Have a personal goal of inducing two low propensity voters to vote straight Republican (an exception being the Scott County Supervisor race where one of the no-party candidates is superior)*
Based on recent articles at The Federalist’s regarding current GOTV efforts, it appears that so-called relational vote chasing done by groups outside the Trump or GOP apparat, presumably single issue oriented or broader affinity groups, are the most effective. See here, here. We support that to the extent that they can engage their hills the mountain will take care of itself.
Two reports here and here albeit a few months ago indicate that the Trump GOP operation has fallen flat. However much heralded it was something we presumed would be so if resources are devoted to expensive paid hectoring to vote by mail instead of intense motivational and targeted messaging which we would argue is a better bang for the buck — turning even Democrat mules (unknowingly) into mules for Trump AND OTHER REPUBLICANS (presuming ballot secrecy is maintained). Our point is most effective if conducted beginning in the spring and summer in order to inoculate the vote.
Using “doable” small group contact dynamics (using volunteers given 20 names) described in various The Federalist articles keeps the cost down. The focus on low to medium propensity voters is good although the persuadable factor might be an issue as the candidate the system is focused on undercuts the message for some otherwise likely affinity groups with boneheaded statements complicating the task of the volunteers engaged in promoting early voting.
Republicans used to emphasize voter ID in order to vote. That does not happen with vote by mail which the apparat now officially advocates. Who really votes the mailed in vote? Signature verification to be accurate is a slow process that for serious accuracy requires training. It elicits false flags when it is undertaken, which is not seriously.
But the everyone-vote-early-drone from conservative radio commentariat is in full swing and arguably against security interests to the extent it involves vote by mail, which they now champion, glossing over still valid concerns about not only the security but the integrity of that vote and the general good governance propriety.
Is this the goal, be more like Democrats?
The same arguments apply to hectoring to vote by mail even if undertaken by a volunteer focused on a small group of assigned contacts — the twenty or so small bite often mentioned. The cumulative effect of vote by mail weeks out is still anti-good-governance and burdens the accuracy of the verification process in the limited counting period because of the inundation of mail-in ballots. Eligibility establishment is less challengeable on a timely basis . . . actual voter verification, forget it, . . . signature verification — get real.
much better
The basic idea of personal voter contact is great, but pushing vote by mail (in most jurisdictions) needn’t be part of it, assuming early voting in person at satellite locations is available. You want intimacy — so offer to drive them or walk them to the early voting location. It is also more psychologically and civically engaging.
It would seem to be eminently doable for this small-group dynamic of GOTV. A cadre of volunteer drivers might be organized to supplement any unavailability of the voter persuader to do so. Many or most will not require the chauffeuring but it is a nice no- excuses touch having set a pick-up time.
Some insist that a good overall turn-out by people voting in person is not realistic. Well do explain how turnout of eligible voters in the 60s and 70s was superior to recent years when the voting window was essentially Election Day (very limited absentee voting)? Today many or most jurisdictions have satellite in person early voting capabilities and independent transportation availability is superior.
That the “client’ voter votes early in person on their own is just as determinable as if they voted early by mail or used a drop box for their “absentee ballot”.
Voting in person a little early — a few days — ameliorates the integrity concerns of onesey-twosey falsifications and intimidation around the kitchen table and insures, to the extent the local system requires, photo -ID verification – not available in vote by mail schemes. Further signature verification is more secure as it is immediately witnessed.
The arguments I hear expressed for vote by mail is that the Dems are going to mess up election day voting — create long lines, have computers fail etc etc. . . . create chaos — (one good conspiracy theory deserves another ) therefor I guess submit your vote to those malcontents through the postal union as soon as possible, or to have lying around in the same jurisdiction that is crooked enough to do the aforementioned and have them organize the counting and verification, after that know what precincts are voting.
Then there is THE WEATHER AND YOU MIGHT DIE OR BREAK YOUR LEG OR WHATEVER argument. None of them are serious or statistically hold water and by the way just vote a little earlier if you must but in person. If you are too incapacitated or out of town for weeks on end vote by mail as was done in the past. Integrity, security, events of the day, reality, speak against extensive vote by mail programs.
*details to follow
