Washblog || PCOs and the Voter Database

PCOs and the Voter Database

By m3047
Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 01:12:48 PM PST
Section: Diary Topic: Democrats

[editor's note]I'm putting this front page late in the game for a couple of reasons. First, the comments in here create a really good public document on what people are thinking on this -- lots of important ideas. It also occurs to me that Washblog could be really well used for people to share resolutions they plan to introduce at this coming Saturday's caucus. Finally, while I don't share the authors level of concern over possible misuse of PCO data (I agree that most of this data is public, anyway) -- I do feel it's an important one and that the associated trust issue (asking people to "collect data" on their neighbors) is also of central importance. [Noemie]

Precinct Committee Officers canvass their precincts prior to the elections.

Prior to elections, the electorate is inundated with doorbellers and phone calls. Is it any stretch to say people get a little tired of it?

The Party provides information to campaigns; people know that. But exactly what information is provided, and how many of the solicitations are based on information provided by the Party?

PCOs canvass with a walking list provided by the State Party. They are supposed to update this information as well as gather additional information, and this information is supposed to be fed back into the database.

The Party provides this database to campaigns. What do they do with it? What are the implications for privacy? How does the Party decide what information to collect, and what information to share?

The people in my precinct don't want to give out information because they don't know and I can't tell them. So far, the State Party hasn't been helpful in resolving this.

Therefore this is the resolution which I am bringing to my precinct caucus:

PROPOSED CAUCUS RESOLUTION AFFIRMING RESPECT FOR THE ELECTORATE

Voter distrust certainly contributes to the lack of involvement and sense of disenfranchisement. As a Precinct Committee Officer (PCO), how can I reassure voters that their opinions matter and that their personal information and opinions will be respected when I lack any such assurances from the Party, and any expectation of privacy is disregarded?

Whereas...

PCOs are the Party's first point of contact with the electorate by law and custom. PCOs are the lowest rung on the elected official food chain. In addition to Party-facing duties defined by state law and the bylaws of the Parties, PCOs are expected to canvass their precincts prior to elections and to conduct precinct caucuses and other information gathering activities related to policy formation and organization.

The electorate grows tired of the onslaught of appeals for monetary contributions, assistance, and simply information. The electorate wonders: how many such appeals are based on information provided by the Democratic Party?

That many such requests are deceptively presented. For instance based on extensive databases they already know when they call you how you are likely to vote; but they get you to answer in the affirmative because it's basic sales science that once you say yes to something, you're more likely to say yes to something else; and they craft a sympathetic message, targeted at us as individuals, for the same reasons. Any information which is volunteered goes into the database to be brought out next time. Surveys, likewise, may seem to be anonymous but may in fact be nothing more than thinly veiled attempts to glean additional personal information which is not utilized in an aggregate fashion but is in fact tracked with the individual voter. Out of all of the people who come to our doors or call us, how many leave without making an appeal for money? After the election is over they disappear, not to be heard from again until the next election cycle.

Law is being made to protect personal information and yet the political apparatus exempts itself from oversight. Examples include FCRA, HIPAA, and lesser-known but increasingly important efforts to control disclosure of personal information which might lead to identity theft or telephone companies from selling telephone call records. These are egregious examples, however unfair and one-sided disclosure also affects fair dealing, and can have impacts on personal lives regardless of whether discrimination based on political opinions or personal circumstance is legal or not.

The electorate rightfully concludes that the political apparatus does not respect its privacy or opinions and therefore protects itself in the only way it can: by witholding information and declining to participate. Problems with and questions about the voting apparatus itself do not help matters.

Be it therefore resolved...

We reaffirm our respect for the electorate.

We reaffirm our appreciation for those who are contributing in the ways in which they are able.

We reaffirm that while PCOs are public officials, the general electorate is not. It is composed of private citizens who are justified in an expectation of privacy.

We observe that if political activities are worthy of exemption, then the practices followed represent a referendum to the people concerning the character, motives and objectives of those involved in politics, and rightfully so.

We call on the Democratic Party to consider that the individual members of the electorate may have different expectations and desires concerning information sharing and to develop responsible policy in this area.

We call for a clear written statement on personal information gathering and dissemination policies and practices, addressing:

* The circumstances under which such information may be shared, and with whom.
* When such information may be aggregated, and what other information it may be aggregated with.
* Tracking and reporting concerning whom information is shared with, reasons for doing so, and whether such information is provided for free or in return for monetary or other consideration.
* How individual citizens may review such information, correct mistakes, and control the use of their personal information.
* Tracking and reporting concerning abuses of information management guidelines.

We call for said policy and the information pertaining thereto to be shared with PCOs so that they in turn can deal fairly with the electorate and speak with confidence and integrity about the Democratic Party.

< 2006, A Year of Transition... | We of course already know that the Chamber of Commerce is not our friend. >

PCOs and the Voter Database | 64 comments (64 topical)

PCOs are part of the public that info is being

gathered on. We are the "targets" as much as anyone. And I feel ok about the info on me and my husband that is in the Voterfile -- and how I see it being used. I actually get very few solicitations by phone.

Most of the info in that file is what's publicly available -- and I'm glad to update that (who lives where, etc.) I'm also very happy when people tell me -- don't bother me - to note that they should be left alone. That is useful info to share with others -- for the Party as well as for those who want no contact.

That said, I do see issues here that are not being dealt with by the Party as well as I think they could be. I've figured out how I feel about information gathering on my own and come up with my own policies independently. And they differ from what the PCO "instructions" say. I think that very conservative and protective policies -- that explicitly recognize the crucial role of trust -- should be centrally created (on a national level) and that all PCOs should be trained in them, required to follow them.

I almost never put what is shared in conversations in the Voterfile -- because I place loyalty to people and principles -- and relationships and trust -- at the top of my list. That means I don't not that someone is a Dem or Republican unless they're public about it (yard signs, etc.) or I know they're OK with sharing that. Of course, I note information for myself in my hand-written notes so that I remember interactions, issues, preferences for future interactions. And I bring back general feedback to candidates or to meetings -- without sharing names, etc.

I'm not the only PCO who does this. I think most are protective of other people's privacy and the trust that they have with their neighbors. But I believe this should be Party policy -- not something for individuals to figure out on their own. This trust should be explicitly recognized. It's a crucial factor. There does need to be soul searching done on this -- on the level of the national party.

My belief is that data gathering, apart from publicly-available information-- should be done outside the PCO encounter and with complete transparency. If the concern is raising money and keeping in contact with people, trust is a much better basis, anyway.

This is an extremely important issue and it's good you brought it up.

by noemie maxwell on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 11:26:42 PM PST

* 8 5.00 2 *

Ditto !! well - said nicer and by rmdSeaBos, 02/27/2006 07:19:06 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

This PCO's Pledge of Quality

Every caucus attendee for precinct SEA 36-1295 who furnishes information beyond the minimum required to establish themselves as a voter and resident of the precinct (to validate themselves as an attendee) will do so with the full knowledge that the Party intends to provide the information to campaigns and other causes or organizations as it sees fit.

I will ensure that they are aware that this is the case.

If, knowing this, they wish to provide information such as a telephone number or e-mail address, I will encourage them to do so and thank them for doing it.

Therefore the Party has my assurance that people furnishing such information wish to be contacted and will indeed welcome such contact.

[Notwithstanding that I intend to put my resolution forward, and will be surprised if it doesn't pass, I wanted to point out that there is, indeed, a good side to full disclosure. -- FWM]

by m3047 on Fri Mar 03, 2006 at 05:13:18 PM PST

* 58 5.00 1 *

Dude, there really is no reason to create paranoia

You've seen the WSDCC database. It's crap. It's big, it's useful, but it's extremely incomplete, not detailed, and rife with errors.

WSDCC should disclose all the people they sell their information to on their web site and -- although it's completely impossible -- they should have their customers make some assurance that they are not going to sell the data to third parties. It's not possible or reasonable to assure that, but they should go through the motions.

HIPAA and these other concerns just don't apply. When your doctor examines you and gets tests done for the purpose (which you contracted with her) of curing you, she should not sell the information produced to other people. That's what HIPAA takes care of. The Democratic Party only collects information to use in campaigns for public officials. Everyone who talks to the Dems is talking to someone in the campaign business. There is no re-purposing of the data. It is always for the same purpose - campaigns for public office. Again, the purpose of a grassroots campaign is to facilitate the communication between very broad sectors of the public. That means giving names, addresses, phone numbers and basic political information to thousands of volunteers.

Doctors are required by law to keep communications private. They are private bussinesspeople conducting private business. You just don't have private communications with the Democratic Party. It is, by definition, a public entity.

If people you doorknock don't want to be called by campaigns they don't like, that's just too bad. The "imposition" of getting some robo-calls is trivial compared to the benefits of democracy. If they want to be sure the Dems don't sell their name to Coca-Cola, (well, Coca-Cola already has their name, but that's beside the point) we can tell them that we'll disclose who we give the information to. But the Dems can't go door-to-door and ask permission to help particular campaigns. It's just not reasonable.

by dlaw on Thu Mar 02, 2006 at 01:37:53 PM PST

* 50 4.66 3 *

There are usage agreements by willisreed, 03/02/2006 02:52:33 PM PST (5.00 / 2)

Quite happy, by m3047, 03/03/2006 12:40:53 AM PST (5.00 / 1)
I'm happy. Fred's not. by dlaw, 03/02/2006 03:42:26 PM PST (none / 0)

Dude: Joe-mentum? by m3047, 03/02/2006 08:01:58 PM PST (none / 0)
When YOU* knock on MY door by rmdSeaBos, 03/02/2006 08:45:21 PM PST (none / 0)

Bob, actually you did... by dlaw, 03/02/2006 09:17:08 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

I am NOT communicating clearly - by rmdSeaBos, 03/03/2006 04:56:19 PM PST (none / 0)

Comrade, you're forgetting something...

When you say something to the Democratic party, you are making a public statement, just as you are when you say anything to anybody. You can make private statements to people, but there has to be an explicit agreement between you and the entity you are talking to. Your statement about "expectation of privacy" is just not right at all. When you make a statement to someone it is public unless you have agreed otherwise.

The Democratic party owns the results of its polling and canvassing, just as any entity owns the results of their research. Campaigns buy access to that data because it's the private property of the party, but once they share it, it becomes the property of the people who buy it from the party.

The party could try to add non-disclosure agreements to their contracts, but as a practical matter this would be impossible or make the information useless to campaigns. The entire point of grassroots political action is to connect volunteers to voters - the public WITH the public. And to do that effectively you need to be able to pass information from one campaign to the next. That just involves far too many people to make it possible to deliver on any promise of privacy. Campaigns often try to make volunteers and staffers sign non-disclosure agreements but they are weak and impossible to enforce. No campaign would accept the liability of a truly enforceable non-disclosure agreement.

I agree that the party should disclose with whom they share the information. The Democratic party should not be selling its lists to soft-drink distributors. But disclosure is about all you can ask, as a practical matter. Parties and campaigns are by their nature very public entities and it's just not possible for them to treat information in the same way private companies do.

by dlaw on Wed Mar 01, 2006 at 02:09:57 PM PST

* 30 3.66 3 *

Then standards for collecting information... by m3047, 03/01/2006 03:39:59 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

I just find your line of reasoning strange... by dlaw, 03/01/2006 04:51:58 PM PST (3.66 / 3)

Heffalumps... by m3047, 03/01/2006 06:29:22 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

out of left field by N in Seattle, 03/02/2006 01:05:25 AM PST (3.00 / 2)

Read more carefully: N has seen the Heffalump by m3047, 03/02/2006 11:07:00 AM PST (none / 0)

Dude, I think you are just combining two issues: by dlaw, 03/02/2006 01:05:28 PM PST (5.00 / 2)

Dude, the HIPAA thing would conceivably apply... by dlaw, 03/01/2006 07:30:29 PM PST (none / 0)

That hurts. by m3047, 03/01/2006 08:30:00 PM PST (none / 0)
(OT) I'm just afraid they want to be a player by m3047, 03/01/2006 08:38:12 PM PST (none / 0)
Voter Integrity: You Can't Stand Still by m3047, 03/01/2006 08:53:18 PM PST (none / 0)

decreasing our ability to gather data ... by asshat2001, 03/01/2006 11:10:44 PM PST (4.00 / 2)

take two, slightly more nuanced by m3047, 03/02/2006 10:29:19 AM PST (2.00 / 1)

what is a Volvo Vogon? by asshat2001, 03/02/2006 01:06:05 PM PST (5.00 / 1)

The Dems don't do precision targetting by dlaw, 03/02/2006 12:36:48 AM PST (none / 0)

The State Dems might not.... by willisreed, 03/02/2006 09:01:20 AM PST (none / 0)

look in the mirror and say that to yourself... by m3047, 03/02/2006 09:46:19 AM PST (none / 0)

um, list and labels info V. real info by rmdSeaBos, 03/01/2006 08:51:16 PM PST (2.00 / 1)

Nah, I'll give you time and money. by m3047, 03/01/2006 08:57:15 PM PST (none / 0)

everything in this entire diary ... by asshat2001, 03/01/2006 08:00:16 PM PST (3.00 / 3)

this diary is from f-ing Neptune by Belltowner, 03/06/2006 12:10:58 AM PST (none / 0)

Fred is a visionary, but.... by dlaw, 03/06/2006 10:12:25 AM PST (none / 0)
why don't you have your braintrust on kos by rmdSeaBos, 03/07/2006 05:45:42 PM PST (none / 0)

Confused

I don't really understand what you're asking for here. Are you aware that the state-wide voter registration database, and much, much more, are already public records?

by zappini on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 04:17:35 PM PST

* 1 none 0 *

He's talking about the WSDCC by gibney, 02/26/2006 04:34:35 PM PST (none / 0)

That's fair... by m3047, 02/26/2006 06:18:59 PM PST (none / 0)

When I put on my IT hat by gibney, 02/26/2006 07:13:07 PM PST (5.00 / 1)
Still Not There by zappini, 02/27/2006 04:02:36 PM PST (none / 0)

Fine. by m3047, 02/27/2006 07:16:26 PM PST (none / 0)
Get public officials to correct errors... by m3047, 02/27/2006 07:25:46 PM PST (none / 0)
One of the things that's not public is by noemie maxwell, 03/01/2006 08:43:23 AM PST (none / 0)

I'm not sure how much more clear you can get than by teh grassroots, 02/28/2006 09:11:44 AM PST (none / 0)

caucus sign-in sheets come from the State Party.. by m3047, 02/28/2006 11:56:44 AM PST (none / 0)

make that '84 by gibney, 02/28/2006 12:50:16 PM PST (none / 0)

and this is a problem? by N in Seattle, 02/28/2006 04:30:11 PM PST (none / 0)

What problem? by m3047, 02/28/2006 04:57:38 PM PST (none / 0)

nope by N in Seattle, 02/28/2006 11:59:19 PM PST (none / 0)

Are you saying that Zappini... by m3047, 02/26/2006 06:36:29 PM PST (none / 0)

Another example by m3047, 02/27/2006 07:19:43 PM PST (none / 0)
Knock yourself out by teh grassroots, 02/28/2006 08:57:14 AM PST (none / 0)

I read in the summer of 2006 by rmdSeaBos, 02/26/2006 07:06:14 PM PST (none / 0)

Everything after "be it resolved..."

is fine with me.

I can't stand all the whereas stuff of any of these resolutions -

here is my whereas -

whereas every campaign I've ever worked on has ceased to exist soon after the election, and judging from the chaos of the efforts in the next elections, it is pretty obvious that all that hard work and all the information went poof!, except for the information which went to professional fundraiser con artists working for institutional "Democrats" like cantwell and hillary,

be it resolved ...

rock on Fred !!

bob.

http://www.liemail.com/BambooGrassroots.html

by rmdSeaBos on Sun Feb 26, 2006 at 05:17:57 PM PST

* 3 none 0 *

Call for Strikers

While the debate is interesting, and I think the issue is important (at least it is to me when I have to look my neighbors in the eye), the resolution is too damned long!

Especially if there is some groundswell and people are considering putting it on the table at their caucuses, a red pen needs to be taken to it and it needs to be stripped down to something which will make it uplevel, past the LDs, to the State... and then maybe somebody will raise it at the National level.

The best thing an editor does is say "no". Have at it.

by m3047 on Mon Feb 27, 2006 at 07:45:14 PM PST

* 14 none 0 *

What's a "Striker"? by zappini, 02/28/2006 04:05:10 AM PST (none / 0)
I'll give a hack at editing Friday evening by rmdSeaBos, 02/28/2006 04:52:50 PM PST (none / 0)

Make it something you can pass... by m3047, 02/28/2006 05:08:03 PM PST (none / 0)

possible strikers by m3047, 03/03/2006 09:54:23 PM PST (none / 0)

can't, and I'm an idiot

I'm no dummy, but I'm enough of an idiot to recognize an idiotic suggestion when I see one. ;-)

I don't recall any such legend on the 2004 sign-in sheets. It's such an idiotic suggestion that I just sent it on to the District and Political Chairs...

Thanks.

by m3047 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:10:27 AM PST

* 18 none 0 *

three times an idiot by m3047, 02/28/2006 11:12:36 AM PST (none / 0)

twice an idiot...

..this was intended as a response to the suggestion to tack "this is public information" to the top of the caucus sign-in sheets.

by m3047 on Tue Feb 28, 2006 at 11:11:40 AM PST

* 19 none 0 *

A Vote for Rmm

Turnout was low at the caucus, compared to '04; although I am told that it wasn't bad for an off-year.

<rant>Where were the people who I called who said they were coming? They lied! Maybe politicians represent us better than we like to admit.

Don't like my Cantwell votes (or anything else for that matter)? "Good for you, thanks, etc."? Yeah: show up or shut up! I feel good about whatever I do now... well, within reason, because I guess that's what I feel... and I betcha that's why I was drafted to be PCO.
</rant>

Low turnout wasn't so bad, because we joined together precincts for the resolutions and I ended up in a group with a lot of PCOs. We didn't pass the resolution, but I've got six people who want to make it a real resolution. I guess people really haven't thought about this before, even PCOs, which are the who it really affects. We had a great discussion. I'm going to hurt myself if I keep slapping myself on the back.

Here's the thing. Comrade SeaBos forgot the resolution, so he hurriedly scribbled a single sentence on a piece of paper, and managed to pass it at his caucus. Here it is:

Be it resolved that the National, State, and Local Democratic Parties take leadership on privacy issues by disclosing on their official web sites their policies about the collection, use and dissemination of voter information beyond what is public record.

That, folks, is a winner!

I think I'm going to propose that as the starting language for our resolution.

by m3047 on Sat Mar 04, 2006 at 10:06:55 PM PST

* 60 none 0 *

That's a good resolution: by dlaw, 03/05/2006 10:07:23 AM PST (none / 0)

PCOs and the Voter Database | 64 comments (64 topical)

RE-ELECT
ALEC FISKEN
Seattle Port Commission

www.rentonfacts.com
RENTON FACTS

FISKEN'S PORT WATCH
Environmental Issues

REAL CHANGE
HOMELESS EMPOWERMENT PROJECT

PIRATE TELEVISION
Challenging the Corporate Media Blockade

Watch Live or Archived Shows:
Seattle SCAN
South End PSA

PNW TOPIC HOTLIST

Blog Directory

WELCOME AND FAQ
ABOUT

Login

Make a new account

Recommended Diaries

Anti-Gay Activist Running for Renton City Council
Help prevent a fundamentalist, anti-gay activist from buying her way into local politics.
By Renton Citizen (2 comments)
What the Kenmore City Council Doesn't Want You to Know
There was a forum for candidates running for Kenmore City Council last Wednesday. If you are a Kenmore resident and you
By technogramma (25 comments)
Douglas County is the only county in Washington State that does not have a weed board.
The county commissioners and other "Private Property Rights "activists have been fighting the state and county residents for years on this
By Dixie (5 comments)
Political Graphics 101: 34th LD lit deconstructed
As part of my highly opinionated, ruthlessly honest series on political graphics, I zero in on campaign lit from the 34th.
By dinazina (6 comments)
Gulliver's Travels
Jeb Bush came to town today and stopped by to speak with the Microsoft Political Action Committee. Most memorable metaphor on
By BryceM (8 comments)
WA Insurance Commissioner Says: Don't Believe the Hype (Yes on R -67)
Today I received the email copied below from Mike Kreidler, Washington State's Insurance Commissioner. It contrasts interestingly with the letter full
By noemie maxwell (2 comments)