3 ms·

Americans don't think that revealing party membership is violates any privacy. The reason it is available is that the parties need lists of their members, and c

Americans don't think that revealing party membership is violates any privacy. The reason it is available is that the parties need lists of their members, and campaigns and political orgs need lists of people to mobilize to vote. This helps us target slate mailers, phone calls, media advertising, as well as look at who is elderly and might need transportation to the polls. In California, the list of people who voted is posted hourly tomorrow, so I get to walk around and remind my party's people to get to the polls.

zrobotics 8y ago
Why do we consider "get out the vote" efforts to be a good thing, though? If someone doesn't care enough to bother to vote without being nagged, are they providing any sort of meaningful input? How considered will their choice be? Ive always thought such efforts are another symptom of 'us vs. them", where the only goal is to get more of your members to vote. I think it would be aassive improvement if this information wasn't even part of voter registration. If you want to be a Democrat or Republican and vote in the primaries, that shouldn't be part of voter registration, you should have to separately register with your party of choice. Because I just don't see any reason that anything you mentioned (targeted advertising, targeted transportation for the elderly) is at all a net positive for democracy.
- matthewbauer 8y ago
  I don’t think anyone is necessarily saying it’s good - just a necessary part of winning elections. Lots of people are forgetful or busy and may need some extra push to cast a ballot. If you have a political preference, it makes sense to try to get friends and family to vote with you. This kind of thing has happened in every election to some extents. The app just makes it a little creepier...
- danso 8y ago
  I think ideally the government sees it as net positive for democracy to maximize the participation of as much of its electorate as possible, in order for the process, and the winners, to have as much legitimacy and buy-in as possible. In an ideal world, no one would have to be "nagged", but realistically, everyone has limits on their time and attention span. Why is the college student who finally agrees to go with a friend any less of a valued participant than the retired citizen who has no other time commitments? Party affiliation is part of voter registration in the states that run primaries. Primaries are not part of the Constitution, and before the 1970s, party candidates were picked via convention, i.e. party elites. Making the primary vote accessible to all voters was ostensibly an attempt to democratize the selection process. Seems like it'd be logistically difficult to hold party votes without having a record of voter affiliation.

zrobotics 8y ago

Why do we consider "get out the vote" efforts to be a good thing, though? If someone doesn't care enough to bother to vote without being nagged, are they providing any sort of meaningful input? How considered will their choice be? Ive always thought such efforts are another symptom of 'us vs. them", where the only goal is to get more of your members to vote. I think it would be aassive improvement if this information wasn't even part of voter registration. If you want to be a Democrat or Republican and vote in the primaries, that shouldn't be part of voter registration, you should have to separately register with your party of choice. Because I just don't see any reason that anything you mentioned (targeted advertising, targeted transportation for the elderly) is at all a net positive for democracy.

matthewbauer 8y ago
I don’t think anyone is necessarily saying it’s good - just a necessary part of winning elections. Lots of people are forgetful or busy and may need some extra push to cast a ballot. If you have a political preference, it makes sense to try to get friends and family to vote with you. This kind of thing has happened in every election to some extents. The app just makes it a little creepier...
danso 8y ago
I think ideally the government sees it as net positive for democracy to maximize the participation of as much of its electorate as possible, in order for the process, and the winners, to have as much legitimacy and buy-in as possible. In an ideal world, no one would have to be "nagged", but realistically, everyone has limits on their time and attention span. Why is the college student who finally agrees to go with a friend any less of a valued participant than the retired citizen who has no other time commitments? Party affiliation is part of voter registration in the states that run primaries. Primaries are not part of the Constitution, and before the 1970s, party candidates were picked via convention, i.e. party elites. Making the primary vote accessible to all voters was ostensibly an attempt to democratize the selection process. Seems like it'd be logistically difficult to hold party votes without having a record of voter affiliation.