Elections, Power, and the State - How Loathsome and Shameless Can it Get?

[Duke Leto]

Technical explanation why who voted in what election is public.

One of the protections against ballot box stuffing is that the number of people who are reported as having voted in a precinct has to equal the number of signatures on the precinct register. The only way to verify that people voted is to ask them, ergo, the list of people who voted in each precinct is sometimes part of the public record.

 

[fromderinside]

So we have people using public information to remind you your performance on the civic duty of voting So fricking' what. In Oregon, like anywhere else you must checkoff your name on a registered voter file each election. Your party of registration is also public. We use this stuff to get voters out, to contact reliable contributors, to plead with those who don't always vote and to encourage and support voters on getting their ballots, and to the precinct (in our case in Oregon we drive their sealed votes over to the polling mailbox).

We sure are evil.

Nothing new here.

For those who think there is something evil going on .... boo.

 

[maxparrish]

So we have people using public information to remind you your performance on the civic duty of voting So fricking' what. In Oregon, like anywhere else you must checkoff your name on a registered voter file each election. Your party of registration is also public. We use this stuff to get voters out, to contact reliable contributors, to plead with those who don't always vote and to encourage and support voters on getting their ballots, and to the precinct (in our case in Oregon we drive their sealed votes over to the polling mailbox).

We sure are evil.

Nothing new here.

For those who think there is something evil going on .... boo.

So then, I suppose they ought to do away with the secret ballot, take a photo of each person's vote, and publish everyone's voting record?

 

[fromderinside]

For those who think there is something evil going on .... boo.

So then, I suppose they ought to do away with the secret ballot, take a photo of each person's vote, and publish everyone's voting record?

So just because we register to vote, verify when we vote we are registered, join parties which are required to keep public records which the state requires be disclosed when one registers, you think our vote isn't a private matter?

Just because one declares a party doesn't require that one vote for that party's candidates does it?

So there you go.

One receives a letter from his party telling her she only votes now and then and explaining the party plans to publish those voters who didn't vote.

Hey, the person registered as a democrat, republican, independent, woo woo, and its losing his secret if someone publishes whether she voted or no.

Get a grip.

Its not someone's publishing one's voting record to note whether one is registered as a Voluminous that one voted in this election or that. No one published where she voted for the Voluminous candidates.

We don;t fine people for not voting here. They do in Brazil that bastion of free enterprise.

 

[maxparrish]

And speaking of shameless, perhaps we ought to consider the Democratic resort to bottom-feeding personal insults (and misogynistic) rhetoric of recent:

During a rally last week, Vincent Sheheen (running against Gov. Nikki Haley) promised his crowd of supporters that: “we are going to escort (the) whore out the door,” (meaning Haley) After he corrected himself he smirked and laughed with his fellow supporters. The Washington Post’s Nia-Malika Henderson said his reaction to the gaffe “was not an accident.”

Then we have the video of John Foust’s (Congressional candidate) comment that his opponent, "Virginia delegate Barbara Comstock, has never had a real job; Rep. Bruce Braley’s ad comparing Joni Ernst to a “chick”; and Alaska Sen. Mark Begich claiming Sen. Lisa Murkowski doesn’t like his ad because of a bad photo."

Oh well, one assumes it is more effective (or self-gratifying) than defending Obama or speaking to the issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In the category of 'you can't make this stuff up', this year's electioneering, lawfare, fraud, and overt use of the federal policing agencies on behalf of the latest generation of Democratic politicians is particularly notable in its no excuse brazenness and threatening authoritarianism as a means to an end.

One example:

Over one million NY democrats opened their mail to find a letter from the State Democratic Committee essentially telling the voter that he/she had better vote "or else". In a tone more reminiscent of a letter by John Gotti than get out the vote booster:

The woman also received a report card of her voting record, pointing out that she had failed to vote in two of the last four elections.
Overall, the notices were sent out to 1 million registered Democrats who had failed to vote in previous midterm elections, according to the group.
The committee — chaired by former Gov. David Paterson — defended the scare tactic, calling it standard practice throughout the country.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/dems-keep-it-creepy.php

The new mentality in politics...

I see no threats here. This amounts to "You're not voting. Shame on you."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why are voting lists public? I get why there's a case for the government to tally that kind of information but I don't see why there'd be any need to release it for anything beyond statistical results about it.

They are referring to voter registration rolls, which are public. This way you can see if your dead relatives and Mickey Mouse are registered to vote in your precinct.

No, they're referring to actual records of who voted.

Around here the day after you vote you'll get no more human calls trying to get you to vote for a particular candidate. A few robocalls still come through, though. I think this is the real motivation--allow the political parties to focus their last-minute campaigning on those who still can vote.

 

[Arctish]

Alaska voters got those vote-shaming postcards this past week. The source was a Republican affiliated PAC. The general reaction was disapproval. No one likes being judged on things they consider private matters.

And speaking of shameless, perhaps we ought to consider the Democratic resort to bottom-feeding personal insults (and misogynistic) rhetoric of recent:
<snip>
Alaska Sen. Mark Begich claiming Sen. Lisa Murkowski doesn’t like his ad because of a bad photo."

This is a mischaracterization of the dispute between Begich and Murkowski.

Begich is in a heated battle to retain his senate seat. His opponent, Dan Sullivan, has been running ads that feature Obama's name at least 3x as often as Begich's. The ads bluntly state that a vote for Begich is a vote for Obama. So in order to counter what's actually a pretty effective tactic up here, Begich ran ads comparing his voting record to that of Murkowski, Alaska's other senator who enjoys wide support among Native Alaskans, independents, and moderate Republicans. He also touted his record of working closely with her on various issues important to Alaskans.

Well, Murkowski has come out in favor of Sullivan and didn't like being featured in a Begich ad. She sent a cease and desist letter to the Begich campaign that said:

"We are writing on the [Murkowski campaign] committee's behalf to demand that Alaskans for Begich immediately cease any broadcast and/or web hosting of the television spot entitled 'Great Team,' " writes attorney Scott Kendall in the letter. "This advertisement is factually incorrect. It also misuses Senator Murkowski's image, and implies her support, without her permission — and, in fact, over her known objections."

However,:

A spokesman pointed out that Murkowski didn't take issue with the ad's claim that the two vote together 80 percent of the time and that she hasn't complained at all while Alaska GOP front-runner Dan Sullivan (R) used her in ads the last few months.

"Alaskans have responded positively to the message that Alaska's congressional delegation works together across party lines to do what's best for Alaska," Begich spokesman Max Croes said. "Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich vote together as much as 80 percent of the time and more than any other Democrat-Republican pair in the U.S. Senate, a fact proven by an independent fact check organization."

Murkowski can't do a damn thing about Begich pointing out his voting record closely matches hers. But she can insist he seek her permission before using a picture of them standing together in his ads, which she did.

When Begich summarized the dispute by saying she "didn't like the photo" (note: the false story has him saying she didn't like it because it was a "bad" photo), he was perhaps assuming Sullivan knew the backstory and that reporters would bother to research it before commenting. Obviously he underestimated the ability of some folks to spin anything into a scandal.

 

[dystopian]

You would have to be extraordinarily tone deaf (or partisan) to miss the difference between your imaginary letter of cheery, and earnest pleading, and the letter which was actually written.

No, actually you'd have to have an agenda to read threats and intimidation into that letter. All anyone else sees is a neutral sounding letter.

Rather the letter actually says: “Who you vote for is your secret. But whether or not you vote is public record,” and then warns the reader that "many organizations will be monitoring turnout" in your neighborhood. Later it promises WE WILL BE REVIEWING the (your) voting records after the election ". . . to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014.” And if you didn't THEY'd "be interested" to hear why you did not.

Oooooh, much threat! so intimidation!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

My friend got one from these folks targeting unmarried women:
http://www.voterparticipation.org/about-us/

 

[maxparrish]

So then, I suppose they ought to do away with the secret ballot, take a photo of each person's vote, and publish everyone's voting record?

So just because we register to vote, verify when we vote we are registered, join parties which are required to keep public records which the state requires be disclosed when one registers, you think our vote isn't a private matter?

Just because one declares a party doesn't require that one vote for that party's candidates does it?

So there you go.

So there you went on to explain something that is irrelevant to the point I questioned. My concern is not that public records exist, it is in government making information public just because many (like you) find it useful. Every person has a right to choose whether or not they vote, and it is no one's business to know if that voter cast a secret ballot or refused to do so. The ballot is private, as should be its use.

Arguably, the provision of party membership lists to just that parties officials is necessary, but not a person's voting record. Moreover, the law ought to restrict use of registration records to a narrow range of political activities.

 

[dystopian]

So there you went on to explain something that is irrelevant to the point I questioned. My concern is not that public records exist, it is in government making information public just because many (like you) find it useful. Every person has a right to choose whether or not they vote, and it is no one's business to know if that voter cast a secret ballot or refused to do so. The ballot is private, as should be its use.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. I'd prefer it if whether or not I've voted was private too. But why act so hysterical about a mass mailer aimed at encouraging people to vote? Why try to pass that off as 'intimidation'? And of course, why try to turn that into some partisan issue?