I just read two articles about a tactic being used in the Wisconsin Govenor recall race. What is being done is an outside group that favors one side over the other is mailing out postcards to all registered voters showing whether or not you and your neighorbors (with addresses included)voted in 2008 and 2010.

My question is whether releasing the public voting records of private individuals is a good tactic or a bad tactic. Here is an article discussing a study done by a Yale Poli Sci Professor that shows the tactic increased voter turn out by about 8%. So it will get more people out to vote.

However, the article also discusses potential blowback. I.E. people get so pissed that their voting info is released to neighbors they vote but for the other guy. This is a valid fear in my opinion. A tactic that happens in my area, usually for school board elections and during contract negotiation years, is to publish the name and salary of all teachers in a given district. It often back fires in the public gets upset at the release, they vote for the teacher supported candidates.

So I am curious? Do you guys feel this is a good tactic to follow or a bad one? If you received one of these post cards how would you react?

I don't want to post the article about who is doing it in Wisconsin because I would like to get opinions without being influenced by which side you support in that race. However, I will post it later.

My assumption, given that Archduke leans Republican, was that this would be from a Democratic group. And it turns out it was! The problem is that it difficult for me to analyze this tactic in an unbiased way, given that I can't stand Scott Walker.In any case, I don't see the problem as long we don't know how a person voted. If this increases turn-out, great. Republicans can use it too.

An amazing amount of information about you is public. The land you own, the tax you pay on it, if you're registered to vote, if you voted, what party you're registered as, and on and on. I think open public records are great, but also practically limited, because it's not like they are often advertised, or easily accessed; someone has to take the effort to look. Apparently, in this case, someone is looking and advertising. I don't know the specifics of this particular example, but I'm glad the data are out there for anyone to examine.

Its a lousy tactic. Voting should be a private matter unless one wants to promote one's allegiance.
Voting registration by party seems a partial transgression of this privacy already.
I wouldn't change my vote, but I'd write a strongly worded letter to the Times....

geo

The problem is that it difficult for me to analyze this tactic in an unbiased way, given that I can't stand Scott Walker

Walker does have some reasonable approaches to overly rich public pension schemes...
It would be nice if there were room in the political arena for acceptance of some ideas without the recourse to viilification.

This is a shock RickyP. You have stated that the names that were on the signature list for an initiative prohibiting gay marriage in Washington should be released. Now you say voting is a private matter? Seems VERY double-minded to me. Why the difference?

rickyp wrote:
geo

The problem is that it difficult for me to analyze this tactic in an unbiased way, given that I can't stand Scott Walker

Walker does have some reasonable approaches to overly rich public pension schemes...
It would be nice if there were room in the political arena for acceptance of some ideas without the recourse to viilification.

Well Put!

bbauska

This is a shock RickyP. You have stated that the names that were on the signature list for an initiative prohibiting gay marriage in Washington should be released. Now you say voting is a private matter? Seems VERY double-minded to me. Why the difference?

Because voting is different then petitioning the government.
Petitioning the government has no weight if the petitioners are unwilling to demonstrate their position publicly. Because the validity of a petitioner can only be known if the petitioner is public.
Petitions are subject to fraud .....unless they are made public. And even then without significant identification on the petition.
I signed many student petitions Jim Nasium.

Voters on the other hand have a right to cast a ballot privately. However they do need to be identiifed as a voter prior to voting. (On the voter role....)

freeman2 wrote:The problem is that it difficult for me to analyze this tactic in an unbiased way, given that I can't stand Scott Walker.In any case, I don't see the problem as long we don't know how a person voted. If this increases turn-out, great. Republicans can use it too.

I find this shocking. You really can't separate the tactic from the candidate? Well, I am against it but not because I support Walker. I oppose it when Republican School Board candidates release teacher name and salary as well. It may be public information but I can't support releasing something like that.

While I opposed it years ago when it was done to the teachers, I have learned to dispise it from a personal perspective as my personal salary information was released about a year ago in a newspaper story about PA legislative staff salaries.

rickyp wrote:bbauska

This is a shock RickyP. You have stated that the names that were on the signature list for an initiative prohibiting gay marriage in Washington should be released. Now you say voting is a private matter? Seems VERY double-minded to me. Why the difference?

Because voting is different then petitioning the government.
Petitioning the government has no weight if the petitioners are unwilling to demonstrate their position publicly. Because the validity of a petitioner can only be known if the petitioner is public.
Petitions are subject to fraud .....unless they are made public. And even then without significant identification on the petition.
I signed many student petitions Jim Nasium.

Voters on the other hand have a right to cast a ballot privately. However they do need to be identiifed as a voter prior to voting. (On the voter role....)

Are you saying that voting is not subject to fraud, but a petition is?

This is why the voting ID Cards are needed. I am all for anonymity in both or neither. RickyP playing the "this is different" position is silly.

Are you saying that voting is not subject to fraud, but a petition is?

Obviously not.
.I'm saying that a petition is a public demonstration with a largely uncontrolled mechanism, therefore .I'm saying a petition is much more susceptible to fraud.

Compared to signing a petition, Voting is very controlled.
Sure there is limited susceptibility for fraud, but its more difficult. And there's never been proof of significant fraud. Even without a voter card,
On the other hand, a mass produced petition, with names taken from whatever source....easy.

I just don't see info on whether you have voted or not to be a big deal. Now, information on a teacher's salary is a whole different thing. I wouldn' t like party affiliation to be discussed publicly, but whether I voted in a election is small potatoes.

rickyp wrote:Compared to signing a petition, Voting is very controlled.

Just inaccurate.

While it is true that anyone can sign a petition, those signatures are examined when the petition is turned in. There is no mechanism for ensuring only those who were eligible voted.

As I posted in the voting forum, no one checks in either town I've lived in MA. I could travel the State and with a bit of info easily obtained on the Internet, I could vote as many times as I had a desire to vote. If I have a name and an address, the presumption is I am who I say I am.

Imagine if everything was like that . . .

A few things...

1) Knowing that somebody voted is fine, although some may feel uncomfortable about it.

2) Knowing how somebody voted is not fine, as it violates the principle of a secret ballot.

3) However, given that you guys have this practice of registration of political affiliation via the state, it gets a but murky. Registration is public, and so knowing that a party-registered voter voted is a consequence of (1).

4) Comparison to petitions is interesting. Didn't people who signed the recall petition get publicly named? I believe several contentious cases arose, including journalists.

steve

While it is true that anyone can sign a petition, those signatures are examined when the petition is turned in. There is no mechanism for ensuring only those who were eligible voted.

As I posted in the voting forum, no one checks in either town I've lived in MA. I could travel the State and with a bit of info easily obtained on the Internet, I could vote as many times as I had a desire to vote. If I have a name and an address, the presumption is I am who I say I am.

When you enter to vote, do you not have to identify your name and address so it can be checked off on the voter list? I realize that you may not have to present proof of your claim but surely you have to at least verbally provide a claim of name and address?
If so, that name and address can only be used once no?
Theoretically a fraudster could wander from poll to poll on voting day pretending to be various people . But unless he's a master of disguise he wouldn't do that at the same polling station.
And if you've got line ups at the polls, how many polls could one visit. ?

rickyp wrote:steve

While it is true that anyone can sign a petition, those signatures are examined when the petition is turned in. There is no mechanism for ensuring only those who were eligible voted.

As I posted in the voting forum, no one checks in either town I've lived in MA. I could travel the State and with a bit of info easily obtained on the Internet, I could vote as many times as I had a desire to vote. If I have a name and an address, the presumption is I am who I say I am.

When you enter to vote, do you not have to identify your name and address so it can be checked off on the voter list? I realize that you may not have to present proof of your claim but surely you have to at least verbally provide a claim of name and address?
If so, that name and address can only be used once no?
Theoretically a fraudster could wander from poll to poll on voting day pretending to be various people .

My point, precisely. Let me expand a bit since you don't seem to get it.

Let's say I live in Town 1. I go to polling place A, where I should vote. I give my name and address and vote.

Now, since I know who does/does not vote, I can take that information and go to polling places B, C, D, and E in my town and vote 4 additional times--no disguise needed as it's a new location.

I can also go to Towns 2-10, and all their polling places. Theoretically, the only limit is time.

And if you've got line ups at the polls, how many polls could one visit. ?

Again, that may or may not be much of a restriction. I've never waited more than 2 minutes to vote in MA.