[nebula8804]

Do you ever reply with the word STOP?

I am finding it hard to believe that you are getting so much even during election season.

How many candidates could possibly be running in your district? You got Congress, Senate, Presidential and possibly low level positions (typically most of those are so unorganized/poor that they usually don't even have a website, just a facebook post).

A candidate has to pay money to acquire a list of contacts from their party. Most smaller upstart campaigns are operating on almost no money. (For example AOC had a ~300k budget her first run vs her opponents 3 million. Most of that 300k arrived in the last month or so after she started getting momentum in activist circles). Most candidates are operating on FAR less than that throughout the whole campaign.

So I was a volunteer on multiple campaigns (some in NJ). The participation rate in primaries before texting was abysmal (like upper single digits) texting and other GOTV efforts have brought up the rate to double digits (12-15%). Thats enough to swing some elections but it is still terrible participation.

All this crap is a result of people not caring whatsoever who gets elected. Something has to be done to try and enact change in this damn country. If you really hate it then remove your party registration/don't donate. Im a registered Democrat and have never once received Republican inquiries and for Democrats reaching out, texting STOP reduces the rate until I receive at most one or two new inquiry per election cycle(essentially 0).

[antsar]

Honestly, no, I haven't tried "STOP" out of fear that any response will be taken as a confirmation that a human reads the messages, worsening the spam. That's what happens w/ email and phone spam and its impossible to know if this one is different.

I don't think I registered a party affiliation, so it's not exactly like I opted in to this.

I appreciate that this is an effective way to get people to vote, and more voters is a good thing. I vote. Unfortunately it's hard to sympathize with a party when the message is delivered as an unsolicited faux-personalized distraction in a way that I can't easily block.

[nebula8804]

I suspect they will follow the STOP command to the dot since they are American and you know, traceable to an entity.

The law states that all robotexts are forbidden except for political messages that were sent manually.

[1]: https://www.fcc.gov/rules-political-campaign-calls-and-texts

I don't think any political entity wants to mess with the FCC.

>I don't think I registered a party affiliation, so it's not exactly like I opted in to this.

Possible that the list is derived from state databases indicating that you are registered to vote. This is separate from party databases. Just throwing out that possibility as well.

>I appreciate that this is an effective way to get people to vote, and more voters is a good thing. I vote. Unfortunately it's hard to sympathize with a party when the message is delivered as an unsolicited faux-personalized distraction in a way that I can't easily block.

Well now you know that they are being sent by a human being and how to stop them for a campaign so hopefully they won't be such a nuisance in the next election cycle.

Was wondering if I could get your opinion on some of these things.

I have been thinking of ways to increase voter turnout. Currently the three ways are

1. Go door to door and have a friendly chat with people. (The most effective way bar none) 2. Send out a handwritten letter to people across the country. This is something that seems to get less likely voters to be more likely to come out, a handwritten letter discussing how the election matters to the person writing it. I guess it humanizes the election and helps some people understand that these election helps/hurt their fellow citizens. (kind of effective) 3. Send out text message/phone call to get a conversation going. There is someone on the other side and you can text/converse with them. (least effective)

What do you think should be done to change the needle? Which ones of the above would you respond to positively?

[antsar]

Presumably a hybrid of #1, #2, #3 is most effective - there are audiences that will respond best to each. I assume the targeting data is out there.

Personally, though, I find the handwritten aspect of the letter, and the from a human being part of the text messages, to be the awkward parts. I've never met the folks texting me, yet they know my name and want to convince me of things. Its advertising, it feels pushy. Being channeled through a real human (even if they truly align with the message) doesn't change that. I might agree with the message, but I still don't want it to barge into my day like that.

[nebula8804]

>Personally, though, I find the handwritten aspect of the letter, and the from a human being part of the text messages, to be the awkward parts. I've never met the folks texting me, yet they know my name and want to convince me of things. Its advertising, it feels pushy. Being channeled through a real human (even if they truly align with the message) doesn't change that. I might agree with the message, but I still don't want it to barge into my day like that.

Honestly though then it seems like there is no effective way to really reach you then?

I like to think there aren't many of you out there since Americans are typically personable and are very open to talking. But the numbers show that participation is still very low...just not as low when no outreach was done. It is a depressing state of affairs.