Recent Posts

Learning how to register voters and make the elephant unhappy

by Eric Ferguson on August 4, 2013 · 25 comments

Registering new voters is probably the best way to make the elephant unhappy, given that non-voters who turn into voters tend to vote for the donkey. I’m the chair of the DFL of SD63, where we just completed a voter registration project. We were looking not just to register voters, but we wanted to learn about unregistered persons like where in our district they live, whether they’re eligible, why they don’t register and how to persuade them. We figured the high turnout of a presidential election would reduce the number of unregistered people to it’s lowest point, so we would be looking at the people least likely to vote, and skipping the relatively easy registrations of people who vote regularly, but moved between elections.


We registered some new voters, we learned quite a bit unregistered people in our district, and we learned how to learn about them. What we learned will make future voter registration efforts more effective, and will help with canvassing in general. I wrote a report for our senate district, and I’ve combined our forms, scripts, and instructions into a kit which is available to any other DFL unit that wants it. Though what we learned about the unregistered people in our district applies specifically only to our district, anyone can take what we did and learn about their own district.


So what did we learn about unregistered people, and how did we do it?

We tried to take the approach that we knew nothing about our district or unregistered persons until we actually tested our guesses, even if those guesses were based on long experience with canvassing and long residency on the district. We want as much as possible to trust our data rather than our assumptions. We did in fact guess right about some things, though now we’re not guessing, we know. What was more interesting was what we guessed wrong about, especially if assumptions were completely blown away.


We put together scripts and forms, taking our best guesses at what would work to collect useful data and convince eligible non-voters to register. We produced lists of all registered voters in a turf and used that as a skip list, meaning we knocked on the doors that weren’t on the list. The jargon for what we did is a “reverse doorknock”.


We did test knocks with just a core groups in a couple different parts of the district. Our initial approach to targeting was to pick turfs at random so as to get the most accurate sample possible of unregistered persons. However, we discovered in the tests that some areas have so few unregistered persons, that it’s possible to go an entire block and every address is on the skip list. Our concern was that sending volunteers to turfs with so few people to talk to would make them feel we had sent out for nothing but a long walk, which could mean they wouldn’t come back. So we tried to split the difference between being random and giving volunteers a chance of actually getting registrations.


We had canvassers identify themselves as volunteers with the DFL, and we made buttons with the SD63 logo, so the people they spoke to would know they were speaking to Democrats. We guessed this would cause Republicans to filter themselves out by their refusal to register with us, so the people we registered could be regarded as Democratic-leaning. That means that besides finding Democrats, we’ve already done party ID for the people we register.


We made revisions to forms and scripts following the test knocks, so we were able to send out volunteers with some confidence about what we included in their clipboards.


I’m not going to go into demographic details because I doubt anyone outside our district would care, and I’d rather we didn’t hand things to the Republicans. Let them grind it out as we did, not that I expect them to start registering new voters instead of suppressing them, but still, no point in making it easy. So I’m just going to write broadly about what we learned, with a reminder that this applies particularly just to our one district, and may not be true in yours.


We learned right away that people in MUBs (multi-unit buildings: apartments and condominiums) are less likely to be registered than residents of single-family homes, so we chose to target areas heavier in MUBs. We looked for buildings with fewer registered voters than units. We were able to do this because in 2012, our district worked on a multi-unit building project. This entailed gathering the address and other data about every MUB through information available on the Web and by going street by street, a precinct at a time, through the whole district. Yes, it was as tedious as it sounds, but it’s given us a base of data we’re pretty sure our opponents don’t have. We also picked some areas with clusters of MUBs, and otherwise random areas where at least a couple buildings were located.


There was a tradeoff to targeting. Our sample is not as random as we hoped. The choices we made for targets introduced biases into our results, even if they resulted in more registrations. Where I indicate uncertainty about our findings, the reason will usually be this bias. It’s possible unregistered persons in MUBs are different than those in single-family homes, or those in MUBs where relatively few were already registered may be different than those where most residents were already registered. It’s possible we missed differences between different parts of the district. None of this means our findings are wrong, merely that they’re more uncertain than we’d like. We have results we can use for future canvassing, but we’re going to have to be watchful for data we missed.


We had guesses that turned out to be very wrong, but fortunately not wrong in the sense of losing the election because we got something wrong. Not like “Romney insisting the polls were skewed” wrong. These were more enjoyable discoveries of error, and the most important such error was possibly our guess that we would be frequently told to leave the MUBs we managed to get into, maybe a third or half the time. It happened only once in two full-scale doorknocks and all the test knocks. We have too little information to know if one sort of building is more likely to contain residents who tell canvassers to leave. Can’t tell from a sample of one. What we know for sure is that if we can get into a building, we’ll almost surely be able to doorknock it. This doesn’t apply just to voter registration, but to any canvassing we do. We need to encourage campaigns to reconsider their emphasis on more easily canvassed single-family homes.


As mentioned in the section on why we targeted instead of picking turfs at random, we guessed unregistered persons would be clustered, but that they would be scattered enough that we could find some anywhere. It turns out some parts of the district are so close to fully registered, that it’s possible to find blocks where every address is on the skip list. There were many where there are so few doors to knock, that given how most people don’t answer their doors for whatever reason, a canvasser could potentially walk a large turf and not talk to anyone.


We guessed some eligible persons would express general disgust with politics, saying things like all politicians are crooks or elections are rigged, but this was quite rare. We tried to anticipate these sorts of objections in the detailed instructions for canvassers. They might have felt that way, but they didn’t care to say so.


Residents of MUBs seemed more likely to answer their doors than residents of single-family homes, but this is an impression, not quantified. Assuming it’s accurate, combined with the short distance between doors, this makes MUBs much more efficient to knock.


Sometimes we guessed right, but now we’re not guessing: we know. To wit:


We confirmed our guess that residents of MUBs are more likely to be unregistered. We can’t be precise, that X% of MUB residents are unregistered compared to X% of single-family residents, but we don’t need to be exact for this information to be highly useful.


Residents of new buildings are the most likely to be unregistered and were the most likely to register.


Most immigrants not already registered are not eligible. This seems like a good place to repeat the caveat that this is just our one district.


Our district’s immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic or Somali. We encountered few of any other group. We were able to provide canvassers with phrases in Spanish and Somali, and those proved essential in some turfs. Even though the people who spoke no English turned out to be non-citizens, we were at least able to communicate why we were at their door. Hopefully, if they become citizens, they’ll remember that the DFL contacted them.


The majority of unregistered voters fell into one of two groups, immigrants (mostly non-citizens) and people who moved after the last election. However, this is where the biases might have been added by our choice of targets. We may have overemphasized areas with more immigrants, areas with more short-term residents, or areas with newer buildings where many residents are new, even if they will be there long term. I’m 70% sure we have it right, which in practical terms means I’m unwilling to say we know definitively those two groups are the vast bulk of our unregistered persons, but I’m sure enough to use that information in planning doorknocks, though with an eye out for evidence that’s wrong.


We’re still entering the last data on demographics so I’m giving an impression from having looked though walksheets — take this with a big asterisk. It looks like our unregistered persons are about half and half white and non-white, in a district about 80% white. However, so many of our unregistered persons are non-white immigrants who are non-citizens, I suspect the eligible unregistered voters will look like the district. Their ages seem to cluster in the 20′s, 30′s and 40′s. They seem equally split between genders.


By far, the most frequent objection to registering was the immediate lack of time. “I don’t have time” could mean multiple things. Sometimes that statement came with a request to leave a form, which canvassers took to be a sincere interest in registering. We’ll eventually be able to check to see if the addresses where forms were left ended up in the voter database, and then we’ll know what percentage really do fill it in. Usually though, canvassers came away with the impression of being put off. “I don’t have time” could be a euphemism for “I don’t have any interest”, “I won’t register with a Democrat”, “I don’t really understand this,” or “I hate having people come to my door and I’m trying to not be rude.” There’s no way to know. The persuasion was normally that registering now would save time on election day, and sometimes that worked, plus we haven’t found a better answer yet. We are sure though that the majority of people who don’t want to register will deny having time rather than give a reason.


Incidental to comparing the number of units in MUBs to the number of registered voters at that address, we confirmed that MUB registered voters are more likely to be “no-data”, which means the database has no data to determine a likely party preference. It appeared the proportion was more than half, whereas the whole district is about a quarter no-data. This doesn’t affect voter registration, but will be very useful as we focus on no-data voters in future doorknocks. My speculation is the cause of the difficulty is getting into MUBs,  which I presume is behind the practice of focusing on single-family homes, which means we don’t get better at getting into MUBs.


There are some things we still don’t know, that might be worthwhile for future research:


Do most eligible voters know about this year’s local elections? We were speaking to people who were unregistered, so if they were regular voters, then they probably had moved, and our impression was most didn’t know. But that’s just an impression, and the fact is we often mentioned it without trying to figure out if they already knew, since a secondary goal was letting them know.


We operated under the assumption that if one person at an address is registered, then all eligible voters are registered. That’s playing the odds when it comes to picking targets, but it isn’t true 100%. Is there a way to identify addresses where some eligible voters are registered but not all?


Will our impression that MUB residents are more likely to open their doors stand up if we start quantifying that? If accurate, why do MUB residents answer their doors more? It could be they aren’t as accustomed to being canvassed and aren’t as unwilling to open their doors when they don’t expect anyone, in which case they might become unwilling if they get canvassed more often. It could be as simple as they don’t have a backyard or garage or basement where they can’t hear the doorbell. We can only speculate now, but we have to be aware in case something changes and canvassing becomes less effective, just as changes like caller ID and the frequency of GOTV calls have made phone banks less effective.


Would the results be different if this weren’t the year after a presidential election? Maximized turnout last year reduced the pool of unregistered eligible voters, but such hard-core non-voters might not be representative of unregistered eligible voters after a low turnout election.


How much time has to pass before it’s worth covering the same ground? That is, will there be enough turnover after X number of years to make our data out of date and require doing the project over if we want to be sure it’s right?


We lumped in MUBs together, but are there any differences between apartments and condominiums?


Which parts of our district have more transient populations, and are these populations less likely to register and turn out?


Could we use data on income or poverty rates to match up our findings from doorknocking and use them to be more precise in seeking eligible non-voters?


Again, I invite DFLers who want to try this in their districts to contact me about getting ahold of the kit. I put everything in the kit so my district doesn’t have to start over or even need anyone who worked on it before, so it ought to be usable anywhere. You’ll presumably need to customize it to your district, but unlike us, you won’t have to start from scratch.

give2attain August 4, 2013 at 9:52 am

Do you really think it is good for America to work so hard to get uninformed citizens who don’t even take the initiative to register on their own to vote?

If they are uninfromed, therefore they vote DFL. What does that mean?

I think while you are talking to them you should do your own version of “JayWalking”, maybe you can ask them who is the Governor? What city is the State capital in? What is MN’s sales tax rate? Etc… I am sure you would get some interesting answers…

Dog Gone August 4, 2013 at 11:18 am

On what FACTUAL basis G2 do you assume that someone who registers through a voter registration effort is uninformed? Or that uniformed voters vote DFL, for that matter? As I’ve demonstrated here a number of times with a superior grasp of facts, not “I know a guy” thinking, there are plenty of us who are very well informed who don’t vote conservatively.

The term Low Information Voter is used by liberals to refer to those conservatives who foolishly vote against their self-interest. But it is NOT by any stretch a term unique to liberals in describing conservative voters. I would refer you to the observations of 30 year REPUBLICAN congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who when he wrote “Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult”, accused the GOP of manipulating the base of religious cranks, and those anti-intellectuals, anti-science wackos (for example, those who are climate change deniers), and for specifically inaccurately manipulating that extremist base to distrust government.

So, it seems pretty clear if you look across the use of the term Low Information Voter, we generally are referring to ill-informed and misinformed conservatives.

There are large groups of under-represented voters; that does not mean those voters are indifferent or ignorant, but it does reflect a variety of calculated efforts to discourage them from voting. Don’t you believe in representative government G2? If you do, then you don’t fear more voters who are legally entitled to vote being registered and involved and encouraged to participate in the body we refer to as the electorate.

Sadly, it is the right that most actively DISCOURAGES voter participation. Shame on them.

I’d love to JayWalk some of those conservatives. They don’t do well, as a group, on those kinds of questions, and many of them believe all sorts of stupid things, especially the conspiracy tin foil hat crowd. I could ask about wonderful things like the role of the UN and sovereignty for starters, the validity or invalidity of nullification……climate change, female reproductive health questions, the Constitution (both state and federal), what judicial activism is and who does it……

At least, based on numerous studies like this one, I would expect conservatives to do very poorly:

Eric Ferguson August 4, 2013 at 11:20 pm

Yes, I do think it’s a good idea, because people who intend to vote are likely to pay attention. Our democracy is healthier when citizens participate in it, and voting is the first step. People just getting engaged are more likely to vote that to start out writing to their congressmen or attending public forums.

Regarding this question, “If they are uninfromed, therefore they vote DFL. What does that mean?” it means you’re showing why Republicans have such trouble appealing to so many people. You approach them with insults. That’s the best favor Republicans give to Democrats, insulting people we both need to appeal to. Look at the assumption you make about people who are unregistered. They could have just moved since the last election, or just turned 18, or just become citizens, or been skeptical that electoral politics does any good, or just had trouble getting to the polls between working two jobs and figuring out child care and household errands, yet that’s the Republican attitude towards them. Seriously, did you even consider those possibilities, or just assume unregistered people are idiots?

give2attain August 5, 2013 at 4:36 am

Hi Guys,
I didn’t mean to tweak you. I thought I was in essence repeating what Eric said…

“Registering new voters is probably the best way to make the elephant unhappy, given that non-voters who turn into voters tend to vote for the donkey.”

The reality is that if they do not make the time to register, politics and voting isn’t very high on their priority list.

I do like Dog’s addition though… “The term Low Information Voter is used by liberals to refer to those conservatives who foolishly vote against their self-interest.” So it seems that in Dog’s view a “high information voter” is one who votes for their “self interest”. No wonder our National Debt is so huge and the DFL likes to give things away to encourage voters. Dog apparently thinks it is a good thing that people are voting for low taxes and lots of pork/welfare.

Personally I would think a “high information voter” would make responsible decisions that would be good for the country that has been so good to all of us…

Eric Ferguson August 5, 2013 at 9:41 am

No, you weren’t just repeating what I said, and even after I explained it explicitly, you still don’t get it. You still seem unable to see the assumptions you’re making. The GOP seems unable to understand why they just can’t make any progress among certain groups. I’d rather Republicans treated them better rather than just handing their votes to us, but if Republicans want to go on assuming derogatory things, rather than learning about other people’s lives, Democrats will accept their votes.

give2attain August 6, 2013 at 3:29 am

So, why do you believe non-voters later vote for the donkey?

These are people who were non-voters. Meaning they had not priortized this civil responsibility high enough to get registered and vote. Now the DFL contacts them and cajoles them into getting registered… Does this bode well?

“Registering new voters is probably the best way to make the elephant unhappy, given that non-voters who turn into voters tend to vote for the donkey.”

Eric Ferguson August 6, 2013 at 12:42 pm

I believe that because that’s what the political scientists have told us.

Yes, it bodes well, and the contempt you have for people you know nothing about is just dripping, yet you can’t see the puddle you’re making. Like I explained before, there are all sorts of circumstances people come from, but I guess if Republicans won’t challenge their own assumptions, good for Democrats.

give2attain August 6, 2013 at 3:32 am

By the way, do you agree with Dog that people should vote for what benefits themselves most? Be it pork, welfare, programs or low taxes…

Bonnie Lokenvitz August 5, 2013 at 9:46 am

How did you gain access to the apartment buildings? Most apartments that have been targeted in HD11B are secure buildings and you need a resident to let you in.

Eric Ferguson August 5, 2013 at 10:43 am

There are state laws governing when buildings have to allow in canvassers. Generally, they have to let in candidates and volunteers with the candidates, but the campaigns have to arrange a time. I say generally because I’m not sure of all the permutations. If there’s no posted policy at the building, candidates have more leeway to just go in. In practical terms, sometimes residents or managers won’t know or care about the laws and will still ask canvassers to leave, and you have to decide how much you want to dispute the point. If you don’t have a candidate with you, and if there’s no prior arrangement to be there, figure they can boot you out, though like I said, if we could get in, that didn’t happen. Also, if one of you is a resident, that person can’t be told to leave, though I don’t know about the other canvassers.

There’s a practical problem that the rules are the same for buildings with 400 units or 4, but you can guess which is easier to arrange access to. Larger buildings can be doorknocks by themselves. Our district has few big buildings and many with 4, so we pick an area and when we come to a building, ask a resident to let us in. You could also target buildings where you already have a resident to let you in, but that doesn’t work if your intention is to gather data about the district from as random a sample as possible. That’s what we were doing, so that stuck us with the problem of picking an area, and then figuring out how to get into those buildings. We couldn’t get into most buildings, but we could normally get into enough.

Andrew August 6, 2013 at 3:49 pm

As the CD5 apartment organizer in 2012, I can confirm that MUB’s (as you refer to them) are indeed a rich place to register voters. In CD5 as a whole, 53.9% of the people are registered to vote (doors at which there is a registered person/units). And yes, these people tend to be younger, older, less affluent, and with a higher percentage of communities of color and new immigrants i.e. Democrats. Given the high turnover among apartment renters, this should be an on-going, annual project to account for the changing population.

Eric Ferguson August 6, 2013 at 4:48 pm

I was just sent the report you gave the DFL, and particularly noted the part about discussing with interested parties. Since we focused on just our district and just unregistered persons, we might have filled in missing bits. As you noted, our district doesn’t have enough large buildings to have been part of your focus, so we focused on solving our problem of canvassing buildings when we’re loaded with 4 units or 14 but not 100.

Of course, I still encourage other SDs to do their own research, because your districts could be quite different from ours. Having learned how to do this might be more important that what we actually learned.

give2attain August 6, 2013 at 6:05 pm

Now Eric, this statement is a cop out. “I believe that because that’s what the political scientists have told us.”

Even Andrew did a better job of answering the question. “And yes, these people tend to be younger, older, less affluent, and with a higher percentage of communities of color and new immigrants i.e. Democrats.”

By the way, there is no contempt here. I am a very pragmatic individual. Per Dog’s statement, you want to get these people out to vote for their self interest. (ie govt programs, welfare, education benefits, social security, medicaid, medicare, etc) You know the “free stuff”.

Just as the Conservatives want to get the people out who have to pay for this “free stuff”. Thereby voting in their own self interest.

Seems prtty simple to me. How do you see it as more complicated?

Eric Ferguson August 6, 2013 at 11:31 pm

You may not intend contempt towards new voters, but it’s there. Apparently you can’t see it, but the evidence is in front of you every election that other people see it. Whether you choose to act on it is up to you. I wish Republicans did see it because we’d have better public policy, but I’m going to try only so many times to show you where the problem is.

give2attain August 7, 2013 at 1:48 am

Now if you were pure of intent and striving to get everybody to vote. Because I think you imply that everyone should be encouraged to vote. Would you really be actively trying to weed out the Republican leaning folks. (see below)

“We had canvassers identify themselves as volunteers with the DFL, and we made buttons with the SD63 logo, so the people they spoke to would know they were speaking to Democrats. We guessed this would cause Republicans to filter themselves out by their refusal to register with us, so the people we registered could be regarded as Democratic-leaning. That means that besides finding Democrats, we’ve already done party ID for the people we register.”

Are you then holding those voters in contempt? Since they see the world differently than you do…

The reality is that you are looking to sign up DFL leaning voters. That would mean people that believe the gov’t should take a very active role in playing Robinhood. (ie steal from the rich, give to the poor) I would think you would agree with this, and not be frustrated by it. I mean many people see Robinhood as a hero…

Grace Kelly August 8, 2013 at 10:48 am

In response to ” Conservatives want to get the people out who have to pay for this free stuff. Thereby voting in their own self interest. ” Actually, conservatives have been conned into this story. Basically government creates wealth and better society for all. Because of this free stuff con game, the wealth has shifted to the richest few. This shift is very well documented. So conservatives are voting for the wealthy to get even more.

Furthermore we used to have free stuff like clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. Now conservatives are ensuring that toxins fill both. Conservatives basically are setting us all up for cancer and health problems. Oh, and conservatives want to ensure that we don’t know what is in our water, our food or other products. Because then we customers could make informed choices . Instead the rich get richer with shortcuts that we customers would not knowingly endorse or purchase.

Conservative is just another name for conned.

give2attain August 11, 2013 at 9:16 am

I am not even sure where to go with this one… I mean it seems to me that Liberals want people to vote their self interest like Dog said. And they want people to have food, clothing, medical care, housing, education, clean air, clean water, etc whether the choose to work productively for it, or sit on their butts and wait for it to be handed to them.

I just can’t see rewarding dead beats at the expense of the productive people as being good for America and the majority of her citizens.

Dog Gone August 11, 2013 at 7:07 pm

As usual G2, you are factually deficient. Voting against one’s self-interest is when people vote for destructive politicians and policies, like those which increase the wealth and income gap, to their own and the nation’s detriment. And FYI – those rewards go to people who are not productive and who do not get paid on merit.
(Let me know if you need me to supply those studies, data, etc.)

There is no problem with people refusing to work productively, having benefits handed to them. That’s garbage on your part – aka more willful ignorance.

Do you need to have the Ronnie Ray-gun era myth about welfare queens debunked AGAIN? Or can you manage that for yourself without my doing it for you?

Do you demand that children, the elderly, and those who are too impaired to work do so – or starve, etc.?

Do you REALLY fail to understand the reality – with which conservative belief is disconnected, completely – that poor people DO work? Or do you figure swigging the kool aid of willful ignorance is all you need to do? You’re wrong, on all counts. Again.

Try this on for size:

I particularly like the concluding paragraph of that second article:

This kind of data inspires me to ask if this is what a functional economy looks like. We have policies — e.g., the federal minimum wage and somewhat laissez faire free market policies — that create a situation in which working full time doesn’t allow a single parent to support even one child. When we hear criticisms of people who receive benefits, then, we should be careful to remember that their economic crisis is not a straightforwardly personal characteristic, one that can be explained by a poor work ethic or disorderly personality. There are structural reasons that people end up in need. We have three choices: let them suffer and perhaps die, help them, or change our society.

Then there was this comment on poverty facts, from the working poor project

Facts about poverty

The Working Poor Families Project (WPFP) reported that close to 42 million working families (one in four families) were poor, with 5.5 million families spending more than a third of their income on housing. The same project reported that approximately 29.4 million low-income working families held jobs paying below the poverty threshold. About 72 percent of low-income families held a job, and married couples headed 52 percent of these families(WPFP 2008).

You would do well to check out the research compiled from next door in WI on poverty; they do an excellent job:

If you are worried about rewaring deadbeats, then you should be concerned about the executive compensation paid without regard to merit or performance:

Happy to sort you out with a refresher in facts; the data on excessive compensation without merit or justification by performance is HUGE. Sort of like the massive documentation on the effects of poverty on performance, it is so huge it is hard to understand how you could miss it, short of willful ignorance G2.

It is not the poor who are receiving too many benefits, it is the wealthy. Time for us to end the redistribution of wealth to the 1% and to redistribute it back to those who deserve it through their work and high productivity levels.

By all means, let us stop rewarding the deadbeats – at the top.

Read more:

give2attain August 11, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Back to top

give2attain August 11, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Do I need to run the Pelosi video for you again? Yes welfare kings and queens are still very real and with us. With a large group or team, there are always some deadbeats / free loaders. To deny this is to deny human behavior.

Or do you also believe there are no thieves, identity thieves, etc.

Are you okay with raising the minimum wage to $12/hr and gutting welfare then. Since you say all those folks want to work, maybe that would be a good trade off.

Dog Gone August 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm

No, welfare kings and queens were never real and are not real now.

Welfare fraud is rare, far more rare than righties believe.

I’d love to see the minimum wage go closer to $15, with a rise in the next five years or so to $21 an hour.

It wouldn’t gut welfare, it would put more people into the tax base to pay for it; it would remain means tested.

Dog Gone August 12, 2013 at 1:04 pm

Please acquaint yourself with the actual large mountain of carefully accumulated data, well analyzed, peer reviewed, that says you’re wrong.

Then be so kind as to demonstrate for me with similarly researched fact, not your usual ‘I know a guy who used to know someone that lived next to someone who…’ stuff.

We don’t end a government program that assists people who need it because of the existence of identity theft, which in any case is not what people usually mean by welfare fraud anyway.

Are you in favor, G2, of child labor of the kind we outlawed after the Dickensian era of abuse? Or do you want to see the elderly work until they drop dead in their tracks? How about the disabled, should they just be allowed to starve, to die without medical care?

And you seem to be singularly silent about the payment of excessive compensation to the executive class aka the ‘C’ class (CEO, CFO, COO, etc.) without any justification of merit or performance, yet you begrudge those who have high productivity earning a living wage? How utterly devoid of logic or moral and ethical value, not to mention utility, is that kind of failed right wing thinking? Crickets are getting mighty loud while we wait for your moral outrage on that front.

Try again G2; you’ve failed to provide either a rational or well-informed answer again.

give2attain August 12, 2013 at 3:57 pm

I am quiet because MPP is malfunctioning often for me…

give2attain August 12, 2013 at 3:58 pm

Can only post short comments…. Sometimes they work…

give2attain August 12, 2013 at 10:05 pm

FYI. Moved discussion to G2A. I’ll try longer post when I get time.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: