Grebner's guilt trip

I have mixed feelings about this (0.00 / 0)

I think we need to do everything we can to encourage more people to exercise their right to vote. I've always thought election days should be special holidays (at least Federal elections), or at least be held on the weekend.

But something about this just rubs me the wrong way. I don't know... it's one thing to shame any friends or family who you know aren't voting, but something about this is very in your face in a very public way.

We definitely need to do something to encourage people to vote, but public humiliation seems a bit extreme and counterproductive to me :-/

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

---

by: BZP @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 15:19:03 PM UTC

Mild humiliation probably more effective than encouragement..... (4.00 / 1)

I agree to a certain extent, but I wonder whether encouragement is less effective than humiliation. I think what Grebner is doing is very smart: your social network is your most powerful tool to catalyze voting and the most accessible social network is your neighborhood. My question for Grebner would be, how does encouragement (please ask *these* non-voters to vote on Tuesday) compare against embarassment (these are the non-participants on your block)?

---

by: muchomaas @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 15:26:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Agreed (0.00 / 0)

I just think the execution needs to be ironed out a bit. The community aspect is important, but you also don't want people to be complete pricks about it (which is kind of how this comes off).

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

---

by: BZP @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 15:36:48 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Disagreed (0.00 / 0)

Sorry to say, but to encourage people to vote, people HAVE to be "complete pricks about it." That seems to be one of the few things that still provokes a response.

I can't tell you how many times I've had this conversation with friends and acquaintences over the past few weeks:

Them: "So how's work been going lately?"

Me: "Oh, OK, I suppose. I bit stressful with all the election stuff."

Them: "What election?"

Me: "The state House primaries. There's a coupla very close races in the area. It's very exciting."

Them: "Oh. That's nice."

Now, if I would have followed that up with, "You'd better vote, asshole!" do you think he would be more encouraged to vote or less encouraged? I say he'd be more likely.

Consider this: Here in Lansing, the winner of the 68th District Democratic primary (and thus our state representative for the next six years, since there's no Senate seat to jump to) will need to get about 2,000 votes. That's out of about 70,000 registered voters in the district.

That is sad. It's time to get aggressive.

 

-7.38 -4.36

---

by: egostatistical @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 16:56:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the assumption underlying this (0.00 / 0)

is that we actually have descent candidates.

Look in the mirror folks...we haven't been hitting .300 for quite a while now.

When you also add in the hurdles that people face to voting, there are many other reasons then just laziness.

---

by: Nazgul35 @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 20:49:18 PM UTC

Not quite. (0.00 / 0)

What about ballot proposals? Once again, I'll use Lansing/Ingham County as an example.

Between 8 and 14 percent of voters will decide Tuesday if the ENTIRE LIBRARY SYSTEM will receive funding.

Between 8 and 14 percent of voters will decide Tuesday if the ENTIRE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAM will receive funding.

That means that between 8 and 14 percent of voters will decide how much in taxes they and the remaining 86 to 92 percent of voters will pay.

It's about so much more than simply candidates.

-7.38 -4.36

---

by: egostatistical @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 20:57:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree that something... (4.00 / 1)

...needs to be done to increase voter turn-out.  But I don't think this is the way to do it.  Honestly, I don't know my neighbors at all and I've lived here for over two years.  Sending me a mailing saying that they do/don't vote doesn't mean crap to me.

---

by: cgauthier @ Fri Aug 04, 2006 at 22:56:05 PM UTC

But it apparently does mean something... (4.00 / 1)

...to 2% of people. That may not sound like much. However, imagine if this program had been in place in Florida in 2000. I suspect our current situation today would be very different than it is now. (Greater turnout typically benefits Democrats).

As far as the rationale that there are people who don't show up to vote as a form of "protest" against the lack of quality candidates, sorry, I don't buy it. The system allows ways to "protest" and still have your ballot counted. Vote for a third party, vote write-in, or just simply leave some races blank if you don't know about the candidates. If you really feel absolutely no one on the ballot is worth your support, turn in a blank ballot. All you have to do to respect the many sacrafices others have made for our democracy is show up. Is that really so much to ask? Sitting on your hands at home is not an effective means of protest. It's mainly just an excuse for laziness, in my opinion.

There could be other, more valid excuses for not voting, i.e., illness. I have sympathy for the few people in this situation...but not enough to deter me from supporting something like this that might just help keep maniacs like George Bush out of power. 

"Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never." - Winston S. Churchill

---

by: matt @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 15:15:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like it (4.00 / 3)

The beauty of this approach is that Grebner is a private citizen working in a private company.  If a campaign or party did this, they would be pilloried by the other side in a heartbeat, but all the public can do with Grebner is whine pitifully.

I don't care whether people's feelings are hurt--it's perfectly legal, and the voter turnout rate in this country is a disgrace.  I do care whether it turns people on or off to voting.  I found while phone banking for Kerry in '04 that older people were all very defensive when I asked them if they would consider voting for Kerry.  As voters got younger, they were more open about it.  Since seniors tend to vote more often than younger people do (unless they're disabled), they're going to keep voting whether or not they receive the mailing and are offended by it.

The approach is negative, though, so it would be more effective if it were coupled with some kind of effort to educate the public about the candidates in a non-partisan way.  The uniform response I get when I ask people whether they're going to vote this fall (and I ask that question more these days than I ask which party they belong to and whether they support the war) is that they're tired of being lied to and they don't know whom to trust.

---

by: eartha651 @ Sat Aug 05, 2006 at 15:51:33 PM UTC