• Mail voting has been sketchy so far – dead people voting and the like
• In 2004, in WA nearly 70% of voters opted to vote by mail
• King County (seattle) is set to go mail only in 2007
• OR is the pioneer – mail only as of 2000
• Advantages
o Can take your time to decipher ballot initiatives
o Don’t have to wait in line
o Convenience turns out voters
 Ie: Oregon’s turnout was 87% - highest in the nation
o Cheaper to manage
• Changes the nature of campaigning – extends it over the period of a month – makes it more expensive
• People are annoyed when they have to pay return postage
• Can cause tabulation delays
• Has its faults – but not any more than in-person voting.

Thoughts: wonder if UI of voting by text is feasible – or even desirable – are there too many options? There was that example of voting by text in Switzerland, but it was only on a single issue vote.

If vote by mail is OK – perhaps can be combined with voter registration (equivalent to same-day voter registration). So, citizen could request ballot/registration form via text (or other method), receive it, send it in and vote/register all in one fell swoop. Wonder if Oregon would go for it?

Economist. March 18th. Stamp Of Approval. P. 46

The innovative joint initiative between CTV and The Globe and Mail will be available, at no additional cost, to any Canadian mobile phone subscriber.

via MOpocket

i wonder how they're doing ID verification - didn't see anything about it in these articles.

see: http://www.nst.com.my/Current_News/NST/Wednesday/National/20051228095128/Article/indexb_html
and
http://web.utm.my/today/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=231

Once the carriers figure out that their 50% cut is too high to generate business, this type of SMSing is going to be really good for non-profit fundraising. Even at small events - non profits will be able to use phones as a mobile & personal credit-card reader or sorts - as a much more efficient way to gather donations. Rather than hit everyone on their way in to an event for a check - or follow up with them later - the speaker can fire up the crowd and then ask for phone-based donation. Of course, the Bono-style system can be very useful currently simply to gather constituent data.

re: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051203/en_nm/textmessaging_dc

America Votes
Is a coalition of the larger progressive GOTV organizations. Many of these organizations focus on issues other than GOTV.
http://americavotes.org

ACORN
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
Progressive organization focused on lower income families – providing social justice and community work. 175,000 member families. Registered 1million voters in 2004. Also works on many other community focused initiatives/policy/advocacy.
http://americavotes.org

Declare Yourself
Nonpartisan campaign started in 2004 focused around youth mobilization. Claim to have registered 1 million young and first time voters prior to 04 election via the DY spoken word and music tour, high school program, and related campaigns. Founded by Norman Lear. Did some great post-election research on the youth constituency.
http://www.declareyourself.com/

Democracy For America
Progressive organization inspired by the Dean campaign (and run by Howard Dean’s brother, James). A political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally responsible, socially progressive candidates at all office levels. Long term goal of rebuilding the Dem party.
http://www.democracyforamerica.com

Emily’s List
Grassroots progressive political network started by Ellen Malcolm, who also was (is?) president of ACT. Focuses on electing pro-choice women to office and turning out women voters. 100K membership.
http://www.emilyslist.org

Hip Hop Summit Action Network / Hip Hop Vote Team
Harnessing cultural relevance of hip hop music to serve as a catalyst for advocacy. Prior to 04 election had a hip-hop vote team – which sought to register voters at concerts – giving tickets away to those who register.
http://www.hsan.org

League of Conservation Voters
Environment focused political action. Campaigns to defeat anti-environment candidates and to promote the opposite. Campaigns to educate voters on the environment records of candidates.
http://www.lcv.org/

League of Women Voters
Leagues in 50 states, 900 state and local Leagues - non partisan – aiming to influence policy through advocacy.
http://www.lwv.org

Music for America
Started in 2003 focusing on peer to peer political action – through music. Puts on shows across the country – over 200 bands, 2000 shows/year with the stated purpose of delivering a positive social message.
http://www.musicforamerica.org/

MTV’s Choose or Lose
Youth focused organization doing lots of work prior to 04 election. Partnered with Rock the Vote. Doesn’t seem to be doing much post ’04 election.
http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/

NAACP National Voter Fund
Mission is to engage in issue advocacy, educate voters on candidates stands on civil rights, and increase voter turnout among African Americans. Non partisan.
http://www.naacpnvf.org

New Voters Project
A non partisan effort to register young people and to GOTV. Launched in 2003 – did some amazing work before the ’04 election. Became one of the largest grassroots mobilization efforts – increasing turnout by 11% - registered 350K 18-24yr olds. Focused on 8 states. Even better, they did some exhaustive research on their efforts – showing what worked and what didn’t. Founded by the State PIRGs – a network of state-based citizen funded organizations that advocate for the public interest.
http://www.newvotersproject.org/

Rock the Vote
One of the big youth-focused mobilization organizations. Did a lot of work prior to 04 and did it very well. Integrated text messaging into their voter registration/mobilization campaign (by sending text alerts and URLs of web site where user could download forms). Incorporates entertainment and youth culture into its activities.
http://www.rockthevote.com/

Smackdown your Vote
Wrestling’s answer to voter mobilization.
http://vote.wwe.com/

USAction
Progressive organization working on many fronts – of which mobilization is one.
http://www.usaction.org

Voto Latino
Non partisan, youth driven org to create a unified voice for Latino youth.
http://www.votolatino.org

Voices for Working Families
Focused on getting working families – people of color, women, and youth out to vote. Tries to reach out to these people via multi-pronged canvassing efforts. Hip-hop focused campaign called “I am hip hop. I am VOTE” running at historically black colleges. Also has a women-specific campaign.
http://www.voicesforworkingfamilies.org

Young Democrats of America
Youth arm of the democratic party. Nationwide organization with 43,000 members. Runs lots of programs to elect dem candidates, train youth. Aims to stimulate youth participation in the Dem party (18-36yr olds).
http://www.yda.org/

I voted absentee ballot this time, which I thought would give me more

You can always count on your local PBS affiliate to produce thought provoking, well rounded analysis of local ballot propositions. Usually they'll invite a panel of experts with varying opinions on the different initiatives into their studios. The time constraints of half hour or hour shows forces guests to be concise - the possibility of being immediately challenged on anything they say forces them to tell the truth.

Unfortunately, on the afternoon I'd set aside to vote the only thing our PBS affiliate was airing was reruns of 'Sesame Street' - actually I recognized the episode as one I'd watched back when I was a kid, which was a long time ago, and it looked old back then!

As a former TV producer, I actually think that TV is a fairly efficient way of distributing information. I did a google search for video clips for different ballet propositions and the only thing I could find was this website which was created by the League of Women Voters and the California Channel - a state channel created by the cable industry.

And then it hit me - somebody should license cheap local programming explaining local ballot issues and make it available as a video podcast. Or they could shoot it themselves. That way you could watch the podcast while you are reviewing your ballot, or at the gym, or on your commute home. Or you could lend it to a friend. And viewers could easily skim through issues or replay them later.

In any case something to think about for next year ...

It doesn’t seem like 2004 was that long ago – it's so plainly obvious now - but the conclusion of these studies makes it evident that there was a question as to the efficacy of the Web in political campaigns prior to ’04.

Of course, mobile feels a lot like the Web in ’96 – and, politically, it seems to be in a similar moment. Voters in 2008 are 15 years old today. They’ve grown up with SMS. They use it as genY uses email. So, clearly, at some point, there will be a study that says “mobile phones and SMS had a big impact on the election.” It’ll probably be in the Fall of 2008, but not too many people have yet come to this realization.

I thought it might be illuminating to browse through highlights of these Pew Internet articles – looking for similarities – looking for trends that might play out again in future elections (see review below). Of course, it won’t play out the same way – mobile being quite a different medium – but it will play out – and the savvy early adopters will gain some advantages as Dean did. Of course, they’ve got to capitalize on the advantages (as Dean didn’t).

Pew Internet Campaign 2004 Hightlights:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In 2004 75 million Americans (37% of the adult population and 61% of online Americans)used internet to get news, discuss candidates, and participate in the political process.

18% said that internet was primary src of political news.

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/150/report_display.asp
Pew/Internet Survey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“internet has become an essential medium of American politics”

Dean innovated via campaign manager Joe Trippi. Five core innovations:
1. news-pegged fundraising appeals. Taking cues from Moveon.org. Gives quick results to donors, generates media.
2. meetups & net organized gatherings
3. blogging. Creates social bonding and grassroots organizing
4. online referenda – asking the constituency what they want – a tool to engage public support
5. decentralized decision-making. “you have the power.” Left local supporters to campaign as they saw fit.

Dean’s early success showed “political professionals that henceforth they had to take the internet seriously.”

2004 national conventions were first in which pres candidates showed their acceptance speeches via the web.

Jibjab’s cartoon “this land” drew over 10 million unique visitors in july alone. Illustrated utility of web videos as campaign tools. Use web to test videos before ad buys, to raise money to do the ad buy, attract attention.

Bush used internet primarily to grass roots organize and mobilize. Kerry to fundraise.

Internet made a difference in 2004 race. “the numbers of adult Americans who relied on the internet to learn about the campaigns, to help make up their minds, to help others make up theirs, and to register and vote is simply too large relative to the final margin to think otherwise.”

The internet and campaign 2004
Commentary by Michael Cornfield
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Cornfield_commentary.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“the internet contributes to a wider awareness of political arguments. Fears that use of the internet might hurt healthy democratic deliberation are not borne out by online behavior”

internet users will have greater exposure to arguments that challenge their views

Pew/Internet
The internet and the democratic debate. 10.27.2004
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/141/report_display.asp

* 50% of 10-18 yr olds have their own phone
* verizon & cingular have largest share of this demographic
* sprint/nextel has smaller share, but high brand awareness
* 75% of surveyed kids say their bill is paid by parents
* parents generally chose plan, kids chose phone
* yankee group study from 7/05 found that 50% of teens 13-17 would spend addl money on ringtones, music
* 53% of kids have downloaded games

http://www.gfk.com
http://www.emarketer.com/Report.aspx?kids_oct05
avail only by purchase, unfortunately...

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=106&sid=6201250&cKey=1130692769000

"Incorporating mobile technology into a political campaign has got to move beyond the same old e-mail / database way of doing things. It has to incorporate the already established networks that mobile users already take part in which includes the social spaces and conversations of everyday life."

Justin R. Oberman is a freelance writer, blog maestro and consultant. Among other things, he's the mobile correspondent for the Personal Democracy Forum, founder of Digitisms, webmaster for whatwoulddumbledoredo.org, and created the Politics 2 Go Moblog for the recent conference of the same name, sponsored by George Washington University's Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet. He has a Master's Degree in Philosophy from New School University.

There have been a few examples of political use of SMS overseas ... South Africa, the Philippines, etc. What can political organizers in the US learn from these examples, and in what ways is the US political playing field different from Europe and the rest of the world, when it comes to mobile?

This is an excellent question on many levels. It’s interesting. There are no doubt substantial differences in the ways that the United States and the rest of the world use and perceive the mobile medium. And excuse me for getting philosophical here, but these differences are in fact rooted in the different ways technology is perceived, amongst other things. This is especially the case when it comes to PC’s, mobile devices and the online world of the Internet.

Some experts locate the rapid development of the mobile medium as a direct reaction to the digital divide. While the cost of broadband connection being substantially more expensive than i-mode has a lot to do with it, it is also extremely important to note that for most Japanese consumers their first interaction with the Internet is and was via their keitai. When a Japanese mobile user wants to send a “text-message” to another mobile user, for example, he or she is more likely to send that message by means of Email then SMS. This is, of course, directly opposed to the American experience where most people feel more comfortable using their PC to access the Internet and Email. If an American is going to send a text message from their phone to another mobile user, SMS is the only real first option that comes to mind. And whereas keitai is seamless with everyday life, the PC requires abrupt attention to a specific location. It requires you to stop what you are doing and go online. Keitai, in the words of Keitai culture expert Mizuko Ito, “functions more as a medium of lightweight ‘refreshment’ analogous to sipping a cup of coffee or taking a cigarette break.” It’s a small moment of our lives with a humongous importance. The PC Internet is another social space, a cyberspace, as opposed to the mutual co-presence of keitai.

And it is partly because of this polarity in perception that the mobile medium has had a tough time moving beyond the phone call in the United States. When looking at Internet technologies from the perspective of PC based Internet most American mobile users and businesses perceive the mobile Internet as ‘second-rate’ access, something good to have when you don’t have your PC or laptop. It’s good for making phone-calls (and in America even that is questionable). The problem with this model of Internet, when applied to the mobile medium is that it assumes a universally desirable technological resource whereas the mobile medium both infiltrates and adapts to the structures of existing practices and places. An economic understanding of the mobile revolution can only go so far. A different means of information technology communication did not only develop out of economic necessity but also came to be precisely because alternative trajectories of IT and communications discourse could and needed to exist.

So what the Japanese model teaches us is that the “American” way of thinking about and perceiving the Internet is not the only way and that “portable, lightweight engagement” to quote Ito again, “form an alternative constellation of ‘advanced’ Internet access characteristics that stand in marked contrast to complex functionality and stationary immersive engagement.” The differences here are between networked infrastructures that base themselves on a cross-cultural universal model (the PC internet) and a network built on a true network of shifting localities and cultures (the mobile medium). Neither one is better than the other, that’s not the point here. The point is to show that they are different and that problems only occur when one discourse dominates the way we perceive the other.

Nevertheless, the rapid advancement of the mobile medium has disrupted the geo-political discourse surrounding information and communication technology and with that has greatly influenced politics itself. But this is not necessarily a give in. For when it comes to political usages of keitai in Japan, the mobile buzz becomes eerily quiet. It seems odd, right? The country with the most pervasive use of the most advanced phones and social software is not using the technology politically in any substantial way. Yet, you introduce mobile technology to a country like the Philippines or into various regions in Africa and it becomes political almost immediately.

Now, there are a number of reasons why this may be the case and perhaps it is important for political marketers to study this relationship further. But whatever the reasons are, it makes one extremely important point. When it comes to integrating the mobile medium into politics just focusing on the technology is not the right way to go. Unlike the stationary PC, mobile communications are located in the very social, cultural and historical contexts in which they are physically used. No one in the Phillippines, for example, signed up to receive any text message alerts should a need for social or political protesting arise. The SMS that led to the People Power II demonstration was spread by no other means than the insanely viral communication of peer-to-peer / friend-to-friend networks. In other words, the mobile technology was used exactly how it was meant to be used. The political momentum against then president Joseph Estrada was already in place. SMS was merely the tool used to organize around and communicate a cause. But there was nothing magical or spontaneous about it. Text messaging and the mobile medium is not a persuasion tool. Rather, it enables already established means of communication to evolve in new and wonderful ways. The technology is used to support a purpose, not the other way around. The same is true about the stories of SMS being used in Argentina to save the Rain Forest or to sign petitions for womens rights in Africa. So what can U.S organizers learn from the success of political uses of SMS abroad? To use my favorite quote from Howard Rheingold’s book SmartMobs, “The killer apps of tomorrows mobile infocom industry won’t be hardware devices or software programs but social practices.” I guess, to sum it up I would say that first they need to start thinking about technology differently and that secondly they need to focus on the social discourses that surround that technology.

Well how do you see that discourse playing out? Is this something that's going to be adopted first at the grassroots state and local level or nationally? Should mobile technology be used differently at the grassroots than at the national level?

Based on the success of mobile technology in other countries I believe that the mobile medium will have the greatest affect on American politics in the places where already existing networks of communication mix with a strong political momentum. In other words, just as the most successful mobile campaigns abroad are on the grassroots level, the future of mobile politics in the United States will be the same. Because the mobile medium is a medium you have with you at all times the location where these devices are used determines a lot. When it comes to the political implications of mobile technology location, like in real estate, is everything. There are so many local issues for campaigns to “mobilize” around and each community already has its well-established networks of peer-to-peer communication to make this possible.

The mobile medium is really just a perfect tool for activists, especially when you consider how you could use mobile technology to coordinate at events where people are away from their home and or their place of work. Mobile can perform a really useful function there. And people at home watching the event on TV or the Internet can even use their mobile devices to chime in. The educated middle classes that are often the target of Internet activism already have the Internet they are used to. And for that population, the only time when mobile really makes sense is when you are on location, as you saw at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. At the RNC and DNC protesters used SMS bulletin board like services such as Txtmob and Upoc to coordinate strategy in real-time and proved to be extremely successful. That is one place where it makes sense to be coordinating physical Meetup like activities over mobile.

So already, the first real successful integration of mobile technology and politics in the United States was on the grass-roots level. And as Japan proves, if there is no political climate the tech won’t be political. As I said before, the mobile medium is not a persuasion tool. You can’t create a mobile revolution without the revolution. So the use of the mobile medium by political campaigners will not be successful unless there is a lot of political momentum and interest around the candidate. This does not mean that campaigns or national politics won’t find the mobile medium useful. They will. But they will find it useful only in a very limited way on the local grassroots level. This could be extremely strategic for a campaign that wanted to use important local issues to mobilize support for a candidate. But they must also be willing to give up some control and allow the network to do its job as it will or will not by itself.

Nevertheless, when the mobile revolution truly hits the United States, its political pervasiveness will inevitably be on the grassroots level.

OK ... if you could boil down one essential thing political marketers and organizers need to know about mobile technology, what would it be?

The mobile medium is not the “new computer.” It is the new phone. It is not a second rate means of accessing the Internet. Nor is it the “new internet.” It is simply a new, portable and lightweight way to approach the Internet, which in turn, will completely re-conceptualize the way in which we think about the Internet. Incorporating mobile technology into a political campaign has got to move beyond the same old e-mail / database way of doing things. It has to incorporate the already established networks that mobile users already take part in which includes the social spaces and conversations of everyday life.

On that note, it's not an end-all solution. There are things that the mobile phone can do amazing things with and there are things that the PC and other technologies will be better at. Mobile is just a tool, good for some things and not so good for others.

Let's talk about the way people interact with political information delivered via their phones – how is that process different than how they interact with traditional methods of campaigning (direct mail, phone banks, email blasts)?

I think I answered this question already in response to the first question. But it is worth repeating. There is a famous Farside cartoon of two dogs, one of which is sitting on a chair in front of a computer. The dog on the chair has his paw on the mouse and is looking down at the other dog, which is sitting on the floor. The caption under the cartoon reads, “On the Internet no one knows you’re a dog.” The PC Internet model is based on a type of engagement, which because of its stationary functionality puts an emphasis on virtuality and alternate spaces such as cyberspaces. This is because we must interrupt what we perceive to be our “real-life” in order to go to wherever our or a computer may be. Once there, because we have interrupted our personal space we are in another space such as cyberspace. While the networks of communication that take place within the alternate spaces of cyberspace may in fact transform social networks in “real-life,” they still never really leave the notions of separateness. For example, a lot of people claim that the success of the Republican parties online campaign strategy in the 2004 elections rested in their ability to motivate people online and take the action off-line. These very notions of “on-line” identities and “off-line” identities prove the distinctions still exist. It is this view of an altered space that allows us to view the Internet as a universal standard to strive for, one that cross-culturally avoids the plural messes of everyday life. And it is on the basis of this kind of Internet discourse that metaphors such as the digital divide, those that can afford to have this Internet model and those that cannot, are created.

The relationship between the recipient and the message delivered by the mobile medium is distinct from other modes of Internet communication in a very philosophical and personal way. It is not cut off from everyday realities, spaces and social identities. It is not escapist. There are never any distinctions of on-line and off-line. The communication of mobiles is always seamlessly integrated with the social spaces of everyday life. It always involves a tension between ones surroundings and the tiny screen in the palm of ones hand. Studies in Japan, for example, have shown that people don’t use anonymity when it comes to communication over mobile. On your mobile, everyone knows you’re a dog. Mobile users are always both present as well as distant, private as well as public. It is not tied to any location and can be accessed any time and place. Mobile communications, of any kind, always occur in the real world and are thus part of that world. And this is why mobile communications are located in specific social and local context and vary wherever they are. They break the hegemony of the universal solution offered by the PC Internet model and create new discourses of Internet use based on more local / social contexts. As I mentioned before, this can be extremely powerful. The point is, it is important to remember, when starting your mobile campaign, that location is everything and the mobile content works best when it integrates with the mobile users surroundings. This, by the way, is why I feel your MobileVoter project will be so successful, especially the part that takes into account the moments of everyday life in convenient stores or getting a cup of coffee… or the BubbleTea shops. Because that too is also what mobile communication is all about, it’s a lightweight refreshment that doesn’t require the pulling away of attention from life that PC models do… Checking your mobile, sending an SMS, playing a game, downloading a ringtone… all these are things you do as you are stepping into the office, or waiting on-line at the store or taking a mental break during a business meeting. Mobile phones are portable water coolers in that they provide opportunities for lightweight refreshment and conversation. But as anyone who has ever had water-cooler conversations knows, these small moments can have great importance later.

So ... how does a political message need to be shaped to be truly effective via mobile?

Beyond incorporating the localities of the every day social spaces we live in it also has to be personal and viral. Even in other countries, the beyond voice features of mobile communication are mostly used to quickly spread information to or chat with someone personal with you like a business mate, close friend, boyfriend or girlfriend. This model cannot be forgotten and I really think that marketers will have to rely on the viral aspects of the communication.

When do you think will we see mobile having a significant effect on the political process here in the US? The 2006 elections? 2008? 2020?

Well, it depends on what you mean by ‘political process.’ If by political process you mean the micro-political / grassroots deployment of the mobile medium then my answer is that it has already begun. But if you are talking about national and campaign politics then all I can say is that it will happen really soon. I think that we will see the mobile medium experimented with in 2006. That is almost certain. But as to when it will really take off, well… that’s like trying predict that the People Power II protests were going to occur in the Philippines. There will be a moment in American politics that will push the mobile medium into the limelight. When or what that momentum will be I cannot say, but it will happen.

Do you see one party gaining a "mobile edge" in next 10 years? Who do you see being the first adopters? Republican or Democrat?

Well, Dean tried it during his campaign. They created a mechanism in which a person could sign up on the web to receive SMS alerts… but it failed to attract a lot of attention. So I guess you could say that the Democrats have already been the first. However, when you consider that what they did was nothing special, in that they just took an old internet model and adopted it to the mobile medium, its hard for me to give them the credit needed for me to call them an “early adapter.”

However, I do have some juicy inside information that says that if any party is going to be the first to pick up on the mobile edge its going to be the Democratic party.

Do you think mobile political marketing something that will really only be effective as a way of reaching youth, or do you see this breaking out into the mainstream of the American public?

I think I answered this before. I believe it may be too late for a lot of middle-aged middle class Americans to make the transition to mobile. They are already used to their Internet style activism. But the one place where you might see an older crowd using it, is in places where they are forced to use it, for example at an event, concert or social gathering. But for future consideration it is important to remember that all of today’s youth texters will one day be middle aged texters whose children will also be texting. I don’t think it is a generation thing, I think it’s just a new introduction of technology thing. On the internet no one knows you’re a dog… and when it comes to the introduction of higher end mobile devises you can’t teach a dog new tricks.

What are some other new technologies you see fitting into America's political future?

In terms of mobile I would have to say that the next big thing is going to be the mesh of GPS technology with mobile phones and social software.

The process of gathering constituent data, defining segments, creating segment-specific services/messaging, getting feedback from the constituents, and refining services/messaging based on this feedback (a feedback loop) is what CRM & VRM are all about.

CRM is Customer Relationship Management and it’s been a hot concept in the private sector since the mid-90s. It’s a broad reaching concept that boils down to developing a customer-centric business strategy. The important takeaway here is that CRM is not software, it’s a holistic business philosophy.

Of course, there are a slew of vendors selling CRM software. The general consensus is, however, that software doesn’t do much good if the customer-centric business strategy doesn’t pervade every aspect of doing business.

In the private sector, some of the benefits of an efficient & effective CRM system are:
· A 360 view of customers
   o Preferences
   o Motivations
   o Buying habits
   o Demographics
· Personalized & streamlined marketing & sales based on the above data
   o Marketers can better understand the customer/customer segments and therefore do a better job of targeting the marketing efforts
   o Same goes for sales
· Quick and efficient customer service (since all of the above data is available to the customer service rep). No need to re-ask for information.
· Analysis: because all of the above data is tracked, a company can do segment and overarching analysis – looking for weak spots, identifying cross and up-sell opportunities
   o A key component here is that sales, marketing, customer service, etc can be modified on the basis of this analysis.

Clearly, much of this thinking applies to political campaigning. Instead of buying a product, a constituent is buying the party line and voting for a candidate – or volunteering, donating, sending a petition, etc...

The campaign has ‘business’ objectives that it would like to achieve (ie: generating N-Thousand votes in an upcoming election). Every campaign could benefit from a constituent-centric approach: continually honing the campaign, customizing it to individual constituent segments, and improving marketing/messaging based on feedback. Most sophisticated campaigns already use some variation of this process.

Within the past year or so, vendors have caught on that what sells in the private sector is going to sell in the political sphere. Enter VRM: Voter Relationship Management. As in the private sector the term VRM is conflated with the concept/philosophy of VRM. In browsing the web, I found little written about how to shape a campaign around a VRM strategy. Instead, I found a bunch of vendor pitches for VRM software.

VRM software focuses on enabling a campaign to precisely target voters via various media. For example, a web-based VRM tool allows a campaign to sort a database using the following criteria:
· Geographic: statewide, congressional, senate, and house districts, counties, precincts, and neighborhoods;
· Demographic: gender, age & ethnicity;
· Voting History: primary and general election history, early and mail voting, voter registration dates;
· Custom criteria: any statistical voter information can be integrated into the Voter Relationship Manager, and then it can be used to further increase the precision of targeting.
(from http://www.votermanagement.com/)
There is also some reporting and analysis capability. It seems to me though, that for VRM to work, there’s got to be systematic campaign buy-in (as in the private sector), otherwise it’s going to be a nice piece of software sitting behind the same old types of campaign tactics.

CRM Vendors:
Good list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CRM_vendors
Hundreds of offerings. Big players seem to be: PeopleSoft, Salesforce.com, SAP, Siebel (being acquired by Oracle), Oracle

VRM Vendors:
e-Campaign: http://www.epoliticalcampaign.com

Votermanagement.com: http://www.votermanagement.com/

Votilogy: http://www.votilogy.com/ (republican focus)

CiviCRM by OpenNGO (http://www.openngo.org/) – an open
source solution built on top of Drupal / Joomla! /
Mambo (popular open source content management solution
(CMS)). The team is currently working on a new release
of their CRM software – this offering seems to be one
of the most exciting in the field.
http://www.openngo.org/

GetActive: a higher end offering that is very popular. http://www.getactive.com/

Kintera & CTSG: Kintera seems to be mostly a CMS aimed at non-profits while CTSG provides more politically focused software/services including a VRM (although differently named).
http://www.kintera.org
http://www.ctsg.com

Democracy In Action: low cost suite of online tools to manage a campaign. This stuff is really unbelievably cheap for what you get.
http://www.democracyinaction.org

A Political Glossary For the Mobile World

15th Amendment - This amendment to the Constitution states that the right to vote "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” It was ratified in 1870.

501c – A non-profit group, as defined by the IRS.

527’s - 527’s are political groups funded by “soft money” contributions. Examples are the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or MoveOn.org

Ballot initiative - A public policy question decided by a vote of the people. The placement of the question on the ballot is initiated by the people (usually by petition). Used only at the state level.

Blue Dog Democrat - A Democratic Party member who is ideologically aligned most closely with moderate Republicans.

Boll Weevil - A conservative Democratic politician from a southern state.

Buckley v. Valeo – This was a landmark 1976 Supreme Court decision on campaign finance law that upheld the Federal Election Campaign Act's disclosure requirements, contribution limits, and provisions for public funding of presidential election campaigns.

The Court ruled that spending limits cannot be imposed by law, except for the limits accepted voluntarily by presidential candidates who receive public funds, because this would have the effect of restricting "free speech."

Thus, the ruling allows for unlimited spending by Congressional candidates (they do not receive public funds), and by persons or groups that campaign for or against a candidate, but do not coordinate their activities with any candidate or campaign. The ruling also says that candidates who do not receive public money do not have to limit spending of their own personal funds on their campaigns.

Can-Spam Act – passed in 2003, this act sets national standards for sending commercial messages via email and mobile and requires the FTC to enforce its provisions.

Can-Spam allows e-mail marketers to send unsolicited commercial e-mail as long as it contains all of the following:
_ an opt-out mechanism (sender has ten days to remove the users name once they have opted out and sale or transfer of an address after an opt-out is prohibited);
_ a valid subject line and header (routing) information;
_ a physical address for the person or group sending the message;
_ a label for adult content

Canvassing - A form of grass roots campaigning that involves going door to door to try to create new supporters for your candidate or issue (and to identify existing supporters).

Caucus (legislative) - A group of legislators brought together by common goals or characteristics. Congressional caucusses include the Republican and Democratic party caucuses. There is also the Black Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and a variety of caucuses oriented around specific issues.

Caucus (local party) - Political party meeting at which voters choose nominees to represent their political parties in general elections – basically the caucus is a grass-roots alternative to political primary. Iowa had the first presidential caucus in the US in Jan 2004

Closed primary - A primary in which only voters that belong to a particular political party can vote. Only registered Democrats can vote in a closed Democratic primary election.

Commission on Presidential Debates - The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) was established in 1987. Its primary purpose is to produce the presidential and vice presidential debates. The CPD is a nonprofit, nonpartisan corporation.

Concurrent powers – These are powers shared under the Constitution by both national and state governments jointly. For instance, taxation and law enforcement.

Democracy – According to Winston Churchill: "the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Equal Protection Clause – This clause is a part of the Fourteenth Amendment and guarantees that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Federal Election Campaign Act - FECA was an act of Congress passed in 1971 as an overhaul of laws regulating contributions to and expenditures of political parties and candidates in federal elections. In 1974, the act was amended and the Federal Election Commission was created. It was amended again in 1976 after the Supreme Courts “Buckley v. Valeo” decision and then again in 1979.

FECA limits who can make political contributions, how much can be contributed and establishes public disclosure requirements for those who do. FECA allocates about $62 million for each major presidential candidate. If the candidate accepts this money, then no additional funds may be raised.

Federal Election Commission (FEC) - The commission is an independent regulatory agency that enforces the terms of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Members of the FEC are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The commission is evenly divided – no more than 3 commissioners may be members of the same political party – and is comprised of 6 members, each serving six-year terms.

Fiscal year - The beginning and end of the federal government's annual budgetary cycle, which begins October 1st and ends September 30th

Gerrymandering - The redrawing of voting district boundaries by the party in power in such a way that the parties supporters are strategically grouped in the hopes of increasing their power in the next election.

Political gerrymanders date back all the way to the colonial times. The Framers provided a remedy for the problem: the Constitution gives state legislatures the initial power to draw federal election districts, but authorizes Congress to “make or alter” those districts. In Bandemer, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause also grants judges the power–and duty–to control that practice.

HAVA - The Help America Vote Act of 2002. Legislation aiming to improve administration of elections in the U.S. by:
1. creating a new federal agency to serve as a clearinghouse for election administration information;
2. providing funds to states to improve election administration and replace outdated voting systems; and
3. creating minimum standards for states to follow in several key areas of election administration.

In practice, has become something of a hodge-podge of reforms - many of which have been difficult for states to implement. Many of which haven't addressed the 3 needs outlined above.

Invisible primary - Leading up to the first primaries, candidates have already begun campaigning and there is often a general consensus about who is the frontrunner. This time period is often referred to as the invisible primary, because, although no votes have been cast, it already seems as though the party has selected its nominee.

Matching Funds - These are federal funds given to presidential candidates that match private contributions given by individuals dollar-for-dollar. Eligible candidates in the presidential primaries receive up to $250 in matching funds for each individual contribution they receive, provided they agree to limit their campaign spending to $37 million.

Mobilization Groups - Groups whose primary focus is registering voters

Motor-voter Law - The Motor-voter law let US citizens register to vote when applying for or renewing their driver’s license. It became effective on January 1, 1995.

"Necessary & Proper" Clause – This is a provision in the Constitution which suggests that the federal government’s powers go beyond those that are explicitly stated in the Constitution itself.

Nonprobability Sampling – A selection of respondents for a survey or political poll which isn’t random. As a result, the responses from the survey may not be representative of the general population.

Open Primary – Primary for the nomination of a candidate of a particular party in which voters of any political party are eligible to vote.

Plurality - A voting system where the greatest number of votes wins, even if a majority is not reached. Also can be known as ‘First Past the Post’ (or FPTP) electoral system as an allusion to horse racing.

Psephology - The predictive or statistical study of elections.

Push Polling - This is a survey technique where the goal is to influence the person taking the poll instead of actually collecting data. This is done by incorporating negative or misleading information about opposing candidates into the survey questions.

Push Polling was most famously done (allegedly) by the Bush campaign against John McClain in the 2000 Republican Party Primaries. Bush pollsters reportedly called houses in South Carolina asking “Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain for president if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?”. Although the allegation was false, the Bush campaign was (again, allegedly) able to plant the idea in the minds of thousands of voters and, eventually, cause McCain to lose the state and eventually drop out of the race.

Push Polling can also be used more generally, just to try to get certain ideas or themes into voter’s minds. For example, a candidate’s pollsters might ask questions which predominantly deal with terrorism and safety, or the economy or abortion if it was perceived that the opposition was weak on any of these points.

Representation – There are 435 Congressional districts. Currently, each district contains approximately 570,000 people. However, seats in the House are reapportioned every ten years, after the decennial census. Although the number of seats and, consequently, the number of Congressional districts has been fixed at 435, individual states may gain or lose districts as a result of reapportionment.

Soft money - Campaign contributions from large donors which were given to political parties instead of going directly to campaigns – this allowed donors to elude the legal limits placed on campaign contributions. Soft money contributions were essentially outlawed by the McCain-Feingold Bill.

Split-ticket voting - Casting votes for candidates of different political parties on the same ballot. For example,.casting a vote for the Republican presidential candidate while voting for the Democratic congressional candidate.

Suffrage – The civil right to vote … and the use of that right.

Vieth v. Jubelirer - In Vieth v. Jubelirer, Democrats sought to overturn Pennsylvania's redistricting plan, which was drafted by a Republican-led State Legislature and signed into law by a Republican governor. The redistricting plan gave Republicans an advantage in 12 of 19 Congressional districts, even though Democrats outnumbered Republicans statewide.

The Supreme Court was split in its ruling. An earlier case before the Supreme Court, Davis v. Bandemer, held that political gerrymandering claims were justiciable. In Vieth, four justices ruled that redistricting, as a political matter, should not be decided by the courts. Five justices ruled that partisan redistricting could be unconstitutional, but they didn't settle on a standard for deciding when a party had gone too far. In the end, the court allowed the Pennsylvania map to stand.

The Vieth case is important because it ultimately inspired activists to attempt to reform gerrymandering on a state by state basis (ie Proposition 77 in California).

VRM – Voter Relationship Management. VRM is the political world’s version of CRM (Customer Relationship Management). CRM originated as a way to manage customer data for sales people in the field. It later grew to include marketing and production data, and evolved to a sales worldview that put the relationship with the customer and excellent customer service the focus as opposed to the product.

More Info

CNET
Want to vote? Text me now

Personal Democracy Forum
Mobile Voter Launches SFVote Campaign in San Francisco.

160 Characters
R U Registered 2 Vote?

Smart Mobs
Mobile Voter Launches SFVote

Mobile Slate
TXT the Vote

Also, check out our press release