George V. Reilly's Technical Blog

Voter Registration

Two days ago, I helped Washington Citizen Action (WCA) register some voters in the International District of Seattle. I'm somewhat shy, but having a clipboard and a purpose in hand helped me overcome my unease about soliciting strangers in the street. In a little over an hour, I successfully registered 3.5 voters, which my trainer considered better than average for a first-time registrar.

A lot of organizations are registering voters. About 100 million eligible voters failed to participate in the 2000 election. When you consider how narrow the margins the were in Florida, it's clear that getting just a tiny fraction of them involved could swing elections. It seems like a better strategy than going after the tiny sliver of undecided voters. Right-wing organizations are registering voters (four million conservative Christians are thought not to have voted in 2000), as are progressive organizations like America Coming Together (ACT).

WCA is explicitly non-partisan and is aiming to register 60,000 new voters in Washington State before the November elections. So far, they've registered 35,000 people. Some are first-time voters, some are people who didn't update their registration after moving. As someone who became a U.S. citizen last year and who got to vote for the first time in seventeen years, the act of voting is important to me. Naturally, I'd prefer that all the new voters support a progressive slate, but I'm just glad to see them engaged at all.

The training was useful and left me better prepared to approach voters. Let me summarize what I learned.

First, approach the person in a friendly manner, making eye contact and showing a blank Mail-In Voter Registration Form on top of your manila folder or clipboard. Say something like, "Hi, we're registering people to vote today," or, "Hello, we're trying to register 60,000 new voters."

Next, ask them for their last name. This supposedly works better than asking them if they're a registered voter, because it requires them to stop and think just for a moment. A simple yes-or-no question like "Are you a registered voter?" is more likely to get a brushoff.

If they are ineligible to vote (too young, not a citizen, not a Washington state resident, or a felon whose rights haven't been restored), thank them for their time. If they are a registered voter, check that they're registered at their current address.

Some people are discouraged about voting and can't see any difference between the candidates. Encourage them to think about local issues: gubernatorial races, school bonds, ballot initiatives.

If the person still wants to proceed, start filling out the form for them. The WCA prefers that you maintain "clipboard control." There are some subtleties on the form. The half-voter of the 3.5 voters that I registered came about because one woman had to jump on a bus before I had finished her form, and I didn't think to hand her the form as she left.

The WCA encourages people to tick Yes on the Ongoing Absentee Request (would like to receive absentee ballots for all future elections). People who have absentee ballots are more likely to vote, because they don't have to make a special effort to get to the polls on election day, and they have more leisure to study the ballot. An absentee ballot also provides the much needed paper trail that makes many people so worried about electronic voting.

There seems to be new efforts to suppress the vote in Florida and elsewhere, but that doesn't seem to be going on here in Washington state.

I'm going out again tomorrow to register voters at Seattle Hempfest.

Comments

Richard Tallent said:

If conservative Christians are to be disparaged with extremist terms like "right-wing," it would certainlty be fair to do the same with groups like extremist Soros-funded groups like ACT, rather than merely calling them "progressive."

The WCA, likewise, is clearly a liberal activist group, as shown by the issues on their own site (http://www.wacitizenaction.org/about/accomplishments.htm).
Don't call your efforts non-partisan when you are clearly a partisan. I'm sure you'll find plenty of Republicans to register at the Hempfest.

FWIW, I'm a libertarian-leaning independent, and I find the whole idea distasteful of abusing the Absentee voter system for those who are simply too lazy to get their asses to the polls on election day like those of us who actually care about our democracy. I won't disagree about the paper trail.
# August 22, 2004 11:06 AM

George V. Reilly said:

I wasn't aware that the Religious Right considered right-wing an epithet.

I agree that WCA has a progressive agenda.

But. I signed a pledge that explicitly said that I would not engage in partisan political discussion while registering voters and that my WCA supervisor could discipline me or dismiss me on the spot if I was caught so doing. The trainer was quite emphatic on the point.

Many people find it a struggle to find the time to go vote on a workday. I think voter turnout would be higher if elections were held at weekends, though it's never going to be 100%, due to widespread apathy.

Australia and other countries have compulsory voting: you are required to show up at the polls. Clearly turnout is much higher. http://www.aceproject.org/main/english/es/esc07a.htm has an interesting discussion.
# August 22, 2004 2:06 PM

matthew said:

wow. talk about looking for bias and bigotry where none exists.

Right- and left-wing are descriptive terms, like describing a car as brown. They are not extremist terms or derogatory. Christian organizations in America are legitimately described as right-wing.
# August 22, 2004 3:00 PM

George V. Reilly said:

matthew sez:
> Christian organizations in America are legitimately described as right-wing.

Yes and no. Christians fall all across the political spectrum. But conservative Christians are more vocal and organized than moderate or progressive Christians.
# August 22, 2004 8:39 PM

Richard Tallent said:

Using "right-wing" for one side and "progressive" for another is intentionally biased wording. "Progressive" may not represent "progress" to everyone, and using the term to describe anything but tax brackets is suggestive of a particular (leftist) political agenda.

+1 on signing a pledge.
+1 on weekend voting, I think it'd be great for everyone, especially the poor.
-1 on compulsory voting. Ignorant votes are made worse with the addition of apathetic, disgruntled, ignorant ones. Turnout is not the goal of a democracy, engaged and educated citizen self-rule is. Turnout is a side-effect of a highly-engaged public, not a goal in and of itself.
-1 on the WCA being truly non-partisan in its efforts. I'm certain the targeted neighborhoods and groups are those that traditionally would agree with the WCA's other actions.

I applaud your efforts, wish everyone who was born here cared as much as you do. Only trying to, as a Christian independent, point out some bias I saw in a post purporting to have altruistic motives. We might agree on more political ideals than disagree, but a spade is a spade.
# August 23, 2004 1:52 AM

George V. Reilly said:

You object when I use "right-wing" to describe the other side, saying it's disparaging. You object when I use "progressive" to describe my side, saying (in effect) that it's too positive. Sheesh.

I'll stipulate that "right-wing" and "progressive" are not symmetrical. I hadn't put a lot of thought into the phrasing.

Would you expect WCA to actively work against its own interests by signing up conservative voters in the exurbs?

The people I was approaching the other day at a major bus stop and a side entrance to the train station were commuters from all over the Puget Sound area. I really have no idea what their affiliations were, but some of them should have been Republicans, since the Eastside is more conservative than Seattle itself.

Hempfest, however, was definitely a skewed demographic: lots of anti-Bush signs, a number of Kerry supporters, some Naderites, and a few anti-war-on-drugs libertarians. If there were Republicans present (must have been some in a crowd that size), they weren't flaunting it.
# August 23, 2004 3:57 AM

sirshannon said:

"You object when I use "right-wing" to describe the other side, saying it's disparaging. You object when I use "progressive" to describe my side, saying (in effect) that it's too positive. Sheesh. "


yeah, that's the whole point. You're using negative discriptions for Side A and positive descriptions for side B. On purpose.
# August 23, 2004 3:15 PM
Leave a Comment

(required) 

(required) 

(optional)

(required)