[maxerickson]

Well no, it isn't valid to call it a Super PAC. Especially given the availability of the word "partisan".

If we were just discovering that groups took sides a little bit of linguistic fuzziness would be acceptable. Not knowing what some jargon means and using it sloppily is just sloppy, again, especially in the face of a meaningful general term.

I did say I guess it would be more accurate to just assert that you believe they are partisan. in an attempt to make it clear that my comment was about the language.

As far as whether get out the vote is inherently a partisan activity, I think if you believe that voters skew differently than the general population, the test for partisan activity is that it skews in the other direction, not that it happens to skew less than the population of voters.

If it makes you feel better, I'm generally a crank. Here I am 6 months ago telling the founder of Vote.org that their tax status isn't an interesting defense of the activity:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11718069

[sbhere]

Ah, I wasn't clear. I was citing the bias indicated by the parent, not the super PAC. You are correct in the definition.

My intent is not too harass you, but rather to encourage true public service to those out there with similar desires (increase voter turnout) willing to look past or work without blatant bias.

Apologies if I came across critical of your accurate statements.