and are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors.
Here is some of the information you may need to vote:
- The polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
- You can confirm your voter registration status by visiting
- https://voterlookup.elections.state.ny.us/votersearch.aspx
- If you have any questions about voting, please call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683).
We will be reviewing the Kings County official voting records after the upcoming elections to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.
The letter reportedly included a voter report card grading a voter’s participation. Reportedly, these notifications were mailed out to one million registered Democrats who did not vote in previous mid-term elections. The grades consisted of: excellent; good; fair; and incomplete.
Included was a phone number for Election Protection, a nonprofit, nonpartisan voting resource organization. Election Protection spokeswoman Marcia Johnson-Blanco said the organization had nothing to do with the letter, but has received 400 calls from voters concerned about it.
The political committee, chaired by Governor David Patterson, defended the letter calling it a common practice throughout the country.
In a deflection, Peter Kaufman, a spokesman for the committee stated:
“This flier is part of the nationwide Democratic response to traditional Republican voter-suppression efforts, because Democrats believe our democracy works better when more people vote, not less. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is they don’t want people to vote and we want everyone to vote.”
The Associated Press reports:
“The letter relies on peer pressure and the possibility of surveillance to encourage turnout – a tactic that research shows is highly effective compared to more costly and time consuming get-out-the-vote efforts like phone calls and door knocking, according to Costas Panagopoulos, a political science professor at Fordham University.
The practice is becoming much more widespread, and similar letters have been reported this election year in Alaska, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Colorado and Iowa.
Panagopoulos noted that while they succeed with many voters, “these heavy handed social-pressure messages do generate considerable backlash.”
‘Shaming people to vote works,’ he said. “It’s remarkably effective. … It’s not enough to ask people to be good citizens. What you have to tell them is that their actual behavior is being monitored.”
Such a system does however lend credence into the notion that, like the political tactics used in the mailing of such letters, some of the practices that could come light if voter choices are ever made public, and if in the immediate sense should the right to vote or not to vote be not be subject to public records requests.
By Darren Smith
Sources:
Washington Times
Associated Press
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
I don’t believe Haz’s story for a minute.
Those who publicize voting information can only determine the party of your registration and whether or not you voted. That’s public information and available to everyone. They do not know for whom you voted unless they capture your vote on the computer before they flip the vote 🙂 .
Michael Haz, how did they union thugs obtain information on who people voted for? That would involve criminal action. While the information of whether or not you voted is obtainable, the information on who you voted for is not legally available. If correct, that is pretty scary.
Do they really think that intimidating some one into going to the polls will result in them voting for those doing the intimidation? Sounds like a good way to piss off those you are trying to get to vote your way.
“The progressive left cannot win by using only legitimate means. They have to resort to bullying, threatening, poll-rigging, bringing fraudulent voters to polling places, etc. It is both a defect and a feature of their political ideology.”
Both sides do it–the conservative right and the “progressive left.” I doubt that will be acknowledged by many who post comments on this blog
My wife is a recently retired public school teacher. We live in Wisconsin. She received this week a letter signed by Richard Trumka that is nearly identical to the letter featured in Darren’s post. One day later, she received an even sterner letter from an assistant to Richard Trumka. Both had the same message: We are going to check your voting record; you better vote for the candidate who supports labor.
Similar letters were received before the Walker recall election. Voting records were checked, and in neighborhoods where the majority voted Democrat, those who voted Republican had their names and addresses called out in a post-election letter sent to all addresses in the Republican voters’ neighborhood.
My wife left the union as soon as ACT 10 allowed. And our land line was then filled with late evening calls during which a gruff-voiced man threatened us with violence. Tough shit, we both carry, so we ignored them. Her colleagues who voted Republican or left the union had similar letters and calls.
The progressive left cannot win by using only legitimate means. They have to resort to bullying, threatening, poll-rigging, bringing fraudulent voters to polling places, etc. It is both a defect and a feature of their political ideology.
“Intentional misinformation at its worst.”
BWAAAAHAAAHAAA!
Rafferty,
You’ve completely gutted any expectation one should EVER take you seriously if you believe the Kentucky article rises to the level of “worst” act of misinformation.
There is a common statement made by poor whites in North Carolina: My daddy didn’t vote and I don’t vote. The Republicans are trying to recruit these guys.
Shaming voters to vote: How groups use peer pressure
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/11/02/peer-pressure-and-voting/1675019/
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON — They’ve tried attack ads, mailers, phone calls and Facebook campaigns. Now interest groups that want your vote are resorting to a new tactic: shame.
Millions of Americans are getting letters showing how their record of voting stacks up against their neighbors’ — in some cases listing every registered voter on the street and whether they’ve voted in past elections.
“My first reaction was a little shock,” said Matthew Kissling of Arlington, Va., a high school government teacher who got one such notice this week. “It was one of those feelings where you’re not exactly sure who’s invaded your privacy, but someone has invaded your privacy.”
The letter Kissling got listed six of his neighbors and whether they voted in the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections. And it promised future mailings telling everyone on the block who voted Tuesday. What angered Kissling most is that the letter falsely claimed he didn’t vote in 2004 — when, in fact, he voted in his native North Carolina.
The letter came from Americans for Limited Government, a conservative Virginia-based political action committee that sent similar letters to 2.75 million voters in 19 states.
GOP To Iowans: Your Neighbors Will Know If You Don’t Vote Republican
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2014/10/31/3587414/iowa-republican-facebook-ads/
Excerpt:
The GOP is trying to convince Iowa voters on Facebook that their neighbors will know if they voted Republican.
Screenshots of Facebook ads, promoted by the official Facebook page of the Republican National Committee feature an ominous message: “NOTICE: All Voting Is Public.” The ad tell voters that “In a few months, Iowa will release the list of individual who voted in this election.” Most troublingly, the ad includes an arial view of a neighborhood with checkmarks indicating that “These People Voted GOP.”
Bad letter, but not intimidation.
Elaine,
Thanks for posting the Kentucky article. Intentional misinformation at its worst.
If I had the choice to vote for Hitler or Mussolini, and no one else that had any meaningful chance of being elected, I would exercise my right not to vote. Period. And every citizen, at least in this representative democracy gets to decide for themselves when the current crop of corrupt cronies crosses that line.
As to a right or an obligation, the two are not compatible. Having the right to vote implies choice and therefore logically means you also have the choice of not voting. Being forced or obligated means you have NO choice, and it is therefore not a right you can exercise using free will but rather a requirement that you have no power over.
Of course one might legitimately ask what point there is in exercising this right when in practice the candidates are so tightly pre-selected by the powers that be, of the powers that be, and for they powers that be that your choice is little more effective than a plastic steering wheel with a bright red rubber horn is at exercising any control over your daddy’s car. Ironically, this is particularly true for the current Democratic party (where Progressive has come to mean Vichy or turn-coat), and that is largely true at both the national and local level in many states.
What the Democrats are doing with these messages to voters comes as close to intimidation as you can get while still having some tenuous thread of plausible deniability. It’s disingenuous at best, like pointing a gun at someone and then saying, “I was only kidding, it’s not a real gun.”
It wasn’t working on Opera earlier this morning but it seems to be working now. Thank you.
trooperyork
I think there is a problem with the formatting of that particular post.
At home on my desktop, when using Chrome, I get nothing except the title, author, post listing and tags. In Internet Explorer, I get big red X’s where there’s supposed to be an image and no written content. On my mobile phone with Apple Safari, I get full access. Now that J.T opened up the comment section of that post, I can read and see comments on all platforms but can’t read any story. Just comments.
I think every one who votes should be a citizen & be able to show that they are otherwise why have a vote
You better not pout
You better not cry
You better not vote
I’m tellin’ you why
Ahh… De-Mock-racy
Voting may not be as important as actual participation in civic affairs if both parties are responsive only to their largest campaign contributors. But we can testify at legislative hearings, city council meetings, make radio and TV appearances, phone and write to them, ask questions at campaign events, run for office against them, join the League of Women Voters (men are welcome), post pithy comments on blogs (yes, sometimes that can be persuasive to quite a large number of readers).
Most of us don’t have the extra funds, nor the desire to bribe politicians, but we can make them feel guilty and possibly remorseful for ignoring highly rational ideas, as they favor the interests of their largest campaign contributors.
Ben, I agree. There are a few states that require 50% winners and they have a runoff of the top two vote getters, an expensive way to do it. A better solution that doesn’t require a runoff and which allows people to vote for their real first choice, is the preferential ballot. The voter get to vote for as many candidates as are acceptable in preference order (e.g. C-1, D-2, A-3; no vote for B). Everyone’s first choice is tabulated. If there is no winner, the low vote getter is eliminated and the ballots of those who voted for her are redistributed to their second choice, and so on until there is a candidate with 50%-plus-one of the votes. If more than 50% of the ballots are eliminated, there is no winner, effectively a none-of-the-above win.
They should count all the ‘did not vote’ potential voters as voting to not have any of the candidates that are standing. If there are more people not voting than voting for the most popular candidate, then he or she should not be elected.
By being actively involved in political campaigns it was not unusual for me to get a cd with the database of registered voters which included name, address, party, and in what elections they voted (maybe other info but I don’t remember). You can do it too. There is a charge. What I paid was fairly nominal but it may be more where you live.
I see the letter as an attempt to find out why people aren’t voting. duh. If you believe the reasons that you didn’t vote are personal and you don’t want to share, don’t. Participation is voluntary.