Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Privacy Democrats Government Politics

Boo! The House Majority PAC Is Watching You 468

An anonymous reader writes I received some interesting mail this week from the House Majority PAC. First, a "voter report card" postcard telling me my voting record was "excellent" (I'm a good citizen!), but also letting me know that they "plan to update this report card after the election to see whether you voted". OK, so one of the Democratic Party's super PACs want me to vote, but it seems to be something of an attempt at intimidation. Today, I received a letter in which they really put the pressure on. Here are some excerpts: "Who you vote for is secret. But whether or not you vote is public record. Our organization monitors turnout in your neighborhood, and we are disappointed that many of your neighbors do not always exercise their right to vote." So why contact me instead of them? Voting is a civic duty, but it isn't illegal to abstain. That's my neighbors' business, not mine. It's one way of expressing dissatisfaction, isn't it? And if there are no candidates you wish to vote for, then why should you vote for someone you don't want? But Big Brother PAC has other ideas: "We will be reviewing the Camden County [NJ] official voting records after the upcoming election to determine whether you joined your neighbors who voted in 2014. If you do not vote this year, we will be interested to hear why not." The letter is signed "Joe Fox Election day Coordinator". So what happens if I don't vote? Well, at least I got a scare this Halloween. Are PACs using similar tactics in other states?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Boo! The House Majority PAC Is Watching You

Comments Filter:
  • Louisiana too (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ultra64 ( 318705 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:26PM (#48284745)

    I've gotten three of the same things from "American's for Prosperity"

    I live in Louisiana.

    • Re:Louisiana too (Score:5, Informative)

      by wiggles ( 30088 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:29PM (#48284759)

      That's the Koch Bros. if memory serves..

    • Whether you show up to vote (not whether you actually vote) is recorded. However, given the trouble they are having with vote buying in both WV and KY I doubt they actually release the specific info.

      BTW, they both (republican and democrat) got my info wrong because I moved to this district recently.

      I consider this an attempt at intimidation and won't bow to it. I would join any lawsuit if they released any list of individuals whether they showed up to vote or not.

      • If the voter records are public information (which seems odd to me actually, but let's assume this for now since TFS said so), then your lawsuit would be baseless. Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public. It's when private information is released that you have grounds to file a lawsuit for damages.

        • by penix1 ( 722987 )

          As I said, it is recorded, not that it was "public information". And, like I said, they are having trouble with vote buying here so I really don't see them releasing that specific info.Probably a good reason that they got my info all wrong.

          • If it wasn't public information how could we trust the election results? Seriously.

            If the media can get the entire voter list, and a list of the people who showed up, and compare that to the list of total ballots cast, it's much harder for local elected officials (And in the US almost everyone involved in running an election is not only an elected official, they're partisan. No Republican will ever win the Detroit City Clerkship.) to simply make up vote totals.

        • A list of who voted does need to exist to some extent. Otherwise it becomes too easily possible for some entity to start casting votes for other people or dead people without much risk of getting caught; and given the history of this country it's probably happened in a place or two from time to time.

          Perhaps that are other solutions that can be used to mitigate this, but given we're still using a first past the post system that's probably quite far beyond us. This is just the other side of such records be
          • A list of who voted absolutely must be maintained as an essential component of election integrity. In Virginia, you identify yourself, and observers from both parties sitting at the table note your name. They mark it in the Big Listing Book, and then you vote. So both parties know whether you showed up -- and it IS public information. The bonus intimidation seems to be a recent development, and not at all an enhancement.
            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by arth1 ( 260657 )

              The problem is that with the US system, you cannot vote blank. In the past, you could at least make a deliberate misvote, e.g. by punching way too many holes or making way too many stamps, but with electronic voting this is no longer an option. That makes it a problem, because the only way to vote "none of the above" is then to not go to the polls.

              But then again, the US system has enough problems with its election system already, with the requirement to have to register beforehand or be turned down at ele

              • In central Pennsylvania you can vote blank. The machines are the eSlate model and you can just keep pressing next and hit 'cast ballot' at the end. Registering beforehand makes sense; it's no different than any other governmental form. The ID card part is wrong however, since you can't use it for anything but voting, it can't be done where you register, and it treats voters as guilty of fraud until proven innocent by a card.
              • The problem is that with the US system, you cannot vote blank.

                Just vote for a third party candidate. That amounts to the same thing. /s

              • by Dahamma ( 304068 )

                In every election I have participated in (which is many) in 2 states this has been completely untrue.

                You walk in, sign your name and write your address, and get a ballot. You then get a ballot, and you can feel free to turn the entire thing in untouched and are still recorded as having voted.

                I don't know much about electronic voting, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) I don't believe you actually have to cast votes any more than on a punch ballot. Why the hell would you want to "misvote"? Just don't vote

                • Re:West Virginia too (Score:4, Interesting)

                  by Zontar The Mindless ( 9002 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (ofni.hsifcitsalp)> on Saturday November 01, 2014 @06:20AM (#48286321) Homepage

                  Why is voter registration even required?

                  I recently got to vote here in Sweden, and I'm not even a citizen. I didn't even know I was eligible until the card from the election board showed up in the post.

                  I thought this had to be some sort of mistake, but I was informed by the elections people that here, as in many European countries, non-citizens who are legal residents may vote in local elections for their listed town/district, but not for the national legislature. So I got to vote for kommun and län (basically municipal and provincial) offices as well as candidates for seats in Stockholms Landsting, but not for the Riksdag or the EU Parliament.

                  I had planned on voting for the Pirate Party but their campaign posters were so annoying, faux-cutesy, and condescending that I voted for the Social Democrats instead. Would've voted Communist just for spite but they weren't running any candidates in my district.

          • by mysidia ( 191772 )

            A list of who voted does need to exist to some extent. Otherwise it becomes too easily possible for some entity to start casting votes for other people or dead people without much risk of getting caught

            I agree with the record being public; However, there should be a terms of use. It should not be simply freely available for all uses without restriction --- it should be available for on-premises review by any member of the public who signs an agreement but no note-taking, information extraction, dissem

            • I see what you're trying to do, but do we really want the incumbent deciding whether or not your review of his election is a legitimate use?

              We already have tens of thousands of laws, including a great many concerning elections. I suspect a decent lawyer could argue that these letters violate a few laws.

        • It's public information. The local city clerk has records of everyone who voted in every election, and records of who is registered. Both lists are available to anyone who asks for a nominal fee. This is how political campaigns build their databases.

        • by mysidia ( 191772 )

          Taking publicly-available information, then releasing it to the public, can't damage you. The information is already public.

          It depends on context. It is possible that there are ways they could republish details gathered from public records which would be damaging.

          For example; it may be technically public, however, individuals do not ordinarily disseminate the information. If their actions "advertised" or made the information more easily accessible, then it would still be a damaging intrusion.

          If they

        • Yes, voter records are public information. I believe they list your name, address, DOB, your registered party, precinct information, and date you voted. It's been a while since I've personally seen them, so I may have missed something.

          Here's the Florida statement on it. They say pretty much what I said.

          http://election.dos.state.fl.u... [state.fl.us]

      • Relax, seriously.

        It may be "intimidation", but it's stupid. Any pol who forces someone to vote who dislikes the pol now because they felt they were forced to vote is shooting themselves in the foot. And simply turning up to vote in this country means very little in terms of whether you participated in an election. You can spoil your ballot. Or you can put in a vote for dogcatcher, and ignore the Federal races altogether. Or whatever.

        Me, for myself, I'll probably be voting for Governor this year, albeit

    • Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:36PM (#48284797)

      Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

      Voting does not have the same level of impact. This is obvious to everyone who is paying attention. All the candidates lie, and all wind up responding to political force rather than to what is right. So, those who pay attention simply apply the sort of political force that actually moves politicians, and they don't bother with voting.

      Why are they so interested in voter turnout? Mostly because it perpetuates the illusion that voting actually matters, and keeps poor people like us from bothering with the lobbies.

      • Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)

        by silfen ( 3720385 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @09:16PM (#48284963)

        Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

        There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.

        The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

        • Re:Here's why (Score:5, Insightful)

          by The Ickle Jones ( 3869681 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @09:43PM (#48285073)

          Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

          Or the NSA's mass surveillance, the TSA, the Patriot Act, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, and the countless other things our government does that violates the constitution.

          But gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are not irrelevant. They're important, but not the *only* important issues.

          • Actually, it depends.
            If you believe that the government has a right to 'manage' social and cultural issues, then sure, gay marriage, abortion, inequality, and racism are all 'in-play'.

            Personally, I'd like the US government just start by performing their basic fucking functions - create a budget*, pay the bills**, get basic fundamental responsibilities accomplished*** - before they spend their time trying to 'manage' cultural issues.
            *http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-bremmer/2013/03/22/pbs-congress-hasn-t-p

        • The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

          That's not true, and it's a tired trope I keep hearing over and over. Voters do care, but they care about different things. Some people care more about sociological issues, whereas others care more about socioeconomic issues.

        • by arth1 ( 260657 )

          There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters.

          Which country is this?
          Here in the US, their main concern appears to be pleasing the corporations that contributed money so they could fund their smear campaigns and vote buying.
          They want to please the shepherds, not the sheep.

        • by cyn1c77 ( 928549 )

          Real political change is brought about by lobbies. If someone wants to do something about the state of things, he either founds a lobby or supports an existing lobby that champions his cause (and by "supports" I mean "gives cold hard cash to.").

          There is no evidence for that. In fact, it's pretty clear that the primary concern of politicians is pleasing their voters. Politicians listen to lobbies only in areas where voters don't care.

          The problem is that most voters simply don't know what to care about. Voters worry about irrelevant issues like abortion, gay marriage, inequality, and racism, while not worrying enough about the stuff that matters, like banking regulation, tax policy, nepotism, and crony capitalism.

          No.

          Lobbies buy ads that tell YOU what you should care about. You then vote for the politician that they put money into.

          Most people do their political research by watching TV ads, so this approach works well.

          • by silfen ( 3720385 )

            Lobbies buy ads that tell YOU what you should care about. You then vote for the politician that they put money into. Most people do their political research by watching TV ads, so this approach works well.

            Yes, and between the lobbies that buy ads and the politican that does your bidding is the voter, an autonomous individual with free will. Hence, it is not the lobbies that decide what politicians do, it's voters.

  • Not New (Score:4, Informative)

    by Stormy Dragon ( 800799 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:28PM (#48284757) Homepage

    As with most of the Republican "outrages of the day", this isn't new. In 2012 a Republican PAC called Americans for Limited Growth was doing the same thing:

    ‘Vote history audit’ shows whether your neighbors voted [thehill.com]

    As usual, now that Democrats are doing it too, it's the worst thing ever.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Got one today right from the RNC themselves. Saying just as much.

      It took a massive amount of self control not to yell at some poor shleb who wanted to volunteer or is just getting paid for a job. They wanted 500 bucks. No I am not giving you a thin dime. If you can not manage the millions the koch brothers coughed up why should worry about it?

      I am only voting against my current senator because she couldnt be bothered to read the laws she was passing and voted a 95% party line vote. My congress critter

    • ...it's the worst thing ever.

      No, worse is voting for either one... Clean The House! It's a mess!

    • Re:Not New (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TubeSteak ( 669689 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @09:06PM (#48284927) Journal

      Actually, a Democratic campaign consultant first pushed the idea, after reading an academic study [nytimes.com]
      Published: October 29, 2010

      Before the 2006 Michigan gubernatorial primary, three political scientists isolated a group of voters and mailed them copies of their voting histories, listing the elections in which they participated and those they missed. Included were their neighborsâ(TM) voting histories, too, along with a warning: after the polls closed, everyone would get an updated set.

      After the primary, the academics examined the voter rolls and were startled by the potency of peer pressure as a motivational tool. The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured.

      Malchow, a 58-year-old former Mississippi securities lawyer who managed Al Goreâ(TM)s first Senate campaign and went on to start a direct-mail firm, read the academicsâ(TM) study and wanted to put the device to work. But he had trouble persuading his firmâ(TM)s clients â" which over the years have included the Democratic National Committee and the A.F.L.-C.I.O. â" to incorporate such a tactic into their get-out-the-vote programs. All feared a backlash from citizens who might regard the mailer as a threat from someone seeking their vote.

      Then, as New Jersey prepared to elect its governor last fall [in 2010], Malchow experimented with less ominous language, an idea he adopted from the Fordham political scientist Costas Panagopoulos.

      The article then goes on to mostly talk about liberal attempts to study voter behavior so that they can shape opinions and get people to the polls.

      • The mailer was 10 times better at turning nonvoters into voters than the typical piece of pre-election mail whose effectiveness has ever been measured./quote.
        It would get me to the polls, too. Maybe not with the intended effect, however.

      • Why would anyone care? In Australia it's illegal to not vote (you get fined if you don't get your name signed off in a voting booth) yet over 5% of the population don't vote and another 5% cast donkey votes (blank or scribbles as protest). That's well over 1 million people who despite it being illegal still don't vote.
        It beats me why we even need elections. Statistical methods can get us a pretty close result with small samples, and either you end up with 1 of 2 of the same idiot. The US spent over $6B on
    • so... the democrats were "outraged" in 2012...yet do the same thing they were "outraged" about 2 years later???
  • Sounds like classic case of voter intimidation - but threatening voters *to* vote is new. Go vote for a third party or something.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Go vote for a third party or something.

      What do you think of adding a 'none of the above' option to all races? If it wins, you toss out the current candidates and start again.

    • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      You can do it only in the neighborhoods that lean in your direction, or to voters who are affiliated with the party you want to see win. Naturally you wouldn't harass the other side to vote. If you register as an independent, no one's likely to bother you, since they're not sure which way you'll go.
      • But the voter database isn't their only database.

        If you live in a GOP-leaning precinct, you're in a few conservative leaning groups (say the NRA and a Megachurch), then everyone will assume your Republican. If you live in a Democratic-leaning precinct and you're in a union or other left-wing group they will assume you're a Democrat. It's not like the UAW or NRA is going to refuse to give their allied political party a membership list. The Parties also have detailed subscriber lists from numerous publication

  • "We'll be checking the voting records. It would be a real shame if you didn't vote. We would need to visit you personally."

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:36PM (#48284795)

    As it turns out, in all 50 states, whether or not you voted is a matter of public record among other things besides.

    In California for example, all of your voter registration information is transmitted to anyone, anyone who asks. [berkeley.edu]

    • This may backfire this time around.

      It tells the voters that whether they voted can be checked - by ANYONE.

      Whether they're citizens can ALSO be checked - by anyone.

      If they voted and are not citizens, they've just committed a felony. ANYONE can create a database of that, and use it to bring pressure on law enforcement, employers, and so on.

  • by Snotnose ( 212196 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:36PM (#48284801)
    As well as those "register to vote the day of the election" deals. If you can't be bothered to pre-register to vote, or need to be pestered to vote, then you probably get 100% of your info on candidate's and issues from the mailers and TV/radio commercials. In other words, you've just digested a load of garbage and have nothing with which to make an informed choice. Uninformed voters are assholes, keep them out of the voting booth.

    I'm fine with you voting in a way I think is repugnant, as long as you've done a bit of research and actually have a reason for voting the way you do.
    • They want people who are easily swayed and don't look in to shit to go out and vote for their guys. They know an election could easily be swung if you can get people like that to vote for you.

    • by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @09:41PM (#48285063) Journal

      As well as those "register to vote the day of the election" deals. If you can't be bothered to pre-register to vote, or need to be pestered to vote, then you probably get 100% of your info on candidate's and issues from the mailers and TV/radio commercials.

      I voted in a municipal election in Toronto, Canada earlier this week. Not on the voter's list? No problem--you can register at one of the city clerk's offices. There's five of them, serving a population of 2.6 million people. Oh, and they're open from 8:30am to 4:30pm, Monday to Friday. So that should be a snap to get to, as long as you don't have a full-time job, or a child to care for, or mobility issues. (You don't mind choosing between a couple of extra bus fares and eating lunch, do you?)

      I followed the campaign closely, I was aware of the major issues of the day (as well as the minor issues that didn't get nearly enough coverage), I had strongly-held opinions based in thorough, extended research--and I registered to vote on the day of the election.

      The notion that all people who didn't register in advance are somehow lazy, unworthy, and incompetent is canard that punishes the working poor, the single parents, the handicapped. Looking in from the outside, it's apparent that it's one piece of a larger Republican campaign to disenfranchise as many Democratic-leaning voters as possible. It's a story that is propagated by Fox News, the viewers of which are exemplars of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

      • You don't mind choosing between a couple of extra bus fares and eating lunch, do you?

        I don't know about Toronto's public transit, but even in Fort Wayne's underprovisioned system [fwcitilink.com] (60 minute headway and no service at all at night, on Saturday evenings, or on Sundays or major holidays), riders can buy a pass for unmetered rides within a four and a half week period.

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        Better than Texas, where you have to pay money to vote (the mandated ID must be free to be legal, but it's ok for it to require other paperwork that costs money, so long as the ID itself is free). http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]
      • Newsflash: there's an election in 6 months. If you can't find time to register then it has nothing to do with your schedule, you just can't be bothered.
  • by plopez ( 54068 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:41PM (#48284827) Journal

    Seriously, why and how did this ever get posted? "I got political material in my mailbox in an election year", big deal. How is this stuff that matters or even news? Yeah if you vote is recorded, as is jury duty and car registrations. So what?

    • This is here because it helps to get slashdot's conservative base riled up. This site has been pandering to the right wing for some time now, and this helps with that.
      • But I agree, there is really no substance to this post. Hell, in many countries, Australia for instance, voting is mandatory. It's a crime not to. (You don't have to vote for anyone, but you must turn your ballot in.)

        But heaven forfend that anyone be asked why they didn't vote in an election, that's so.. so... so! A first-world problem to be truly outraged about.

        • Libertarian leaning republicans? Who? Most of them support the NSA, the TSA, other nonsense that violates the constitution, or preemptive warfare. Same with democrats, of course. But where are these libertarian leaning republicans? They all seem like authoritarian scumbags that want to give corporations infinite power over the people to me.

  • None of the above (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kreuzotter ( 13645 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:44PM (#48284845)

    We should have an amendment that every ballot must contain the choice "none of the above". I would go voting every time.

    • We should have an amendment that every ballot must contain the choice "none of the above".

      With teeth:

      If "none of the above" wins, the office is empty until filled by another election, and none of the candidates who lost to "none of the above" may run for that office in the next election for it.

  • by qeveren ( 318805 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @08:44PM (#48284849)

    ... that they're interested to hear peoples' reasons for not voting?

  • Which you can read about here. [redstate.com] And his letter didn't come from a PAC, it came from the Democratic Party [nypost.com].

    I've never gotten anything remotely like this letter from the Republican Party or a conservative PAC (and I probably get well over 200 begging direct-mail solicitations a year).

    I don't see such intimidation tactics as paying off for them...

  • That only Republicans use FUD to get votes?

    Democrats: Vote or we’ll kick your ass
    http://nypost.com/2014/10/30/d... [nypost.com]

    VP Biden Says Republicans Are ‘Going to Put Y’all Back in Chains’
    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po... [go.com]

    Democrats ‘Shame’ Voters With Mailers
    http://online.wsj.com/articles... [wsj.com]

  • Sometimes from the outside we foreigners receive reports on the aggressive voter shaking, like getting phoned automatically.

    Also the problem that some of those campaingers try to conceal or obfuscate their true origin to use a reverse psychological reaction to their advantage.

    This "House Majority PAC" actually from my POV reeks as such a reverse thingy.

    - page design & clumsy argumentation for example

    If I would project myself into your place and would have been more likely to vote democratic than republi

  • Clearly this person registered as a Repub (which is a public record) and they want you to spread the word. The Repubs need recruits in NJ. I live in Virginia where you don't have to declare a party. They try to figure out who their friends are by sending out letters purporting to be a "survey". They have a bar coded serial number on them. It has questions that are the usual drivel such as "Do you believe in socialized medicine?" I just cut out the barcode and send back the post paid envelope with "F
  • If you don't like any of the choices, write your own name in there. That way, you at least voted for someone you trust.

    Get all your friends to vote for you as well, and you might even get mentioned on the evening news.

  • The summary starts by mentioning the House Majority Pac, and then segues to a claim a Democratic Pac wants to push people to vote. The House is, of course, where the Republicans have the majority, not the Democrats. Both sides aren't doing it, one side is.

    • by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Friday October 31, 2014 @11:05PM (#48285367)

      It is misleading, although mostly because the "House Majority PAC" is misleadingly named. I'm not quite sure what they intend to accomplish with that name -- maybe they're trying to make it less obvious which party is benefiting from "outside money"? Their website says that it was formed in 2011, so it's never actually been aligned with the "house majority."

  • If there's no candidates that you want to vote for, there's almost always a candidate you want to vote against. If I don't like any candidate, I put my vote behind the least objectionable one to reduce the chances of the more objectionable ones getting in. It may not help, but at least I'm not just handing the keys over to the guy I hate most.

    And in my book it might not be a bad thing to see a little peer pressure applied. I know a lot of loud complainers about how bad the government and politicians are who

  • There was a study done a few years ago where the researchers found that if they simply sent people a grade showing how their voting compared to their neighbors, and then assured them that they'd do a followup study afterwards, they could increase voter turnout by something like 30% I can't remember who it was or anything...

    I never saw it amount to much until this year. There's a governors race here in Wisconsin and the Democratic challenger Marry Burk is specifically and very heavily targeting women. They'r

  • by DeVilla ( 4563 ) on Saturday November 01, 2014 @12:30AM (#48285647)
    They may not "know" how you vote, but rest assured they would not send you such a letter unless they thought you'd vote the way they'd like you to. If they can get you to influence other votes, all the better.
  • If there are no candidates you wish to vote for, then why should you vote for someone you don't want?

    Well don't vote for someone you don't want.

    But don't just stay at home. If you don't vote at all, you will be interpreted as lazy or disinterested or failing to uphold your civic duty. If you drop a blank ballot, and sign it, that sends a message.

  • Although I loath the right wing there really is no left wing to vote for at all. The US needs some radical changes and no politician is willing to do a single thing that really helps. For example we need to limit reproduction and stop immigration completely or we will suffer deep poverty and ruin. The very last thing we need is growth. We need quality and we need a highly educated population. My vote will do nothing to improve anything. The ignorant masses will continue to have babies t
    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      The US election system is broken.

      • Many locations don't check the ID - and don't match it against a database of voters that have already cast their vote.
      • You are forced to first register in order to be able to vote - a valid ID shall be sufficient.
      • The election system isn't proportional - no new ideas can influence the current stale politics.
      • Electronic voting machines aren't open to public scrutiny - so the outcome from them can't be trusted.
  • by kenwd0elq ( 985465 ) <kenwd0elq@gmail.com> on Saturday November 01, 2014 @02:57AM (#48285987)

    Nothing new here; University of Wisconsin law prof and blogger Ann Althouse related the (apparently quite similar) mailings she received during the 2012 campaign. Those apparently worked, so it isn't surprising that the Dems would try the same dirty tricks again.

  • by davydagger ( 2566757 ) on Saturday November 01, 2014 @08:35PM (#48290147)
    And guess how they are watching you?

    They are getting your information from google and facebook who volunteer the database of personal information they have compiled on you.

    I've also been harrassed by democratic party activists in real life. They even used a few of my old friend's they converted.

    I'll be honest, I might be receptive to a handful of their political ideas, but I feel like I live in a police state where I have had people I used to trust spy on me for soley political purposes.

    If this wasn't bad, its the language some of these people use when on other social networking, and other sites with political discussion, they are the first to deviate from the issues. They use loaded language, and repeat claims that they want to lock up opposition. They are very suspicous, and even the slightest deviation from their platform they will attack, in every offense way up to, but exlcuding violence to punish people who step out of line. if you are to the "right" of their position, your a "republican agent", to the "left", a "dangerous extremist", of both which they openly declare their desire to arrest and harrass by any means neccary.

    They are fairly comfortable with doublespeak, and have one set of values in public, another in private, and the two get further everytime I run into one.

    I'm not a radical because I want to be, or because I think its cool, or any romantic notion. I am a radical because I have no other options really. I am not a radical because I encourage political violence, or spying, or malice, but because I am opposed to it. I am not a radical because I am an extremist, but because I'm not an extremist. I am a radical because its the only way I could really be honest about myself, and the political system of the United States of America. The system has failed. We have a paper democracy, but the net effect is at least one major party(potentially two, I never had any real run ins with the republicans), has their own private gestapo. They use language like war, spies, double agents, and most important "enemy" to describe the opposition in a supposedly democratic system. Most of these people are white privledged hipsters who never been to war, and many if not most would never hack in the army.(I have, I came back home to this.).

    We are not free. We do not have in effect open elections. We don't have rights, we have privledges the government can wave at any time under either "homeland security", or "the war on drugs", even if we are not terrorists or drug dealers.

No skis take rocks like rental skis!

Working...