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.
Thomas Eric Duncan, you have had a comment deleted under our civility rule.
Max, LOL!
Annie,
Just tell TED that if you were his nurse, you wouldn’t have let him out…
You know Mr. Raf you have a really good point. I have to agree.
It’s the ‘Recruits’ just doin’ what they do best.
rafflaw,
This is where his friends hang out.
Thomas Eric Duncan,
Your comment at 1:36 is uncivil, to say the least. Trooper York, if RIL is supposed to stand for Really Idiotic Lunatics, why are you here?
Yep, SWM. It does happen. I wonder what they think I have to hide? What next, publish my children’s names? Threaten my children, my grandchildren? I’m certain that JT wouldn’t allow it.
I
Annie, It is pretty sick but pretty standard. I once had some trolls that did that type of thing to me. Happens a lot to women on the internet i have read.
TED, is your 1:36 comment supposed to intimidate me somehow? LOL! You folks just resort to the same old tactics.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/us/politics/little-vision-in-elections-full-of-blame.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0&referrer= “Little Vision in Elections Full of Blame
By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG VIEW
November 2, 2014
WASHINGTON — The United States midterm elections have had almost everything, except a vision for governing.
The Republicans ran on hating Obamacare and accusations that President Obama displayed a lack of leadership on the Islamic State’s terrorism and Ebola. Scott Brown, the Republican candidate for Senate in New Hampshire, even tried to blame his opponent, the incumbent Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, for the possibility that terrorists infected with Ebola might come across the Mexican border.
Democrats leveled charges that hard-hearted Republicans would slice Granny’s Social Security and throw her off the Medicare rolls while denying younger women access to contraception. Republican critics refer to Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat, as Mark “Uterus” for his emphasis on women’s issues.
A national campaign that will cost about $4 billion, thanks to outside money unleashed by a Supreme Court decision, has featured little discussion of issues that the next Congress will face.
I think it stands for Really Idiotic Lunatics.
Haz,
Apparently you need to photocopy, scan, copy/paste, link your olive branch into this thread to prove your intent was truly as you say it was. Not to worry though; reasonable folks wouldn’t need all of that.
Sorry Haz, that wasn’t an olive branch. Nice try.
old nurse, Thanks for the info. Hopefully your veracity won’t be attacked, As I said last night, when the topic is veracity, I have to bit my tongue until it bleeds. And Haz, duly noted. I have not engaged for several months, but the one way “conversation” continues. I PRAY I will be ignored by some.
Haz,
Res ipsa loquitur (“The thing itself speaks”)
Top of the blog.
Will someone please tell me what RIL stands for? I’m not familiar with the acronym. Thanks much!
Possible responses to the “why I didn’t vote” poll:
lines too long
no voter id – couldn’t afford the poll tax; didn’t have right documents
registered but scrubbed from list, so how did you get my name, address
sucky candidates
no transportation
polling place moved but I don’t know where
what’s the point, you all just cater to the 1%
no babysitter
Let the record show that on this All Souls Day, Sunday November 2, 2014 that at 10:03 AM blog time I extended to Annie an olive branch of peace, an offer of mutual disarmament; and that Annie has declined to accept my offer.