Disinfo Rehab

In a week those that have elected to vote by mail will be getting their ballots via the USPS, and a flurry of activity from political candidates will begin, mostly via expensive direct mail and TV/radio appeals. That's because the conventional wisdom surrounding mail ballot voters is often stuck in the past, without a real understanding of how mail ballot voting has changed in California.

In the past, "absentee voters" were voters who were either out of town on Election Day, or conscientious voters of a particular political and ethnic persuasion who didn't want to miss a chance to vote. Thus, this mini-electorate was different in its composition, and behavior, than the general voter population.

Most of these voters returned their ballots fairly quickly, and soon became a key part of any winning election strategy. Reaching the voters quickly, with a targeted, conservative to moderate message was often the difference between winning and losing a close race.

Thanks to some changes in California election law, the composition and behavior of people voting by mail has changed. Today, anyone can register to be a permanent mail ballot voter, and not have to keep re-applying for an absentee ballot every election.

With so many people opting for the convenience of mailing their ballot in, this group of voters is no longer monolithic. More importantly, the behavior of these voters has changed. Instead of quickly filling out the ballot and returning it within a week or so of receiving said ballot, voters are often holding on to them longer, due in large part to the huge number of ballot initiatives one has to wade through.

In June's Super Idiotic Primary, where we had primaries full of Unknowns and a dogpile of initiatives, many elections officials were reporting abysmally low rates of return of mail ballots. People were hanging on to them until the last minute and creating an avalanche of ballots in the postal system - often delaying the final count in close elections for days, even weeks!

So what is the lesson for politicians and their associated politickers? Simple - the nature of mail ballot voters ("absentee voter" is no longer an accurate term) has changed significantly, and the strategy to reach them needs to change as well. Trying to dump a pile of mail and TV on voters the exact day they will be receiving their ballot in the mail will result only in ensuring that the voter, overwhelmed with campaign appeals, will not hear their message with any clarity.

For smaller campaigns or underfunded races, this can be fatal. By blowing a significant amount of money on October 6th, the same day, they may lose out on a chance to send a targeted message out more than once. Worse, unless they're producing something that truly sticks out from the pack, the voter is going to send their piece of paper into the recycling bin, unread. (Besides, Battlestar Galactica premieres that night, and many smart, sophisticated voters will be glued to their TVs, not the mailbox. :-) )

Instead of rushing to send Yet Another Piece of Paper in the junk mail blizzard on October 6th, campaigns (especially those without huge piles of cash) should consider sending their message to mail ballot voters out a few days later, since it's unlikely the majority of ballots will be returned within a week.

They should also consider alternative methods of reaching registered voters, such as Advocacy Inc.'s innovative email system and email an interactive email to mail ballot voters. It's a safe bet that most campaigns won't be doing anything like this, so the message is likely to stand out. And, if there's a level of interactivity as well, it's going to create more of a memorable impression than a plain vanilla postcard.

Another way for campaigns to reach these voters cheaply and effectively is the use of automated calls, such as those provided by Flying Colors USA, based in the East Bay. Traditionally, automated calls are used for Get Out The Vote (GOTV) appeals at the end of the campaign. However, they can also be very effective at reminding mail ballot voters of a candidate's message during the week after they've received their ballot - especially if they feature a prominent supporter or member of the community.

With all the large scale campaigns being waged, from US Senate, to statewide initiatives, to local offices, voters will have an unprecedented wave of conventional political warfare aimed at their mailbox and television. For candidates to be effective, especially those without untold riches, being creative will be essential to cut through the clutter and reach the voters they need on Election Day.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For those of you just joining us, there's a rather contentious battle in San Francisco's Supervisorial District 6, where incumbent Supervisor Daly is running for re-election. The campaign is already getting quite heated, as some people in Our Fair City are not fans of Mr. Daly and his effectiveness as a legislator getting laws passed based on the platform he clearly enuniciated as a candidate (with 83% of the vote) in 2000. Ultimately, it will be the voters who will decide if Mr. Daly should continue to serve in office.

The race also offers a case study in the Law of Unintended Consequences with regards to "political reform" that is peddled by incumbents and assorted hangers-on who try to "game" the system to get the results they like - and how such "gaming" ends up causing more problems for candidates and the voters who are being asked to decide who should represent them in office.

It was laughable to see the Bay Guardian's complaint-atorial today, bemoaning the rise of independent expenditure committees which are being funded to oppose Mr. Daly's re-election, citing in particular the fact he is limited by law to spending only $83,000 on his own race, while a host of independent committees (all of whom have the same name but are numbered 1-6 to maximize their effect) can spend what they like.

Why the comedy? Because it was the Bay Guardian that unequivocally supported the limits and laws that are now limiting Mr. Daly's ability to respond to campaign attacks!

That's the funny part. The not-so-funny part is when the Guardian asks the Board of Supervisors to immediately amend the law so that this "can't happen." Now it's time to take a large Wait A Minute and Think pill, before more new laws (and more unintended consequences) result.

That's because the folks who are opposing Mr. Daly aren't really doing anything wrong per se. Super-nasty campaigns are never pleasant to watch, and to be sure, the folks who oppose Mr. Daly would seem to have a visceral hatred for the man, almost more than the leftiest lefty who hates Our President. That said, these folks took a look at the laws "as is" and have a smart attorney who found perfectly legal ways to operate within the system to do what it is they feel they need to do to get their message out.

True, it would be nice if someone that committed to their cause would make it clearer to the voters as to who they are or why they feel this particular way of doing things is the most constructive, but the "law" as written does not require it.

Now, the Bay Guardian may not like that, but the Guardian needs to take responsibility for the fact that it was their support, and the support of like-minded progressives, who made this all possible and helped create the situation that Mr. Daly's campaign finds itself in. It is unfortunate that one side seems to have the upper hand in terms of resources, but thanks to the poorly written law, that's what voters are stuck with.

For years most of the so-called "reform" laws were based primarily to help certain politicians in the past get elected (or try to get elected Mayor with no money), and the laws passed were based on perceived excesses seen in local races in the 1990s. Now that times have changed, as have the players, those laws are now showing their limits - and their unintended consequences.

There is a better way, of course. San Francisco could take a torch to the myriad of complex and contradictory laws, and start all over again. Instead of trying to "game" the system to help any one side or incumbent, it's time to get some of the best and brightest to come up with a simple framework that benefits the only person these laws are supposed to benefit - you, the voter/citizen.

A truly honest system would be really simple, really easy to implement for both candidates and political groups, and most importantly, give you the information you need to make your own decisions, including:

-A reasonable campaign donation limit to political candidates and non-aligned "independent expenditure" committees, pegged to the rise in the cost of living so the limits don't get eaten by inflation;

-Full and total disclosure online and at City Hall and branch libraries of all donations and expenditures within 24 hours of each so that citizens and others can see who's doing what, when, and how;

-An easy to understand common sense disclosure of who and what is paying for each piece of campaign material the voter sees, with a total disclosure available online, and at City Hall or a branch library.

That's it. No gaming the system for one side, no complex forms to fill out, no need to hire a lawyer, an accountant, a treasurer, and a priest to pray to God you're not gonna get racked up on a technicality.

Sure, it may make some emotional folks on the left and right upset when Their Guy loses. Boo Hoo. It's about time hardcore partisans on all sides realize that no one is owed or entitled to a win in a democracy and that gaming the system with hack laws does all of us a disservice. So long as the elections are fairly run, the winner is not any one side, but the people of San Francisco.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 11:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Yesterday it was announced that "Chemo", a little puppy adopted by a cancer patient at UCSF Children's Hospital was returned to its owner after being stolen by thugs last week. I was glad to hear the dog was returned - but the story served as Yet Another Reminder that San Francisco has become a more dangerous city to live in. If a kid with cancer can't be assured his dog is safe at the hospital, you begin to wonder - just who the Hell is safe?

Last week, San Francisco had a parade of high profile incidents, starting with a record number of murders in one day, followed by a nutcase who managed to hit and run 14 people on City streets.

Once this happened, the Disinfo Spin Machine kicked in. The Media covered the "news" in detail. The Mayor made a point of comforting the victims of the hit and run guy on site (and on TV). And predictably, the coverage and the chatter turned away from hard questions and to politicking, spinning, and making sure people "felt better" after the latest Big Crime Wave.

The elected officials in charge could be counted on to respond to the week's events in the Voice of the West to show that indeed, they care. Both Mayor Newsom and District Attorney Kamala Harris made sure to have op-ed pieces in the paper, with soothing rhetoric to calm an alarmed public.

Feel good speeches and columns are all well and good, but the fact is that you, as a citizen, are no safer today than after these golden words were smithed in the PR department of City Hall.

If you or a loved one were to be mugged, murdered, or robbed, the chances of the perpetrator being caught, much less prosecuted is not likely to happen. If there is a "prosecution" it is more likely to be of the "wrist slap" variety. No amount of politicking can change that - nor could it. No amount of talk ever stopped a murderer, and no stack of policy papers for a re-election campaign ever put a bad guy in jail.

Put it another way - The son of the Secretary of State can get murdered and the DA's response is to let him out with a wrist slap (and later killed someone else!) Now think about what would happen if you had a similar tragedy in your family. Hard to spin away, isn't it?

Our punditocracy provides no illumination on the subject. The people who hate the "progressives" blamed everything on them, because everything bad is Their Fault. The people who hate the Mayor and "the Man"offered the flip side of the coin.

More talk, more chatter, more disinfo, more nonsense. Meanwhile, the City burns and the priorities of city and leaders show signs that spin and chatter have taken the place of common sense policy - and that is dangerous.

Our City Leaders can't seem to find any police officers to stop murders in the crime-ridden parts of our City, but we can send 6 cops to stand around to pick their noses and bark "homeland security" rhetoric to to 15 paying riders/young artists who wished to ride MUNI (and send a police officer on a motorcycle to tail them as they rode a bus instead!)

At the same time, they give law-breaking Critical Mass a nice taxpayer-funded police escort for their lawbreaking party. The irony being, of course, that this dual-misplacement of manpower happened just days before that record number of homicides on August 28th. I have yet to hear the spin and chatter than explain to me why this was a sensible use of police resources. Too bad no one is asking Chief Fong or Mayor Newsom that question.

The scariest spin job, however, is the one that that keeps an unqualified political hack in charge of disaster response and security in our City. She is short on experience - but she is adroit at the art of spin and double-talk when it comes to explaining why a top terrorist target isn't getting the money it needs to be safe. Her spin powers are wonderful - I suppose her rhetorical feats will be of great comfort should an earthquake or terrorist attack hit our City and result in death and destruction under her watch.

In light of all this, I wonder why it is our Mayor continues to stand by this person, and use the power of his mighty PR machine to keep her in her (well paid) job. I'd hate to think it will take a horrible event to scrutinize this decision.

These are just some examples, there are plenty more. But now is not the time for heaping on the rhetoric and engaging in chatter. We need people who will do something real to make sure our city is safer.

So the next time you see another crime wave in our city, and the attendant chatter and press conferences, pick up the phone, send off an email, or write a letter to your elected officials and ask them to show what they are doing, instead of the usual talk talk talk. Perhaps if enough people take a "show me" attitude towards this mess, something will get done.

Our City's leaders and citizens will all be the better for it as well. Ultimately discussions about crime and security should not be about "gotcha" politics and scoring points - we can't afford that anymore. We need to get something done soon, or see our City become a place none of us would want to live in.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)