of PACs, politics, and parties

[laurenhat]

Strangely, given my dislike of mingling with crowds of strangers, my loathing of making phone calls to strangers, my irritation at most phone calls that I receive from people I don't know, and my general disinclination to host things, I am thinking of hosting a MoveOn.org party on 3/2 to gather Obama supporters together and phone people in Texas to

Comments

[lightning_rose]

The last time someone called me for a political cause, I informed them that even though I originally agreed with their position I was going to vote against it because I loathe telemarketing in any way, shape, or form. The silence on the line for the few seconds before the apology was deafening.

[cos]

That's a classic "biting off your nose to spite your face" kind of action, though. It is absolutely not going to make campaigns stop calling people, because loads of solid research shows that the number of people who actually change their votes away as a result are dwarfed by the much much higher number of votes gained. On the other hand, by deciding to vote against your own interests, you're hurting yourself, not someone else (though you probably made the volunteer who called you feel bad in a personal way, which probably also hurt). You gain nothing; you lose the power of your vote. Bad deal for everyone involved.

[lightning_rose]

Did I say how I actually voted, or how the vote turned out?

[fennel]

I think using the word "inform" (in "I informed them that even though I originally agreed...") suggests that you were saying something true.

Like this:

A: "Walking home today, I went up to this guy on the street and informed him that this hair was on fire."

B: "Wow, how did that happen?"

A: "Oh, it wasn't really on fire. I just informed him that it was."

Doesn't work for me.

[laurenhat]

A. I think I agree with your linguistic judgment.

B. That made me giggle.

C. At this point I'm somewhat dismayed by this flamewar of a thread, and while it's your choice, you might want to just ignore it, no matter how useful or amusing your linguistic insights. Frankly this whole conversation is making me depressed.

[cos]

I should also add that this is not "telemarketing", it's political communication. It's one of those things you have to deal with as part of having a democracy. Democracy can't work without campaign-voter communication. Pleasant or unpleasant, it's a key requirement of our system of government, and it's better than the unpleasant things that come with other forms of government.

This specific form of campaign-voter communication (phone banking) is necessary because a large majority of the population in the US a) don't vote in most elections, and b) don't participate in electoral politics in any way other than occasionally voting. If we had a more politically engaged population, voter communication could shift to other forms. Do your part by a) voting in most elections if you're eligible, and b) participating in electoral politics on a regular basis, all year every year.

[lightning_rose]

Yes, it's telemarketing, and no, it's not something I have to deal with.

And don't give me a lecture on civic responsibility, I voted *against* Dick Nixon before you were potty trained.

[cos]

That's irrelevant. I still think you're wrong, and age has nothing to do with it.

Nevertheless, your reaction to that poor phone caller had no good effect for anyone. It's certainly not going to make any campaign even think about not doing calls. I've called at least several thousand people for campaigns over the years, and I think I got a reaction like yours once or twice. The number of times I got grateful or positive reactions is too high to have kept track of.

However, as unusual as your reaction is, it's still a drag on democracy, your annoyance notwithstanding. Suffer the phone calls, it's a very small price even if you don't like them. Just say "I'm not voting for [name], thank you" and they won't call you again (though if you actually *do* support that candidate, telling their campaign that you don't does some damage to their strategy so you're still hurting yourself, might as well tell them you are voting for [name] instead).

[mactavish]

I'm more inclined to say, "I don't talk about the election to strangers." It's not the caller's business, really, who I'm voting for.

[cos]

Depends on what you mean by "their business". It certainly concerns them and matters to them. You have the right to choose whether to tell them or not tell them, obviously. But that's a choice you make, not an obligation to say nothing. Generally, you do a lot more good by telling them than by not doing so, unless you feel intimdated or fear repercussions for giving the wrong answer. Also, if you tell them (or at least identify yourself and make clear that you're never going to tell them) they won't call again; if you just say "I don't talk about the election to strangers" from their point of view that's the same as never having called you in the first place - they don't even know if they've necessarily reached the person they intended to reach.

Assuming you don't feel intimidated or fear repercussions for giving the wrong answer, why do you feel it is better for you not to tell them? What do you gain from that (or lose by telling them) ?

[mactavish]

I'm missing the part where I said it was better for me not to tell them. I simply don't. I don't feel a strong urge to help their data gathering, and I've really never changed my mind based on a phone call, in the decades I've been voting.

I remember resenting call screening when it was first invented, but I don't anymore.

laurenhat: This is not to say I don't think you should phone bank. Many people are absolutely fine with it, and depend on it for useful information.

[cos]

You didn't directly say you think it's better, but you did say that faced with the choice of whether to tell them, you always choose not to. That strongly implies that you think it's better not to tell, than to tell. Is that not the case?

Helping with their data gathering: If that's your motivation, then you'd decline to state your preference when the call is coming from a campaign you oppose, but would tell if it's from a campaign you support, because that would help that campaign do better. Since you suggest that you *always* choose not to tell, it doesn't sound like this motivation is the full story. So I'm still curious why you make the choice that you do.

I don't mean this in any way to imply that your choice is not valid. I do believe choosing differently would be better, but since I don't know your reasons, I accept that I may be missing something, and that's why I'm asking.

[mactavish]

I'm not that interested in convincing you, actually. I know the way I do it is fine. Yours is quite probably also fine.

[cos]

I am not looking to be convinced or to change what I do. I am looking to learn about why you do what you do.

Which you don't have to tell me about, either, but I hoped you would.

[laurenhat]

*nod* I think in this case, due to the weirdness of the Texas voting system, it could be a particularly useful time to phone bank. And hopefully people would find it more helpful and less of a hassle. Not sure, though.

[mactavish]

What's weird about the Texas voting system?