Organizations Try To Shame People Into Voting By Revealing How Often They & Their Neighbors Voted
from the that's-just-going-to-piss-people-off dept
It's election day. While your actual ballot is (supposed to be) secret, a lot of people don't know that whether or not you voted at all is public information. A few weeks back, On the Media covered some ways that campaigns try to get out the vote and looked at some research suggesting that letters to people with a "voter report card" showing when they've voted in the past was a somewhat effective way of shaming people into voting. An even more extreme example was given as well: a letter that specifically shows how often your neighbors have voted. In the piece, OTM producer Chris Neary noted that while such things were effective in the lab, people shouldn't be expecting such letters for real, because, while they may be effective in getting out the vote, they also freak people out on privacy grounds, and no campaign wants to risk freaking people out:And, by the way Brooke, you’ll never get that last letter. Campaigns hate to send out anything that prompts virulent hate mail in return, and one of those researchers got some of that mail.Except... Neary has now posted an apology blog post after some OTM listeners reached out to share exactly the kinds of mailers discussed. While campaigns might shy away from such tactics, apparently third party organizations read the exact same research and took it to heart -- as they're a lot less worried about hate mail:
First, listener Rachel Lieberman got a voter report card mailing from MoveOn.org. (She notes that the report card isn't accurate, she just voted at a different address. Here's hoping it doesn't lower her citizen GPA.)So, yes, this tactic appears to be in use across the political spectrum, and yes, it's likely mostly serving to creep people out... though it may also get them to go out and vote...And from listener Taylor Maxwell, exactly the sort of letter I went out of my way to claim she probably wouldn't get. It's from Americans for Limited Government. Names and addresses redacted, or else we'd be co-shaming.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: election, politics, shame, voting records
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I get it all the time on the Internet where people say that if I don't vote I have no right to complain. This is bollocks. If I decide not to vote, it does not mean that I am apathetic or that I could not be bothered. It just means that I have done my research and I know that the 'choices' I am given are not choices at all. Quite frankly, under our current 'democracy', I see voting for candidates (no matter who they are) as an example of the turkey voting for Christmas.
The greatest freedom is the freedom to make my own choices. Sadly, politicians hate people doing that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It would help if more people were less interested in cheering for the red team or the blue team.
VOTE � ANTI � INCUMBENT.
Vote for change: If they're in office, vote them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's election day TODAY.
If you want to build culture... well, good luck and all that. You're not going to build culture between now and when the polls close. We go to the polls with the politicians we've got�not the politicians we wish we had. And face it, they all suck. Every last one of them.
So the choice NOW boils down simply: � Status-quo or change. Take your pick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think this statement misses Zakida's whole point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Has fuck-all to do with Obama.
(Unless you happen to live in one of those magical swing states�and even then...)
Lots of other down-ticket races.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
yeah i know.
and niether will keeping him in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are basically down to choosing between getting a brick to the face and getting kicked in the jaw.
Either choice is going to hurt, status-quo or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are basically down to choosing between getting a brick to the face and getting kicked in the jaw.
Either choice is going to hurt, status-quo or not.
your being to kind ac.
its more like voting for a rapist who will do the deed and then kill you on the third day. and a torturer who will do his deed and then kill you on the third day. and you know what? america is the one to blame for it. they will vote sure. but will they keep the guy in line? will they keep congress in line? people will talk on there high horse when it comes to voting people in but where are they when the guys turn against them? america has breeded a culture of permissiveness with politicians. and you know what? after a while voting is just worthless. becuase the next guy knows he can get away with anything just like his predeccesor becuase he knows nobody will step up and the very few that do he knows he needs to apply a little pressure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually, it creates a different problem if it is followed religiously. That being that you have no real stability in the government.
However, for the short term, it would serve notice to those elected, of who they actually work for.
What is really needed is term limits and no corporate money in the system, but the courts have pretty much ensured that won't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Take the U.S. Congress: This Congress had the lowest approval rating ever. It dropped to 9% last year, and is now around 15%. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe that the institution is performing acceptably.
Yet, today, the majority of Senate races will go to the incumbent. The majority of sitting representatives in the House will be returned to that dysfunctional institution.
The only reasonable conclusion: You, the voters who vote for the same old same old �you are insane.
Insane.
Seriously. Bat-shit crazy: Wanting a different outcome, but doing the same old thing.
Or you're just lying. You say you want different results, but you keep on doing the same thing. Maybe you don't really want different results. Maybe you want a dysfunctional Congress�that's sure what you're voting for.
If you're not insane �if you the voters are just lying to everyone� well, I guess it's not so bad that you have lying politicians to represent you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem is there all the choices suck! The other problem is most people only care about one thing themselves. They don't care about the country, just what can you do for me, and then they vote for them knowing full well it was a bucket of lies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of the above
a) I'm not lazy and I did turn up to vote
b) I don't believe any of the candidates (or parties) are worth voting for.
The only option (Britain) is to vandalise our card so it's recognised in the system as "spoilt", implying that the voter is an imbecile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of the above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: None of the above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of the above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of the above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of the above
This approach has several benefits:
* A candidate actually has to appeal to more than 50% of the population to get elected.
* Removing candidates forces a refresh of candidates, positions, and platforms.
* Even though there will be a seeming non-ending election process, even the billionaires funding the campaigns (whether PACS, superPACS, mainstream media, or individuals) will eventually run out of money, thus removing a lot of money from politics.
In addition, we should get rid of first-past-the-post and move to elections more like Instant-Runoff-Voting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: None of the above
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you really want to make it known that you deliberately didn't want to vote for any candidate, you have to go to the polls and do just that.
Deliberately not voting for any candidate in an election counts for a lot more than not showing up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Still, your perspective is mis-guided and skewed. You don't vote, forget about complaining - you have made the conscious choice to give up the right, free and clear. This is your to exercise, but not yours to change how the country is run. There is a right-in for you to put in whomever you believe is the best candidate. If you don't vote, fine. I don't want to hear you complaining for the next 4 years. You don't like it, move to another country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I am excising my right to not vote for either of them. I will also exercise my right to be vocal about how they are worthless and going to destroy this country, not that there is much of it left to ruin at this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And, statistically, it's likely to be the incumbent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In a democratic election my vote isn't the only one that counts WAAAHHHHH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zakida Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
Just make voting mandatory. And add a "none of the above" option while you're at it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zakida Paul
You don't expect to hear anyone boasting about either, but strangely some people who should know better don't seem to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zakida Paul
Saying you don't vote because you don't like the choices you are given for representatives is BS when the public issues that are also on the ballot affect you or those around you directly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Zakida Paul
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Zakida Paul
Easy choices with no downsides, don't ask me to think things through that's your job.
There aren't really politicians and the electorate, there are active politicians and inactive ones with a large proportion of the inactive ones complaining they don't like what the active ones are doing but who still can't be bothered to do anything themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
I dislike Washington Politics and I always Vote for the one I hated the least.
One Day I will get to Vote for someone I actually really like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
It is about like the stupid duck and cover commercials from the cold war. Yeah, you can get under your desk and pretend, but your just wasting your fucking time. Really very similar thing here, sure I could go vote, but it is not going to save me from the hell that is coming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Zakida Paul
Yes: In almost every race, in almost every gerry-mandered district�if you don't vote, then you are expressing an actual preference for the incumbent.
Do you need a link to the statistics? Or maybe you've got some kooooky argument why the statistics don't really mean what they say...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
I posit that those who choose between a turd and a shit sandwich are the ones who have no right to complain as they know neither option will do anything to give them the hopey changey feelgoodiness they crave, yet they gladly gobble it up - commenting on the subtle taste differences as they choke it down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Zakida Paul
its even better when it come from people who do vote whos opinions are discarded anyway as soon as there guy walks through the door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One wonders if that matters at all
If your system is really that broken, it's hard to fathom how American politicians still try to tell developing countries how democracy works...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a "Don't Vote for Us" letter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead of browbeating tons of random people into voting haphazardly, they should try to support the minority who are willing to invest time and effort into researching candidates and issues; the people who take voting seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So is the challenger: But the challenger is less invested in the status-quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Wow, that is patently untrue. Here is a little secret - when the challenger/opposition make promises about reform, they are lying to gain support. The reform never comes. Politicians promised banking reform, where is it? Several generations have been promising reform of tax loopholes, where is it?
Promises made during an election are as empty as the souls of the people making them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Either you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore�or you're a sucker content with what's going down.
Either you do something about or you just talk: Bitch and moan in blog comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not saying I plan on trying to start one, but looking around at how things are and how they keep going... I do not think we have much longer before this government becomes unstable and starts to fall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Either you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it anymore�or you're a sucker content with what's going down.
Either you do something about or you just talk: Bitch and moan in blog comments
its not that people dont care its very few other people do. you will see hundreds of people put a ballot in a box but thats not the important part. the important part is when the guy gets in and people are supposed to keep them in line. and you will see those same people either not caring. THATS the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So they win, they get elected, they have a parade and make some speeches, everybody cheers. Then they get to move into the important building - where they will lead from and bring their reform.
Except what happens is on the first day, they are brought into a little room with a small gathering of the highest ranking unelected officials of each department.
Then they sit the new incumbent down and they say "Listen, this is how it's going to be, this is how we do things... and if you try to change anything *these people here* won't cooperate... or *this information here* will find itself in the public domain and *these people here* will die/be pissed/revolt".
That's how I imagine it. That's why people who promise change don't bring it. Think about the first day of your new job. It's relatively easy to walk in and see where things are going wrong, however it takes a strong will to then turn around to all your new co-workers and tell them they're all doing it wrong... Especially if there's a highly politicized and hostile atmosphere.
Now think of walking into the top job in the country where every single thing you say is going to be recorded, analyzed and possibly (most likely) used against you at some date if you fire the wrong person or make the wrong decision.
Personally I think a large part of the problem is simply this fact that it's treated like a job, rather than service. A leader should have the will power to make unpopular decisions if they know it's going to benefit the whole. Of course if you view it as just a job, you're going to do what you can to save it. And when you're trying to save your job you'll be focused on that rather than serving; you'll be willing to make compromises and hide things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some reason the reply cut it off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The presidential race is not competitive in most states.
The majority of people in this country have no realistic chance whatsoever of influencing the presidential election.
So ignore the red team leader. Ignore the blue team leader. You can't affect that outcome. But you can affect the outcomes at the Senate level, at the House level, in the state legislature, at the county, in your city or town, on the local school-board...
If you leave the current teams in place, there's no hope at all of any change. If you toss all the bums out, then there's perhaps a chance you'll get something worse�but also a chance you'll get something better. No matter what, you'll at least get something slightly different.
You want a chance? Or do you want no chance at all?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: libel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Carlin was wrong...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
--z
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George Carlin was wrong...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk
--z
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: George Carlin was wrong...
--zawada
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: George Carlin was wrong...
And I do still believe in voting. And sometimes my individual voice added to others does make a difference, just not as often as I would like. (see the defeat of SOPA for 1 instance, I'm less sure about my vote for politicians).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why bother?
So I can vote for more spying, whistleblowers going to jail, bogus insurance that doesn't work and a VP who sleeps with the MPAA and calls me a thief, "plain and simple."
Or I can vote for a sociopath meglomaniac who will solve all our problems by ending Roe v. Wade, dirty pictures and sex. We can all wear white dress shirts, "turn back to god" and obey our betters and trust him 'cause he's got a PLAN.
This wasn't why I worked for decades. Still, there is nothing they can do that Bush has not already done. So flip the coin folks. Tomorrow we can sit back an watch Jonathon Stewart crack wise on the abusrdity of it all. Could be worse. We could be living in Greece. Or Egypt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why bother?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, maybe they do know. I voted early because all of the election day poll workers are my neighbors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why they count electoral votes. That's who elects the president. Most of them are not bound to vote how their citizens voted as a majority in their state. It's a dog and pony show for an election.
Honestly? I don't like this choice of which is less evil. It's an evil no matter who gets in as they are already bought and sold.
When was the last time you heard both parties agreeing on the budgeting or at least trying to compromise? When was the last time you heard of a drive to fix the nations' infrastructure without which this nation would die given it couldn't transport food and necessities without them? It's more important to them to fight over ideas than to do what they were elected to do and see to the welfare of the country.
Last time this country's politicians were this divided was right before the civil war. That doesn't bode well for this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More electoral clutter...
As far as I am concerned, any vote for the two big parties is the wasted vote. Unless the big boys feel threatened, the overall condition of the US will continue to deteriorate, because there are no differences of any significance between the parties.
I say, if you can't figure out someone from lesser parties based on what you can learn, which the big players also make as difficult as possible, then pick some smaller party candidate at random and vote for them. If the entrenched players are not deprived of political oxygen, they will continue to screw things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I learned from yesterday's election.
The end result is I doubt I'll bother with that part of the ballot anymore. (Maybe I'll write in Mickey Mouse or Darth Vader.)
My vote only counts for Congressional and local elections, so that is where I will concentrate my efforts from now on. On the plus side I can ignore all the hype and BS (is that redundant?) around the Presidential races. That should free up some time, so I'll call that a "win".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]