If You Think This Does NOT ENDANGER Democracy, You Better Think Again...LINK

[Blackhatjack]

When you think about the power personal wealth gives a candidate in an election(assuming they bypass public financing IF available), think what that Billionaire's wealth combined with the wealth and power of the companies he directs is like --- THEN MULTIPLY THAT POWER OF WEALTH by the emerging technology of "microtargeting" in a way that no other candidate can compete financially.

We are talking about an approach to electioneering that combines the collection of personal information on potential voters in a way that makes it possible to use that personal information to influence and manipulate election outcomes.

No election will take place on a level playing field with the positions of the candidates on issues being the deciding factors that motivate voters in their selections as the power of wealth becomes exponentially multiplied UNLESS we ACT NOW to require public financing of elections.

Or in other words the wealth of the top 1% may indeed lead to dynastic control of the White House and Congress in a way that completely blocks democratically elected representation as intended by the founding fathers in crafting our Constitution. Align the interests of Corporations with those dynastic candidates, and the election process becomes a mere ritual for coronating the next in line to serve.

The implications are chilling .... especially since the first steps are taking place with little to no notice by the MSM and the voters.

The Future is NOW...
********************************************************
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/bloomberg-takes-robocalls_n_334508.html

"Bloomberg Takes Robocalls To The Next Level, Microtargeting Population With 75 Different Calls

NEW YORK – Mayor Michael Bloomberg has spent millions of dollars to get inside the head of every New York City voter, hundreds of thousands of whom will get pre-recorded "robocalls" narrowly targeted to appeal to their tastes and urging them to get out and vote."

SKIP

"It is one of the highly meticulous ways that the Bloomberg operation is using its extensive voter database to contact New Yorkers before the Nov. 3 election and part of why the billionaire mayor has already managed to spend $85.2 million on his campaign.

Automated calls to get out the vote are nothing new in political campaigns, but the Bloomberg campaign's specificity is rarely seen at the local level. Campaign officials estimate they will have 75 calls reaching 890,000 people."

MORE
***********************************************************
The discussion of "microtargeting" is matter of fact and treated as a benign issue by campaign officials, but the comment that there will never be another election run like this is patently false. This is a 'proof of concept' campaign, and with an endless supply of dollars to spend it will confirm that an election can be bought if you can afford the present technology. You need to read the whole piece at the HUFFPO site LINKED BELOW.

***********************************************************
"And how do they know what matters to each voter? Using an approach known as microtargeting, the Bloomberg campaign collects comprehensive information about voters and uses that to build profiles to predict what messages might appeal to them.

Microtargeting involves gathering bits of information like whether voters own a home or have children in college, what kind of car they drive, income and educational background, what kind of computers they use, what they watch on television, which magazines they read, and whom they supported in past elections.

That information is then supplemented by data gathered from conversations with voters during phone calls and door-to-door canvasses. All the pieces create pictures of every person that are used to predict appealing messages in mailings and other ads, plus what it will take to get each to come out and vote."

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/26/bloomberg-takes-robocalls_n_334508.html

[SPedigrees]

1. I hang up as soon as any robocall begins, if there is silence on the line

or if the caller is a telemarketer or a charity seeking donations. I can't believe I am unique.

[DemBones DemBones]

2. We also hang up right away.

[thunder rising]

3. I think if a billionair wants to spend his money to run for office is fine. Phone isn't the only

communication and RoboCalls are shit.

[BrklynLiberal]

5. You are 100% right. I have gotten no fewer than 6 BOOKLETS in the mail touting Bloomberg.

and I mean 8-10 pages...high quality paper..Nothing cheap.

[BrklynLiberal]

4. Bloomberg has succeeded in convincing NYC voters that he is unbeatable...

I will vote for the Green Party Candidate...just to voice my disgust with the other choices.

[Blackhatjack]

6. The fact YOU Hang Up on Robo-calls Does Not Diminish the Power Wielded Here...

You don't have to capture every vote to win an election. You have to convince and motivate the critical mass to ensure your candidate wins a particular election.

The more someone knows about you and your activities, and has the $$ to obtain that information, the more likely it is that they will find 'the most effective way' to convince and motivate you to vote for their candidate.

And if they know you 'hang up on robocalls' that will go in the database, and the another approach will be signaled for you(ie. text message, direct mail, canvas, etc.).

It is about combining effectiveness and efficiency of campaigning along with overwhelming information pathways to potential voters because you have the wealth to do so.

[SPedigrees]

10. Good luck to them with that.

I don't have texting on my cell phone, I toss political mailings summarily in the round bin, I delete spam without reading, and I greet canvassers politely but send them quickly on their way, with a few choice words if they're at my door on behalf of a repub, and with a few kind words of encouragement if they represent a dem.

There is no 'effective way' to convince and motivate me to vote for their RW candidate no matter how much money they spend on it. And if they're conservative, the more they spend on this futile effort, the happier I am.

[Blackhatjack]

12. OK you are impervious... those who voted for George W. Bush are vulnerable...

People who work 2-3 jobs, struggle to live hand to mouth, are 'vulnerable' to campaign pitches which have been 'designed' to appeal to them on maybe one to two major issues which resonate with them --but mention nothing of how they will be ill served by electing the candidate being pushed upon them.

Saying you won't be affected is insignificant to the problem highlighted here.

[SPedigrees]

13. As I said, I'm sure I am not unique in my "imperviousness."

For each of those who do respond positively to a repub robocall, there is likely someone else who reponds with equal favor to a dem robocall. This type of campaigning sounds like democracy at work to me.

And for every Bush elected by idiots, there is an Obama elected by intelligent, progressive Americans. Obama was elected by a landslide, whereas Bush squeaked in by a hair, thanks to corrupt Supreme crt justices and fraudulent voting practices in FL.

Rail about the MSM or voting machines if you want to, but robocalls are hardly an issue.

[Blackhatjack]

14. You obviously did not read the article, only the limited excerpts ...

Robocalls are the tip of the iceberg .... It is one aspect of microtargeting as I explained in my comments.

Allowing massive amounts of wealth to influence election outcomes does NOT sound like democracy at work in any sense.

FYI Obama did NOT win everywhere by a landslide... he won my state of NORTH CAROLINA by less than 1/2 % of the vote, and had a Bloomberg-like candidate run on the local and state levels we would have a Repub Gov and Legislature here today. It was that close.

IF you believe the country is evenly divided by Repub and Dem voters you are mistaken.

There is a reason the vote to elect GWB President was as close as it was in a country with significantly MORE REGISTERED DEMS THAN REGISTERED REPUBS, and that reason was directly related to MONEY.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. Really an important topic.

It goes hand-in-hand with the media manipulation, GOP manufactured and controlled electronic voting machines, and the huge boondoggle that passes for 'Democracy' these days.

[msongs]

8. no need for this, just rig the voting machines for the outcome you want nt

[SPedigrees]

11. Yes, now if you all want to talk about rigged voting machines

that's an important and distressing topic.

Robocalls are a joke IMO.

[Blackhatjack]

9. I hate to even contemplate it, BUT it is the pathway for Repubs to RETURN TO POWER...

As long as $$$$ is required to win elections, and Repubs stay plugged into shilling the interests of Corporations and the ultra-wealthy, there will always be a pathway back to the White House and control of Congress.

WE SIMPLY MUST ADDRESS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN ORDER TO SAVE OUR COUNTRY.

[dreamnightwind]

17. +1000

This is where the real action is at, campaign finance reform.

[TreasonousBastard]

15. Nothing new here-- in my own lifetime I remember...

moans and groans about the End of Democracy when Rockefeller and Kennedy put their family fortunes to work on the campaign trail. Keane, Whitman, and Corzine in New Jersey elicited the same complaints. Every so often we hear talk about the Senate as the Millionaires' Club. Not long before it becomes the Billionaires' Club.

I'm not trivializing it, it is a real problem and not getting any better, but it's not the end of the world yet. We simply have to keep up whatever pressure we can to get campaign spending limits. It's not easy, since every time they get something through someone finds a loophole or a friendly court to throw it out, but limits, preferably with public financing, are ultimately the only answer.

I wouldn't hold my breath, though, since not too many care. Even that little presidential campaign checkoff box on your tax return gets fewer and fewer checks every year.

[starroute]

16. The GOP became the masters of computerized voting lists very early

Back around 2002 and 2004, whenever people like us suggested that certain elections had been stolen through electronic voting, the Republicans would just say no, they were simply the masters of highly targeted last-minute get-out-the-vote efforts.

I doubted it then, but the more cases I've seen of timely infusions of large sums of money enabling the GOP to pull ahead during the last few weeks of crucial campaigns, the more inclined I am to believe it could be true, at least much of the time.

The fact that the left has pulled ahead on the Netroots front tends to make us forget that the right pioneered the use of computerized mailing lists for fundraising back in the 70's and went on to develop that into a highly sophisticated use of voter databases. Even the more questionable tactics, like voter caging, are based on their ability to exactly pinpoint various voting groups and where they live.

So what scares me about this is not the use of money to buy elections -- which has always been true on some level -- but the creation of whole new level of microanalysis to manipulate outcomes. That's where I see the real potential for abuse.

[lonestarnot]

18. Don't even bother with the hang-up, just don't answer.

[Vidar]

19. K&R

[boppers]

20. Microtargeting is a marketing fad.

It fails in elections with great regularity, but since it's promoted by, uhm, marketers, they keep trying. It works for selling, oh, Volvo owners on Volvo service, but it becomes more useless when people have more complex profiles.

Here's mine, based on the data trawled:
1. own a home: No
2. have children in college: No
3. what kind of car they drive: Saab 9-2, 2000 model.
4. income: >50K, <100K
5. educational background: Some college
6. what kind of computers they use: 2 Macs, 2 Ubuntu, 3 Windows
7. what they watch on television: CSPAN, CNN, Discovery, History
8. which magazines they read: None
9. whom they supported in past elections: (Possibly the only helpful question, so I'll leave it out.)

So, based on that, and without looking at my profile or posting history, what were my primary candidate preferences, and what were my core issues?

[Hannah Bell]

21. income inequality *always* counters democracy, whether they *microtarget* or not.

the simple fact that 1% of the population takes 25% of income & holds 40-50% of total wealth means democracy doesn't & can't exist.

90% of the population consumes the material & ideological goods presented to it by the elites who own the means of material & cultural production.