Sunday, August 06, 2006

Grebner's voting experiment

Mark Grebner, an Ingham County Commissioner most known for his political business, Practical Political Consultants, is under fire for a mailing he did.

From the Argus

Shock quickly turned to anger when Hamburg Township resident Karl Schwanik opened his mail one day last week.
He had received a letter containing his voting record — a list of the elections in which he had gone to the polls to cast ballots, and those he hadn't — from an East Lansing firm known as Practical Political Consulting Inc.

The letter also contained the voting records of his neighbors and promised a follow-up letter that will indicate who voted in the coming Tuesday primary election


I have mixed views on this. It's certainly legal, and rather easy to find out who voted and who did not vote as it is public record. It's also easy for me to preach about voting since I'm classified as an 8 or a 9 voter (never missed a contested election).

However, there are several reasons people don't vote. Some are lazy. Some don't know enough about the candidates. Some are informed and don't like anybody on the ballot.

I wish those who didn't like anyone showed up and left the ballot blank, voted third party, or wrote themselves in. That sends more of a message than staying home where they are ignored.

The ones who don't know enough about the candidates I don't want voting. Ignorant people should not vote. I'm NOT referring to those I disagree with on issues. I'm referring to the fools who vote for superficial reasons (IE - Vote for Granholm because she's a woman, Vote for DeVos since he's Dutch) instead of deciding based on where the candidates stand on issues, voting records, competency, or candidate's character.

I find out as much information as I can on each candidate before I make a decision. I have never filled in the straight ticket circle. I go down each list and make the decision. If I don't know anything about the people, I skip that race. If I don't like any of the choices, given I leave it blank, write someone in, or vote third party.

The ideal situation is for a 100% turnout of well informed voters. I don't mind my vote being cancelled out to a well informed voter I happen to disagree with. I hate it when my vote is cancelled out to some joker who thinks Granholm is hot and votes for her because of that reason.

While we all have the right to vote, it's also a major responsibility to make sure we really know who we are voting for and the reasons we are making those decisions. If Grebner's list gets uninformed people to the polls, he's doing us all a disservice. If he's getting informed people to the polls, he's doing us all a service.

39 comments:

Keith Richards said...

This is a reminder that our private lives are much less private than most people think. Much of what we do that involves the government becomes a matter of public record except for things like income tax records which are specifically protected by law. For example, all the information that the government has about your home is a matter of public record, including the price you paid for it and how much you pay in taxes.

It should be well known that our record of showing up to vote is public information since newspapers routinely print this information about prospective political candidates. But shoving this information in a citizens face is in very poor taste and is likely to backfire against any candidate who tries to do this.

Keith Richards said...

In my experience informed citizens are much more likely to vote. The biggest excuse I hear for not voting is that the non-voter did not know anything about the candidates and so did not feel comfortable voting. A lot of other people say they don't vote because they don't see any real difference between candidates, so why bother? (Which usually means that the non-voter is uninformed about issues)

So if Grebner is putting pressure on non-voters it is likely that these are uninformed people. My guess is that he is targeting a specific group which is predicted to vote a certain way. For example, he might be targeting UAW members on behalf of a Democrat candidate because UAW members are expected to vote Democrat.

It would be interesting to find out how many people he targeted with this campaign.

bluzie said...

Can't you get the same infl from the highly touted Republican Voter Vault?

UAW keeps their member list very private, I don't think anyone has such a list, they are very protective of their members.

jusmyopin said...

In my line of work, I have been hearing a lot about these letter going out to citizens in the community. The reaction has been outrage. Long time voters are now saying that they do not know whether they want to vote anymore. Our vote may be secret but people are not liking the fact that what goes on in their own household is no longer secret, rather spread throughout their neighborhood. If I had received one of these letters I think I would be offended just because of the fact that I am not to judge the actions of someone else. Maybe they were sick on election day. Maybe they had an emergency on that day. Maybe they never vote because they don't think it matters. People are entitled to their opinion. I don't have to agree with it and I don't need to be informed by Mark Grebner what my neighbor decided to do on election day. All in all, these letters are having a very negative effect on regular voters.

Republican Michigander said...

Bluzie - One trick done with advocacy groups is to not sell the lists, but allow candidates/parties to mail to the people on that individual's list.

bluzie said...

Nope, the UAW keeps its lists totally private. You all claim to know so much about unions, but your words show you know very little. You just want to influence people with your false information about unions.
Every campaign knows who votes and who does not. This information is provided by the Secretary of State and it's always been public knowledge. That you don't have this information is not Mark Grebner's fault. Trust me, Cindy Pine has access to this information and uses it!

Not-a-RINO said...

As a member of the UAW for 32 years, I know that every Socialist/Progressive/Communist has full access to their members through V-CAP. I get their BS all the time with their laundry list of nitwits. Most of the members I know when they see the Union's endorsement vote for the other guy.

You are right that the list is secret, but V-CAP will access members for the candidate. Bottom line: What's the big difference?

bluzie said...

Hey, fill me in just what is it about a decent wage for a days work, health care and safe working conditions are you against? You are a real laugh a minute!

Nit wits? Sounds to me like you may be one.

Oh maybe you are looking to get one of those CEO positions? Isn't it Exxon's CEO that makes over $130,000 per day?

bluzie said...

The unions support bread and butter issues for their workers. They care about their families and their future. I guess they don't care enough about what happens in people's bedrooms enough to suit you! The only laws that concerns them is about jobs, health care, pensions, family leave, and you call them communists? What's wrong with you?
Oh please don't start again with making criminals of women who have abortions, unions really believe in privacy, you all do not.

bluzie said...

Republican Michigander, the unions do all the mailing. They endorse candidates who support their bread and butter issues, most are Democrats, some are Republican. It's not about the party, but about the issues. You all have turned into a bunch of old women, wanting to make laws about your ideas about morals. They keep it to supporting their families and safety in the workplace.
Sorry to call you old women, but I call it like I see it. I get called every name in the book on this blog, so try not to take too hard, as I don't.b

Republican Michigander said...

First off, the UAW leadership abandoned working families a long time ago. They did so when they stopped fighting outsourcing against GM in the early-mid 90's and supported Mr. Clinton who signed NAFTA and GATT into law.

As for abortion, murder is wrong. Period. Your party is hijacked by the Emily's List crowd which supports partial birth abortion. That's a lot more than your line of "safe legal and rare". Your party's support is of "legal, common, and taxpayer funded."

Even many libertarians like Ron Paul and Leon Drolet support a ban on abortions. It's not about religion. It's not about creating more criminals. It's about protecting life and stopping the use of force from one individual against an innocent being. It's just the right thing to do. Period.

I'm not out to create more laws against everything I think isn't right. I'm not John McCain who thinks everything is a federal matter. However governments were created to protect life, liberty, and property.

Life needs to come first.

bluzie said...

Everyone want to protect life!
Those of us who are opening pro-choice believe we can reduce the number of abortions by limiting the need, education, birth control, morning after pill, etc. These are proven ways to reduce abortion. Your way to over turn Roe V Wade will cause abortion to be illegal and make women who have abortions to be charged with murder. This is our difference. WE ALL WANT TO HAVE ABORTION BE VERY RARE. You just want to make criminals of women and their doctors. Making abortion illegal has never reduced abortions, so you are protecting no one. You are simply using peple to get out the vote for those who are as insincere as yourself.

bluzie said...

The unions saw where fair trade we could all prosper. George Bush came in and slashed all the fairness, health care, wages, envionmenta laws for those we trade with a now you are blaming Bill Clinton and the unions? What have you been smoking?

bluzie said...

I think if you had a better understanding of unions, not just what you hear about them but truly understood unions, you would never again vote for someone who they didn't endorse. They are truly about families, supporting and caring for families from birth until death. Your party, as in your name, does little to support families earning under $300,000 per year. The higher the income, the more they support! And they do everything possible to keep abortion in the light by not providing birth control and education. What a scam. It's all about the vote and power and nothing to do about life and families.

Not-a-RINO said...

First thing, Bluzie, since I have been a Skilled Trades UAW member for 15 of 32 total years, that must tell you I know something about the workers' relationship with the union. I would have hated to work at my place of employment without a union. The union didn't come about because management was treating workers with dignity or fairly. But just like everything else, over the years the union lost its mandate to protect the workers on the shop floor. They got into social engineering, higher taxes, class warfare, pro-gay (with benefits), pro-abortion, BIG government and so on. Sorry, but I do not in any way support this kind of stuff and neither does 50% of the union membership.

You talk as if you are one of the enlightened ones who kiss the posteriors of the union hierarchy. It must be great to have the union do all of your thinking for you! The union (V-CAP) sends out their laundry list of Reds for you to vote for. They blindly follow the Democrat Party with the exception of a couple of RINOs now and then. I have their list for this election cycle and there's not one REP on it. I'll tell you that if Bozo the Clown declared he was a DEM, the union would back him.

Another point: If the union is such a great institution (as it once was), then why has the total workforce percentage dropped precipitously over the years? In your world, everyone should follow like mind-numbed robots to the union's orders from on high. If they just took care of the workers, then membership would grow. I was glad to have the UAW represent me at the bargaining table, but the political/social issues I'll take care of myself.

Still another point: If a labor union worked as a guild, then it would actually work to improve quality and education. If I went into business and wanted a building erected, you can bet I would have IBEW workers do the job. That union wants excellence. As for the UAW, too many years went by where people were thought of as a little smarter than chimps by the Union AND management. So much for dignity. Think about it--if you work in a union shop, is union membership voluntary? No, either you join or you are fired/not hired.

You are entitled to your idealistic view of the union, but experience has shown me otherwise. Being a union officer means that you have a chance to obtain a lucrative, 6-figure salary with the International (unionfacts.com)
Some are more equal than others, right, Comrade?

As for being "old women", is that what you call people of principle, character, and integrity? Is being modest, polite, and respectful of others "old school"? If that's the case, go right ahead and call people like me "old women". I would rather be an old woman (I am a man) than a young punk with no moral or ethical compass at all.

bluzie said...

The unions care about all families, what are the children of a gay couple? Are they not part of a family? You care too much about what you think is important, I personally think all children deserve the same rights whether they have one or two parents and I don't about their parent's sexual preference. That you do is surprising. You call yourself moral, try being moral. Care about all the people not just those you aprove of.
You are right, you are not a real union person, all you care about is yourself.

Republican Michigander said...

There you go again Bluzie, putting words into people's mouths.

You ought to be a reporter....

bluzie said...

You fit more to the title of comrade, you only want rights for those who march to your tune. Right comrade?

You only care about those who look and act like you. On second thought maybe that is called a NAZI? I don't know, what do you call yourself? You certainly don't think all people should be treated fairly, you just said you don't agree with gay families having equal rights. Aren't they union members? Aren't they taxpayers? They are not breaking the law of our land and their children are still children who need to see the doctor, go to school have food and clothing.
Maybe they don't fit into what you call moral? What is wrong with you?

bluzie said...

Too many typos to be a reporter. I do search for the truth though.

jusmyopin said...

so bluzie, let me ask you this...you obviously do not agree with the republican party view, so how would you feel if you were part of a union, forced to pay to that union out of every paycheck and knew full well that a portion of your money went toward the republican party agenda? Don't even try saying it wouldn't bother you. It's so easy to talk the way you do when it's not happening to you. You seem to be fine with something when it is all about you and your views. If someone doesn't agree with the democratic agenda, why would you tell them they are not moral? Actually, it's more moral to believe a family unit the way God intended it, a mother and father. I know you probably won't agree with that because you would first have to believe in God.

bluzie said...

If I didn't believe in unions, I would not work at a company that was a union shop. I know it could be tough, less money, not as much vacation or as good as benefits for your family, but you really are not union material so don't work at such a shop.
I do believe in God and miss the bible study group I was in for 5 years. I see nothing in all the text that I have read the NIV study bible that supports you opinion of women being tried for murder, or not accepting homosexuals as people with the same rights. Christ warned of people who prayed in public, used the church for political purposes, and judged others. He said the most important things were to love one another and love the lord with all thy heart. Where the Christian right has hijacked the Christian faith and made it a hate group bothers me quite a bit.

jusmyopin said...

don't even try a debate on the bible with me. You would not have a chance on this issue. Also, you are full of it if you say you would give up a job if you didn't like the union. You are so full of it. You best find a church that teaches the full gospel of Christ and not just what you want to hear.

jusmyopin said...

BTW, it's because of the Bible that I believe the way I do about gay marriage and abortion, not because of the republican party.

Not-a-RINO said...

Bluzie, I am not a NAZI which means "National Socialist" which fits you a lot more than me!

I beg to differ with you -- I treat everyone with kindness and respect--even those who tend to disagree with me.

You talk about "families", but only the "light in the loafers" kind. Why? What someone does in their bedroom is of no concern to me, but I sure don't think that entitles them special social status either. Should the union support benefits for those heterosexual couples who are "shacking up?" Why not?

You talk of morality, but whose? I base the way I treat others according to the Golden Rule, which is found in the Bible. Nihilism is based on nothing-- Whatever I say is right is right no matter what others may think. To me, supporting a perverted lifestyle is immoral. Unless you think God was mistaken when the Bible was written, it shouldn't bother you what I think about it.

Unions from the beginning were all about dignity and fairness to the workers. All I am saying is that they need to go back to those roots and leave the social issues to the voters. I worked with the Union, management, production, the Trades and they all found me to be pleasant to work with--ALL of them. Kindness and respect go a long way whether you are management, union, or a blogger.

bluzie said...

Hey, read the Bible and see for yourself, ours is a merciful God and Christ has shown us the way. You would have a much easier time understanding why unions treat all their members fairly and why they fight for pensions and healthcare for all people. You are not loved more because you are heterosexual, you are loved because you are a person. You are not loved more because you have accepted Christ, that is your gift from God.
I think it would help you quite a bit, begin the the Gospels, I think Mark might be the easiest for you to read. It will open your heart.

bluzie said...

I only said NAZI because you called me comrade.

Not-a-RINO said...

I see you made a reference to the "Christian Right" hijacking the GOP. How so? I suppose you think that all Republican Christians are a bunch of fanatics who want to turn the US into a theocracy. Let's get a few things straight (no pun intended):

1. A 'fanatic' has been described as someone a little closer to God than you.

2. The Christian Right has not hijacked anything. We are just in agreement with the tenets of the GOP: less government in our lives, keeping more of the fruits of our labors (less taxation), a strong military to defend our freedoms, and a moral/ethical government.

3. You said you have an NIV Bible you used to read. Open up Ecclesiastes 10:2 and read it out loud to yourself. I think it should shed some light to your thinking.

4. I have said to members of the GOP in the past, "It is not important that God is on our side--are we on HIS side?" Although the GOP is far from perfect, there is a lot more a Christian can agree with in this party than with the DEMs. That is just one man's opinion.

5. Refer to point 3 above. I was just kidding to imply God was a Republican. God is sovereign and not in any party.

Have a nice evening. Be back later.

jusmyopin said...

I Corinthians 6:9-10, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-29 & 32, Jude 7. Start with these. There are plenty more. Don't confuse the fact that hating the sin is hating the sinner. We are instructed to shun evil and hate sin. We are also instructed to love our neighbor a ourself. There is a difference.

bluzie said...

I can see where you can't quote the Gospels! Sorry, Leviticus says all kinds of very strange stuff. Christ came with the good news! Read it.
Then you should agree, everyone is loved by God and we need to love each person, ours is not to judge. I hope your kids never talk back, we don't want them to be stoned by the village elders!

Mark Twain said...

When we compare the NAZI political system to the Communist political system (as they existed in Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union under Stalin during the 1930's) we find that contrary to popular belief they are not that much different. Both countries were run by dictators. Both had strict laws controlling their citizens down to even minor things and had secret police to enforce those laws. Both countries persecuted religious individuals (the NAZI's tolerated some Christian denominations while the Soviet Union persecuted nearly everyone of faith). Both Stalin and Hitler were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people.

Both Germany and the Soviet Union bragged about their extensive and generous social welfare benefits. The only major difference between the two systems was that the Soviet Union did not permit ownership of private property or privately run companies while Germany did.

Hitler has (and deserves) a bad reputation for his mass murder of Jews. But while history books don't discuss it as much, Stalin was also responsible for brutal crimes of mass murder.

It is also worth mentioning that Mao in China and Pol Pot in Cambodia also committed crimes of mass murder.

bluzie said...

Should we kill the gossip mongers on this blog as well Romans 1:25 28-32. The Bible doesn't say that children who talk back are less sinful than the homosexuals. I think you should keep religion out of politics, you aren't very good at fully understanding Christ's word or you would never say that families of heterosexual families should receive healthcare and homosexual families should not. This is where the Christian right is not being very Christian.
There is nothing Christian about hate.

bluzie said...

I personally am for people being treated equally under the law.

I don't think people's religion or lack of knowlege about their faith should enter into politics.

I am for separation of Church and State and I think everyone has the right to worship freely.

jusmyopin said...

bluzie, when you die and stand before the Lord, remember we had this conversation. I tried but you are hopeless. I will not debate the bible any further with someone who has such a lack of interest for the truth. We will both stand before the Lord some day. We'll see then what the Lord has to say. It's the hope of us all to hear the Lord say "well done thou good and faithful servant". I hope we both hear that. I wouldn't want it any other way for anybody.

anonymous said...

It is VERY interesting to me that for nearly 2000 years Christians were united in the belief that the Bible condemned homosexuality, yet all of a sudden in the last few decades some people have "discovered" that 100 generations of church scholars have been interpreting the Bible incorrectly. And in spite of this fact, those of us who insist on sticking with the traditional intpretation are now all of a sudden "intolerant" and "hateful". And when we point out the truth on this, we are "ignorant".

Incidently, all sin is wrong. Sins such as premarital sex and extramarital sex (to name just a couple) are just as wrong as homosexuality. And most Christians don't hate homosexuals, we hate the sin. "Love the sinner, hate the sin."

Count Me Red said...

Bluzie, not you again. Just because we don't want to put homosexuals on the health care roles as spouses doesn't mean we hate them. You make such giant leaps. Choosing to sleep with someone of the same sex should not entitle you to whatever perks families are given in society. It's not hate, it's just not right. If this "every one should be allowed to love whoever they want" attitude was okay, then NAMBLA would be okay. We just don't want to go there. There is no law or rule that says we must accept whatever someone wants to do. That's why there are laws of the land to protect our values, our lives, our liberties, and to keep order.
Bluzie, to call yourself a Christian the way you talk is laughable. You are mean, and disrespectful. You really look silly in a debate with these guys. You are way over your head. But I am enjoying the show.

bluzie said...

Sins such as bearing false witness, envy, not honoring your parents, all are sins that don't take away people's rights for marriage, health care and most of all not set aside to be scorned. I think you can clearly see, God would not like families who do not have heterosexual parents to be treated differently. So there you have it, if you still follow your thinking and think that unfair treatment is moral then you all are just plain bigots and I wish you soon quit giving faith and Christianity a bad name. It's a beatuiful faith that the Right Wing is giving a very poor name.
Don't hold up religion as your reason to be bigoted.
To get back to the orginal thread, it's not unions taking up social causes, they treat people equally. If a person has an affair they still get healthcare for their family, and this is one of God's top ten.

bluzie said...

Homosexuality is not illegal in the United States of America.

Redneck said...

"It's the hope of us all to hear the Lord say "well done thou good and faithful servant".

Do you get 40 virgins in the deal?

"You best find a church that teaches the full gospel of Christ and not just what you want to hear. "

So....how long until the reactionary wing of the GOP pushes for a state religion?

Count Me Red said...

Bluzie, your religious talk doesn't match your attitude. I don't think we will be convinced that you are a Godly person.

Homosexuality is a behavior and not illegal, just immoral. You choose to sleep with someone, it's not who you are it's what you do. We are not compelled to gift traditional family benefits to people just because they want it. You can call all the names you want and rant and rave as much as you want, but our society has said, State by State, that we reject the idea of "gay Marriage". Just like we have to accept that Roe v Wade is law and let's you kill children because you can't protect yourself, you will have to accept that we aren't having gay marriage in this country. It's just the way it is.