Boo! The House Majority PAC Is Watching You

An anonymous reader writes I received some interesting mail this week from the House Majority PAC. First, a "voter report card" postcard telling me my voting record was "excellent" (I'm a good citizen!), but also letting me know that they "plan to update this report card after the election to see whether you voted". OK, so one of the Democratic Party's super PACs want me to vote, but it seems to be something of an attempt at intimidation. Today, I received a letter in which they really put the pressure on. Here are some excerpts: "Who you vote for is secret. But whether or not you vote is public record. Our organization monitors turnout in your neighborhood, and we are disappointed that many of your neighbors do not always exercise their right to vote." So why contact me instead of them? Voting is a civic duty, but it isn't illegal to abstain. That's my neighbors' business, not mine. It's one way of expressing dissatisfaction, isn't it? And if there are no candidates you wish to vote for, then why should you vote for someone you don't want? But Big Brother PAC has other ideas: "We will be reviewing the Camden County [NJ] official voting records after the upcoming election 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 is signed "Joe Fox Election day Coordinator". So what happens if I don't vote? Well, at least I got a scare this Halloween. Are PACs using similar tactics in other states?

Comments

Here's why

[Anonymous Coward]

Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

Voting does not have the same level of impact. This is obvious to everyone who is paying attention. All the candidates lie, and all wind up responding to political force rather than to what is right. So, those who pay attention simply apply the sort of political force that actually moves politicians, and they don't bother with voting.

Why are they so interested in voter turnout? Mostly because it perpetuates the illusion that voting actually matters, and keeps poor people like us from bothering with the lobbies.

Re:Here's why

[silfen]

Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.

The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

Re:Here's why

[The Ickle Jones]

Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

Or the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, the Patriot Act, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, and the countless other things our government does that violates the constitution.

But gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are not irrelevant. They're important, but not the *only* important issues.

I hate these "get out the vote campaigns

[Snotnose]

As well as those "register to vote the day of the election" deals. If you can't be bothered to pre-register to vote, or need to be pestered to vote, then you probably get 100% of your info on candidate's and issues from the mailers and TV/radio commercials. In other words, you've just digested a load of garbage and have nothing with which to make an informed choice. Uninformed voters are assholes, keep them out of the voting booth.

I'm fine with you voting in a way I think is repugnant, as long as you've done a bit of research and actually have a reason for voting the way you do.

Re:I hate these "get out the vote campaigns

[Idarubicin]

As well as those "register to vote the day of the election" deals. If you can't be bothered to pre-register to vote, or need to be pestered to vote, then you probably get 100% of your info on candidate's and issues from the mailers and TV/radio commercials.

I voted in a municipal election in Toronto, Canada earlier this week. Not on the voter's list? No problem--you can register at one of the city clerk's offices. There's five of them, serving a population of 2.6 million people. Oh, and they're open from 8:30am to 4:30pm, Monday to Friday. So that should be a snap to get to, as long as you don't have a full-time job, or a child to care for, or mobility issues. (You don't mind choosing between a couple of extra bus fares and eating lunch, do you?)

I followed the campaign closely, I was aware of the major issues of the day (as well as the minor issues that didn't get nearly enough coverage), I had strongly-held opinions based in thorough, extended research--and I registered to vote on the day of the election.

The notion that all people who didn't register in advance are somehow lazy, unworthy, and incompetent is canard that punishes the working poor, the single parents, the handicapped. Looking in from the outside, it's apparent that it's one piece of a larger Republican campaign to disenfranchise as many Democratic-leaning voters as possible. It's a story that is propagated by Fox News, the viewers of which are exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Why is this even an article?

[plopez]

Seriously, why and how did this ever get posted? "I got political material in my mailbox in an election year", big deal. How is this stuff that matters or even news? Yeah if you vote is recorded, as is jury duty and car registrations. So what?

None of the above

[kreuzotter]

We should have an amendment that every ballot must contain the choice "none of the above". I would go voting every time.

Re:Jonathan Coulton Tweeted about getting one.

[dubbayu_d_40]

That's probably because you are a conservative. As a liberal, I often get mailers pretending to be from the democratic party telling me to vote for conservative candidates and props.

If you were a liberal in Kentucky, you might have even gotten one of these: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/d...

Re:West Virginia too

[arth1]

The problem is that with the US system, you cannot vote blank. In the past, you could at least make a deliberate misvote, e.g. by punching way too many holes or making way too many stamps, but with electronic voting this is no longer an option. That makes it a problem, because the only way to vote "none of the above" is then to not go to the polls.

But then again, the US system has enough problems with its election system already, with the requirement to have to register beforehand or be turned down at election day no matter how much of a citizen you are, and an even bigger problem with large scale disenfranchisement. I can think of a couple of other countries where civil disobedience can land you in jail and cause you to lose your right to vote or run for office, but those countries are ones the US really don't want to be compared with.
Combined with the two-party system where the two parties are both on the far far right from a global point of view, it's a true farce.

Re: West Virginia too

[Dahamma]

I find it perplexing that a party who claims to be pro-freedom so quickly and aggressively attacked an unalienable right.

"unalienable right"!? is that a right not permitted to ET?

Or do you mean "inalienable right"? Which in not even the most basic definition includes the right to own a gun (that is a *legal* right under the US Constitution).

Though I'm not surprised by your mistake. Your ilk goes back hundreds of years to those who somehow justified slavery while pretending to defend "inalienable rights", that even defined by the American founding fathers stated: "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Yet somehow this was utterly and completely ignored for a significant fraction of the American population at the time of the American Revolutionary War...

Though I suppose you are right, maybe you are just confused and I should not attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity...