In Iowa and elsewhere — and by both parties
The communications from Democrats to vote and vote early invoke more disquietude than mere “vote shaming” as it has come to be called, but the Republicans’ version is creepy enough in its own right.
A significant amount of play was made in some conservative publications over letters sent in New York to registered Democrats or union members that smack of intimidation as a get out the vote effort. We have seen two related examples from that state one of which is shown below with a key portion reset for your convenience. It was sent to Tom McKay, editor of the Daily Banter, which we would not call a conservative publication. He did some research about “vote shaming” and had some comments, some of which we excerpt.
double click to expand
Dear Thomas:
Our records indicate that you are registered in New York County. Who you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is public record. Many organizations monitor turnout in your neighborhood and are disappointed by the inconsistent voting of many of your neighbors. […]
We will be reviewing the New York County official voting records after the upcoming election to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. If you do note vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not.
McKay comments:
In other words, do not disappoint us. “Many organizations” will be monitoring your voting habits, like your nosy neighbors and the mafia . . .
In North Carolina, the Democratic Party seems to be using “shaming” tactics like reminding non-voters of their voting history or suggesting they would be subject to a later purity check in the form of a poll. All the way back in 2010, The New York Times seems to have predicted the rise of peer pressure as an effective get-out-the-vote tool. The Times describes it as the brainchild of then-58-year-old Democratic political consultant Hal Malchow, who pushed the idea of aggressive voter mailing on Democrats:
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 neighbors’ 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.
[…]
Then, as New Jersey prepared to elect its governor last fall, Malchow experimented with less ominous language, an idea he adopted from the Fordham political scientist Costas Panagopoulos. … [The] softer tone, while less effective than the original mailer, increased turnout among recipients by 2.5 percentage points.
McKay continues:
I guess, given the fact that the mailers have proven utility, Democrats that complain about them might be being a little hypocritical. Still, it’s a little disturbing that New York Democrats feel the need to pull a tactic straight from the dark side: THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY IS WATCHING. THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS EYES EVERYWHERE.
So we get the theory. Indeed the local AFSCME union used a similar theme for their get out the vote efforts. The following is a scan of a letter one such union member received (identifying information removed).
So . . . the letter says . . . “we’ll call you after the election to talk about your voting experience” . . . “We expect high turnout this year” (or else) and signed by … “the Department of Voter Participation.”
In summary we will know if you didn’t vote and we will call you about it.
So some innocent conservative groups rightly pointed out the intimidating and unseemly nature of the Democrat / union letters. But Republicans were arguably as bad. Consider the e-mail communication yours truly received about a week ago.
Republicans cannot distance themselves from the letter as some sort of rogue effort as it is signed by both the RNC Political Director, Chris McNulty and the RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus.
Looking at the elements of the letter we see the shaming aspect “your neighbors have done their civic duty” and the intimidation factor: they know where we live. Of course the picture is bogus as my neighborhood is different. But the technology does exist to do what they have purported to do and it is believable in that respect and perhaps intimidating to the credulous. It is cheesy at best. We have previously mention the Republican get out the vote targeting effort is unvirtually based on lies. They use false information recklessly or have no compunction against appearing phony in their counterproductive mania of pumping up early voting numbers with disregard for accuracy in their targeting.
We also take issue with the GOP.com claim that “voting early can give principled Republican candidates . . . momentum.” What is principled about the bums rush encouraging voting before debates have even started? Where is the confidence in the “principles” of candidates and parties who refer to the need to “bank” votes. The early voting mania tide lifts the Democrat “vote early” boat as well. Discernment ought to be the principled goal not hurry up and vote. We believe time for discernment works for Republicans and the general integrity of the vote is improved with polling booth voting.
We understand the anxiety of Republicans who want to register their opposition to the Obamanation ASAP. But confidence in Democrat held Auditor’s offices as a national matter is worrisome enough and is made fearful by the sort of laxity in voting rules in Iowa. We could stipulate that the fraud and intimidation takes place outside all auditors ‘ offices in Iowa, but that does not affect our arguments that fraud and intimidation opportunities of all sorts are enhanced with early voting. Our primary complaint about putative honest Democrat auditors is “just” that they take the party hack line and advocate for sloppy rules to insure that fraud and intimidation opportunities can continue while their offices operate to the sloppy letter of the law. You can’t have rules that just allow Republicans to vote early because Republicans have integrity.
We have more confidence in the integrity of a voting process that facilitates an informed plebiscite focusing voting on the end of a campaign, not the beginning, and which provides less opportunity for voter intimidation (including to vote). Security lapses are made less possible with polling booth voting. Important integrity and security measures are defeated by vote by mail. The built-in lack of integrity of the U.S. vote is a laughing-stock of developed nations and on examination not much better than that in third world dictatorial countries that also “encourage” voting. R Mall
