Friday, October 5, 2012

Today's Voter ID Call Tallies

Blue and white circular VOTE NO on voter restriction sticker
I put myself through it again today -- two hours and fifteen minutes of phone calls to strangers about the voter ID amendment. Unlike my earlier shift, which was in the evening, this one was during work hours, and I definitely reached fewer live callers.

These folks were from southern and western Minnesota, in towns like Owatonna, Rochester, and Long Prairie. Most were over 60, I'd say, including several in their late 80s and early 90s.

Today's count was 20 conversations (not counting not-homes, not-interesteds, and so on). The break down:
  • 4 strong No votes
  • 3 strong Yes vote (plus 1 that probably was, but the conversation was too short to hear why)
  • 6 undecideds who stayed undecided but listened to what I had to say
  • 1 strong Yes who became a soft yes and said she'd look into it some more
  • 3 strong or weak Yes votes who became No votes
  • 2 undecideds who became No votes
The highlight was a call to a 75-year-old election judge from Owatonna. She knew every reason the amendment is a bad idea, plus a few more.

She said that if the amendment is enacted, they'll need two more judges per polling place to carry it out and probably a computer with an Internet connection.What would that cost and who would pay for it?

Her takeaway thoughts: "If the amendment goes through, a lot of us [election judges] are done."


Ms Sparrow said...

It's too bad that election judge can't get that information out to the public. I think a lot of proponents of the measure have a blase attitude (eg. Sure, why not?) and haven't thought it through.

Gina said...

Good for you for doing the calls, Pat! I respect people who get involved like that. It's not my scene, though, and never has been.... Keep up the good work!