Slashdot Mirror
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?
I've gotten three of the same things from "American's for Prosperity"
I live in Louisiana.
As with most of the Republican "outrages of the day", this isn't new. In 2012 a Republican PAC called Americans for Limited Growth was doing the same thing:
‘Vote history audit’ shows whether your neighbors voted
As usual, now that Democrats are doing it too, it's the worst thing ever.
As it turns out, in all 50 states, whether or not you voted is a matter of public record among other things besides.
In California for example, all of your voter registration information is transmitted to anyone, anyone who asks.
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.
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.
If the voter records are public information (which seems odd to me actually, but let's assume this for now since TFS said so), then your lawsuit would be baseless. Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public. It's when private information is released that you have grounds to file a lawsuit for damages.
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?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
We should have an amendment that every ballot must contain the choice "none of the above". I would go voting every time.
... that they're interested to hear peoples' reasons for not voting?
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Disagreed. While not voting is still an active decision, it's not a no-vote. It's a make-everyone-else's-vote-more-powerful vote. Not voting magnifies the group which decides to vote.
The right decision would be to vote for a write-in or a throw-away. You still vote, and if enough people do that in elections where a majority is required, a run-off election might be the end result. This is the preferred outcome as it forces all leading candidates to restate their case and take actual voting metrics into account, potentially changing which groups are catered.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Which you can read about here. And his letter didn't come from a PAC, it came from the Democratic Party.
I've never gotten anything remotely like this letter from the Republican Party or a conservative PAC (and I probably get well over 200 begging direct-mail solicitations a year).
I don't see such intimidation tactics as paying off for them...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
So it's time for us to take over some new territories? Canada? Mexico? The Bahamas? After all that is traditional for the USA
That only Republicans use FUD to get votes?
Democrats: Vote or we’ll kick your ass
http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/d...
VP Biden Says Republicans Are ‘Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains’
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po...
Democrats ‘Shame’ Voters With Mailers
http://online.wsj.com/articles...
Go vote for a third party or something.
What do you think of adding a 'none of the above' option to all races? If it wins, you toss out the current candidates and start again.
It's public information. The local city clerk has records of everyone who voted in every election, and records of who is registered. Both lists are available to anyone who asks for a nominal fee. This is how political campaigns build their databases.
If it wasn't public information how could we trust the election results? Seriously.
If the media can get the entire voter list, and a list of the people who showed up, and compare that to the list of total ballots cast, it's much harder for local elected officials (And in the US almost everyone involved in running an election is not only an elected official, they're partisan. No Republican will ever win the Detroit City Clerkship.) to simply make up vote totals.
A list of who voted absolutely must be maintained as an essential component of election integrity. In Virginia, you identify yourself, and observers from both parties sitting at the table note your name. They mark it in the Big Listing Book, and then you vote. So both parties know whether you showed up -- and it IS public information. The bonus intimidation seems to be a recent development, and not at all an enhancement.
Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
But the voter database isn't their only database.
If you live in a GOP-leaning precinct, you're in a few conservative leaning groups (say the NRA and a Megachurch), then everyone will assume your Republican. If you live in a Democratic-leaning precinct and you're in a union or other left-wing group they will assume you're a Democrat. It's not like the UAW or NRA is going to refuse to give their allied political party a membership list. The Parties also have detailed subscriber lists from numerous publications, which means they know that X% of Y magazine subscribers are Democrats, etc. They generally pay money for those lists.
All this is old technology. Karl Rove's reputation as a genius is based entirely on his pioneering of these techniques of "microtargeting." And a lot of Obama's success is due to his team's extending the technique further, particularly by reading political science. The particular technique the OP is complaining about (voter report cards) was one of those innovations, and now both parties do it. They are generally not written in a threatening tone, because the faction sending out the cards wants people to show up, but they do say that everyone in the neighborhood will receive a list of their neighbors who voted. And they work.
Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public.
It depends on context. It is possible that there are ways they could republish details gathered from public records which would be damaging.
For example; it may be technically public, however, individuals do not ordinarily disseminate the information. If their actions "advertised" or made the information more easily accessible, then it would still be a damaging intrusion.
If they contact your neighbors or employers, provide a website with clickable links to your neighbors and easy search lookup, Tweet to your followers, or send messages to your Facebook friends, then they have actually taken additional actions which are defamatory and call undue attention to the records, which is intrusive, and there may be compensating damages to be recovered, if financial loss results, such as an employee being fired because they learned through Twitter that their Employee failed to vote.
A list of who voted does need to exist to some extent. Otherwise it becomes too easily possible for some entity to start casting votes for other people or dead people without much risk of getting caught
I agree with the record being public; However, there should be a terms of use. It should not be simply freely available for all uses without restriction --- it should be available for on-premises review by any member of the public who signs an agreement but no note-taking, information extraction, disseminating or copying the information without filling out an application, showing a legitimate use, and providing a surety bond to protect the information and use only as approved.
Generating marketing or campaign materials based on names in the list or voting rosters or republishing names should be strictly prohibited.
It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
In central Pennsylvania you can vote blank. The machines are the eSlate model and you can just keep pressing next and hit 'cast ballot' at the end. Registering beforehand makes sense; it's no different than any other governmental form. The ID card part is wrong however, since you can't use it for anything but voting, it can't be done where you register, and it treats voters as guilty of fraud until proven innocent by a card.
Yes, voter records are public information. I believe they list your name, address, DOB, your registered party, precinct information, and date you voted. It's been a while since I've personally seen them, so I may have missed something.
Here's the Florida statement on it. They say pretty much what I said.
http://election.dos.state.fl.u...
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
They may not "know" how you vote, but rest assured they would not send you such a letter unless they thought you'd vote the way they'd like you to. If they can get you to influence other votes, all the better.
Nothing new here; University of Wisconsin law prof and blogger Ann Althouse related the (apparently quite similar) mailings she received during the 2012 campaign. Those apparently worked, so it isn't surprising that the Dems would try the same dirty tricks again.
I see what you're trying to do, but do we really want the incumbent deciding whether or not your review of his election is a legitimate use?
We already have tens of thousands of laws, including a great many concerning elections. I suspect a decent lawyer could argue that these letters violate a few laws.
In every election I have participated in (which is many) in 2 states this has been completely untrue.
You walk in, sign your name and write your address, and get a ballot. You then get a ballot, and you can feel free to turn the entire thing in untouched and are still recorded as having voted.
I don't know much about electronic voting, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't believe you actually have to cast votes any more than on a punch ballot. Why the hell would you want to "misvote"? Just don't vote where you don't want to vote. Don't see the problem.
And seriously, how hard is it to register to vote beforehand? And even if you miss one election because you were a moron and didn't register, it's not like you have to do it in every election. Keep voting and you are automatically registered. If you don't care enough to register or keep voting, frankly who gives a shit about your vote?
I mean, would two non-gay roommates end up in a "common law" marriage now if they live together for long enough?
Common law marriages are idiotic to begin with. They shouldn't assume that just because you lived together with someone for X amount of time, that you're together.
That's a bit of an urban legend. The first requirement for common law marriage is that you hold yourself out as husband and wife over an extended period of time - that you go around introducing her as "my wife" and she says things like "my husband bought ...". This indicates that the couple has decided that they are married.
The second requirement is that they live together as husband and wife. Examples of living as husband and wife include things like having a joint checking account or filling taxes as "married".
Note that BOTH requirements have to be met - the couple has to go around saying they are married (proving they've decided to be married) AND they have to actually do so - actually do the things married people do.
If a couple decides to be married and they do so for a long time, the court will simply recognize what already is true. So for example when one dies, their spouse will have rights to the property, because they did in fact live their lives as a marriage - not as roommates.
Why is voter registration even required?
I recently got to vote here in Sweden, and I'm not even a citizen. I didn't even know I was eligible until the card from the election board showed up in the post.
I thought this had to be some sort of mistake, but I was informed by the elections people that here, as in many European countries, non-citizens who are legal residents may vote in local elections for their listed town/district, but not for the national legislature. So I got to vote for kommun and län (basically municipal and provincial) offices as well as candidates for seats in Stockholms Landsting, but not for the Riksdag or the EU Parliament.
I had planned on voting for the Pirate Party but their campaign posters were so annoying, faux-cutesy, and condescending that I voted for the Social Democrats instead. Would've voted Communist just for spite but they weren't running any candidates in my district.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
hoplophobia n. A neologism coined in a pathetic attempt by gun nutters to frame people as "mental" who have the temerity to point out that (a) guns kill people and (b) most civilised countries get along just fine without people carrying guns around all the time.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Relax, seriously.
It may be "intimidation", but it's stupid. Any pol who forces someone to vote who dislikes the pol now because they felt they were forced to vote is shooting themselves in the foot. And simply turning up to vote in this country means very little in terms of whether you participated in an election. You can spoil your ballot. Or you can put in a vote for dogcatcher, and ignore the Federal races altogether. Or whatever.
Me, for myself, I'll probably be voting for Governor this year, albeit reluctantly (we have a "Tea Party" Republican running vs a "Moderate Republican" who can't get the support of his own party any more so defected to the Democrats in my state. But the TP guy is sufficiently awful I feel obliged to vote for the person I can't trust - the former has done things I adamantly oppose and virtually nothing of consequence I support, the latter has done many things I respect and/or support.)
But the other races? On the critically important issues the candidates in all races simply oppose my point of view, and do so for utterly cynical reasons. I can't even pick a "lesser evil" among them, so I'll be leaving that part of my ballot blank.
So I will/won't be on someone's list as a terrible/rightous person, which may/may not (actually will not, let's be honest) get mailed to everyone in the country. So what? You will be able to tell literally nothing from my presence or lack of presence on that list.
Nothing. It's an empty threat. Ignore it. If you want to respond to it, respond in the sense of adding it as a data point about the trustworthiness and decency of the group that sent it to you. But otherwise ignore it.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
if you are a voting age adult, and you dont know how the process works in america... im sorry but you shouldnt be voting anyway because you are a fucking retard.
just sayin'
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
And guess how they are watching you?
They are getting your information from google and facebook who volunteer the database of personal information they have compiled on you.
I've also been harrassed by democratic party activists in real life. They even used a few of my old friend's they converted.
I'll be honest, I might be receptive to a handful of their political ideas, but I feel like I live in a police state where I have had people I used to trust spy on me for soley political purposes.
If this wasn't bad, its the language some of these people use when on other social networking, and other sites with political discussion, they are the first to deviate from the issues. They use loaded language, and repeat claims that they want to lock up opposition. They are very suspicous, and even the slightest deviation from their platform they will attack, in every offense way up to, but exlcuding violence to punish people who step out of line. if you are to the "right" of their position, your a "republican agent", to the "left", a "dangerous extremist", of both which they openly declare their desire to arrest and harrass by any means neccary.
They are fairly comfortable with doublespeak, and have one set of values in public, another in private, and the two get further everytime I run into one.
I'm not a radical because I want to be, or because I think its cool, or any romantic notion. I am a radical because I have no other options really. I am not a radical because I encourage political violence, or spying, or malice, but because I am opposed to it. I am not a radical because I am an extremist, but because I'm not an extremist. I am a radical because its the only way I could really be honest about myself, and the political system of the United States of America. The system has failed. We have a paper democracy, but the net effect is at least one major party(potentially two, I never had any real run ins with the republicans), has their own private gestapo. They use language like war, spies, double agents, and most important "enemy" to describe the opposition in a supposedly democratic system. Most of these people are white privledged hipsters who never been to war, and many if not most would never hack in the army.(I have, I came back home to this.).
We are not free. We do not have in effect open elections. We don't have rights, we have privledges the government can wave at any time under either "homeland security", or "the war on drugs", even if we are not terrorists or drug dealers.