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

Louisiana too

[Ultra64]

I've gotten three of the same things from "American's for Prosperity"

I live in Louisiana.

Re:Louisiana too

[wiggles]

That's the Koch Bros. if memory serves..

Not New

[Stormy Dragon]

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.

Re:Not New

[TubeSteak]

Actually, a Democratic campaign consultant first pushed the idea, after reading an academic study
Published: October 29, 2010

Before the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial primary, three political scientists isolated a group of voters and mailed them copies of their voting histories, listing the elections in which they participated and those they missed. Included were their neighborsâ(TM) voting histories, too, along with a warning: after the polls closed, everyone would get an updated set.

After the primary, the academics examined the voter rolls and were startled by the potency of peer pressure as a motivational tool. The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured.

Malchow, a 58-year-old former Mississippi securities lawyer who managed Al Goreâ(TM)s first Senate campaign and went on to start a direct-mail firm, read the academicsâ(TM) study and wanted to put the device to work. But he had trouble persuading his firmâ(TM)s clients â" which over the years have included the Democratic National Committee and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. â" to incorporate such a tactic into their get-out-the-vote programs. All feared a backlash from citizens who might regard the mailer as a threat from someone seeking their vote.

Then, as New Jersey prepared to elect its governor last fall [in 2010], Malchow experimented with less ominous language, an idea he adopted from the Fordham political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

The article then goes on to mostly talk about liberal attempts to study voter behavior so that they can shape opinions and get people to the polls.

I got a report card as well

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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.

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?

Jonathan Coulton Tweeted about getting one.

[Nova Express]

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...

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.

Urban legends re common law marriage

[raymorris]

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.