4 ms·
Overall I found your response rather cynical. Implying law being broken is required for a previous comment to be a valid point is harsh. There's campaign law an
by pbadenski 10y ago
Overall I found your response rather cynical. Implying law being broken is required for a previous comment to be a valid point is harsh. There's campaign law and there's ethics. Just because some behaviour was never codified into law doesn't make it right.
Having said that, I think the ethics of this political strategy depends on the intentions. If a politician has true respect for the people, wants to give personal touch, and just doesn't have enough time to handwrite the letters - that's okay in my view. If a politician is purely looking for means of influence - that in my opinion is "not okay".
- jaxn 10y agoIf they never read your letter, then the contents of it don't matter. The "handwriting hack" is all about getting people to open the letter and read it. I didn't get phone calls from constituents because of the handwriting, the phone calls were because of the content.
- iamdave 10y agoOverall I found your response rather cynical. Implying law being broken is required for a previous comment to be a valid point is harsh. The comment is valid, I don't think your premise is valid because I don't think the lines were sufficiently drawn to either a prescriptive or descriptive concept established in law. I also think the "ethical" premise is invalid equally. I'm allowed to think premises are invalid and speak up on them; as of yet there hasn't been a convincing enough argument towards the 'ickiness' of using handwritten typefaces in a letter to possible voters to convince me otherwise. If you're going to sit there and call that cynical, fine. That's on you, but I still think both premises are broken.