I spent the weekend at a software train-the-trainer session on some new vote-tracking software.
The software looks good; though it takes a lot of power to run, and only works on the latest Wintel machines with Windows XP and at least 256 megs of RAM, and Microsoft Access. That puts it out of range of a lot of smaller constituencies, especially between elections. And as for me, I'm naturally prejudiced in favour of Mac machines and against Windows.
I was a relative neophyte at this. I've worked on elections before, but I've never been involved with the data side. Some of the people there have been using database programs to keep track of voters, donors, etc. for years.
The moment that stuck in my mind was when one woman moaned about the fact that the voters list didn't include telephone numbers.
From her point of view as a database administrator, the comment made perfect sense. If the official voters list included telephone numbers then contacting potential voters would be very easy. But if she were to look at it from the point of view of an ordinary citizen, she would probably be appalled if the voters list included phone numbers. Could you imagine looking at the published voters list and seeing your name and telephone number emblazoned there for all to see?
Later, during a coffee break, several of the people were complaining about how caller id on telephones was making it more difficult to raise funds and to canvass for votes.
These are conscientious, progressive, caring people; and they were complaining about measures -- one legal, one technological -- that help preserve privacy. And why? Because these measures hindered their efforts to elect progressive candidates; candidates who would probably be sympathetic to measures to protect privacy.
I think that sometimes we need to eschew expediency when it conflicts with our principles. Telephone numbers on the voters list; blocking call display; they may help us get elected, but I'd forego them if they meant compromising our principles.
Posted by wetcoast at August 10, 2003 10:30 PM