Uneasy compromises
Oct. 24th, 2006 04:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eiriasI hate canvassers. I am one of those people who will pretend not to be home when they come knocking, even if it is painfully obvious that I am home because we've made eye contact. This is true no matter what organization they're with -- even if I already agree with that organization.
It's not that I shy away from discussion or even disagreement. Oh no. I have been known to have trouble keeping my mouth shut in discussions on topics I care about, even when I really ought to. And discussion is all the more interesting when people disagree with me (given some modicum of politeness, or at least intelligent failure to be polite, on their behalf). That's not the problem.
No; the problem is an extension of why I don't like telemarketers, sleazy pickup lines, missionaries, charity phone banks, or those people in malls who walk around with free samples. The problem is that I am royally allergic to having stuff sold to me -- especially when the person is a stranger, and when the space in which it is done is not public, but my own. The suspicion of an agenda renders me incapable of believing anything my caller says, regardless of what he says -- and I invariably become so angry at this attempted domination that my eyes start to twitch in my head. I don't know why this is, exactly, or what rational basis it has, but I know that it is a deep trait (if a flaw, as it may be) and that there are other people like this. Some of the readers I am fondest of, I suspect, are like this to some degree.
Now, there is a certain political issue on the November ballot in Wisconsin about which I care deeply -- one which inspired me to go from devout to apostate a decade ago, one that affects coworkers and acquaintances and dear friends -- and I have been rather stumped figuring out how to help fight the good fight, when most of the work that needs to be done involves, well, canvassing. No powerlessness is worse than the self-imposed kind.
So I have struck a compromise with myself. As we progress toward the election, the canvassing work will turn from general door-to-door "education/polling" to more targeted "get-out-the-vote" forays [1]. And I look at that task and think ... well ... it's still invasive, which I hate; but it invades the space of allies only, and asks not for money, nor time, nor submission, but merely the simple act of voting. Maybe I can do this. I will still make people angry, I am sure -- people like me who see strangers on the doorstep and at once take steps to guard themselves emotionally from being sold a bill of goods -- but hell, there are no moral paths in this world, just bad ones and worse ones. In contemplating a future of worse, maybe I can handle being a little bad.
[1] There's a second issue here, I guess, which is whether targeted get-out-the-vote campaigns are ethical in the first place, since the obvious purpose is to sway the election in a particular direction. But I am going to ignore that complicated question, because right now it is How Things Are Done, and because I have too much else to worry about. (On the other hand, if I observe any evidence of this organization engaging in vote suppression, I will personally kick Mr. Tate in the teeth.)
It's not that I shy away from discussion or even disagreement. Oh no. I have been known to have trouble keeping my mouth shut in discussions on topics I care about, even when I really ought to. And discussion is all the more interesting when people disagree with me (given some modicum of politeness, or at least intelligent failure to be polite, on their behalf). That's not the problem.
No; the problem is an extension of why I don't like telemarketers, sleazy pickup lines, missionaries, charity phone banks, or those people in malls who walk around with free samples. The problem is that I am royally allergic to having stuff sold to me -- especially when the person is a stranger, and when the space in which it is done is not public, but my own. The suspicion of an agenda renders me incapable of believing anything my caller says, regardless of what he says -- and I invariably become so angry at this attempted domination that my eyes start to twitch in my head. I don't know why this is, exactly, or what rational basis it has, but I know that it is a deep trait (if a flaw, as it may be) and that there are other people like this. Some of the readers I am fondest of, I suspect, are like this to some degree.
Now, there is a certain political issue on the November ballot in Wisconsin about which I care deeply -- one which inspired me to go from devout to apostate a decade ago, one that affects coworkers and acquaintances and dear friends -- and I have been rather stumped figuring out how to help fight the good fight, when most of the work that needs to be done involves, well, canvassing. No powerlessness is worse than the self-imposed kind.
So I have struck a compromise with myself. As we progress toward the election, the canvassing work will turn from general door-to-door "education/polling" to more targeted "get-out-the-vote" forays [1]. And I look at that task and think ... well ... it's still invasive, which I hate; but it invades the space of allies only, and asks not for money, nor time, nor submission, but merely the simple act of voting. Maybe I can do this. I will still make people angry, I am sure -- people like me who see strangers on the doorstep and at once take steps to guard themselves emotionally from being sold a bill of goods -- but hell, there are no moral paths in this world, just bad ones and worse ones. In contemplating a future of worse, maybe I can handle being a little bad.
[1] There's a second issue here, I guess, which is whether targeted get-out-the-vote campaigns are ethical in the first place, since the obvious purpose is to sway the election in a particular direction. But I am going to ignore that complicated question, because right now it is How Things Are Done, and because I have too much else to worry about. (On the other hand, if I observe any evidence of this organization engaging in vote suppression, I will personally kick Mr. Tate in the teeth.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: GOTV
Date: 2006-10-28 04:21 am (UTC)And even were none of that true, the courts have judged that you do not have a guaranteed right to privacy for how you vote. If you're disabled and your voting location is not fully accessible, they are allowed to be considered accessible if they will have somebody physically go out to meet the person and ask the person for the vote and have that person tell some stranger their vote, which is then cast on there behalf.
Nobody should be forced to do that.
Yes, I know, you'll say that those things should also be fixed. And yes, I agree. But until things like that are fixed, it's kind of pointless to consider mandatory voting.
Re: GOTV
Date: 2006-10-28 01:47 pm (UTC)I wonder how they do it in the places where voting is compulsory, like Australia.
Re: GOTV
Date: 2006-10-28 06:28 pm (UTC)Re: GOTV
Date: 2006-10-30 02:26 pm (UTC)Re: GOTV
Date: 2006-10-30 08:13 pm (UTC)I understand frustration with people who couldn't be bothered about politics, but something just seems ... wrong about this. Aside from the issue of principle, on which I suspect I and compulsory voting proponents won't ever see eye to eye, there's the issue of practicality: does anyone actually think that threatening ignorant adults with legal consequences for not voting will improve electoral outcomes?? People don't vote because some combination of A) they don't think their vote matters and B) they find politics boring and C) they are suspicious of politicians' motives. If we had compulsory voting, A) everyone's vote would be worth less because we'd be adding essentially random or purely-partisan noise to the system, B) there would be no incentive for anybody to try to convince citizens of the importance of voting by making The Issues seem relevant to average folk, and C) all the people who didn't want to vote will be resentful of the political muscle that's been exercised to make them do so, and will grow even more cynical about politics.
I vote regularly, and I try to stay informed, and I believe that not voting is in most circumstances a poor way to make a statement; but if someone successfully introduced compulsory voting to my district I'd vote a straight "FUCK YOU" ticket every time. If you want me to care about politics, show me why I should care -- don't threaten me with a time out and no allowance for two weeks.