A bunch of us hyper active types have been meeting via conference call to discuss wiki specifics. There are many organizations doing parallel and related efforts, and we wanted to coordinate a little more. The folks at SourceWatch will be launching similar project (Election Protection Wiki at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Portal:Election_Protection_Wiki), and that got us to thinking.

Since the SourceWatch folks are legally bound to remain non-partisan, would our efforts at the Voter Suppression Wiki benefit from being more partisan, more openly pro-Obama?

This means that among the "learn, report, act" mission of the site, we'd emphasize the "act" a bit more and do more explicit coordination with the campaign to get them information, etc.

The balance of this site was always going to lean to the left given the history of groups affected by voter suppression tactics, but we wanted to bring it to the wiki membership for further consideration. This would not involve a name change or anything, but might free us to be a bit more aggressive in some ways. So, what do yall think? Are we fired up?

Statements in favor of a pro-Obama/pro-Democratic partisan direction

SonyaLynn: I certainly vote to let this be a pro-Obama, partisan effort!

Aunk: Amen -partisan let go.

Michellebird: I very strongly support this site going more partisan/pro-Obama!

Statements in favor of an anti-GOP multi-partisan direction

gabrielg: I do think it could be helpful to be specifically anti-GOP. So many organizations that work on this issue are limited by their non-partisan status (which I think is mostly about where their money comes from) -- IMO, it really limits how real they can be about this problem. While there's a certain amount of credibility that comes with being "non-partisan", there's a limitation too -- you can't really frame voter suppression as a Republican effort. Which it blatantly is. Pretty much always.

So I'm in favor of this being partisan in the sense that the site can openly call out the GOP for having a massive program to prevent people from voting.

In my personal opinion, the problem of active voter suppression (versus just poor planning and infrastructure) will go away when there's a heavy enough political price for it. And there's not yet. So I'm heavily in favor of there being more stuff that aggressively frames the Republican party as suppressionists.

msladydeborah: I have to agree with the slant going towards any and all attempts made by Republicans.... Even though I am pro-Obama, I respect the fact that there are other people who are supporting other candidates. I am an Ohioan and I know from experience that the GOP can run a well organized effort to surpress voters.

JonPincus: This is a really interesting possibility and one that we hadn't considered. Like a lot of people, I see the GOP as using voter suppression as part of their core strategy ... it's not just Democrats suffers from this. And I do agree that Libertarians, Greens, and independent/DTS voters are impacted by voter suppression. By running on a platform of minimizing the vote, the GOP has made it a partisan issue.

If we wind up with (say) 90% of the incidents reported targeting students, blacks, Latinos, overseas military, and other Obama-leaning demographics, and noticeably more links to progressive or Democratic-leaning blogs (and mainstream media sources like the Post, Times, etc. that conservatives vilify as "liberal"), we'll get attacked as partisan and biased no matter how we describe ourselves. And if 75% or more of the members of the site are pro-Obama -- as seems likely from the discussion on this thread -- that'll just add fuel to the fire.

Also, on phone calls and email discussions so far, there's been noticeably more enthusiasm when we discuss the partisan approach. One of the dynamics is that people who strongly support a candidate are looking at how to budget their time between now and the election; if we're a partisan organization, people can balance their leverage here against other tasks like canvassing, phone banking, etc. etc. If we're a non-partisan organization, it's very easy for people to say "y'know, we've got an election to win -- great stuff, good luck with it, see you after November".

Rysputin: I can get with being anti-GOP ... but not pro-Obama, and not toward endorsing any one candidate.

Statements in favor of a non-partisan direction

Rysputin: Well, call me a contrarian, but I'm absolutely against any move to go partisan, especially if it's simply in response to other non-partisan voter rights watchdogs remaining non-partisan. A move like that would threaten the integrity of the Wiki -- this has been created, at least as I understand it, to protect election rights for people voting for any candidate, not just the Corporate Candidates. Before you start calling me a mooseburger eater, I'm voting third party. But that's not even the point. I feel quite strongly about this. I was filled with enthusiasm when I heard about this site, and it will be with an equal amount of disappointment if I have to leave.

rachel.e.sparks: I also say we should keep this site non partisan. While many people that care about this issue may be Democrats or vote for the Democratic Party the fact is that *all* Americans are affected by voter suppression. That being said I do think the site should try and coordinate with campaign groups to combat voter suppression.

princebuster: Clearly, we all agree that eliminating (or at least reducing) voter suppression tactics is the mission, so the question really is: "Is the mission best served as a partisan or nonpartisan organization?"

I'm a progressive and a big Obama supporter myself. However, I would argue that taking a strict nonpartisan approach is more effective for the following reasons:

(1) This issue goes right to the heart of what "democracy" fundamentally about. And it's not about "party."
(2) MSM coverage is more likely as if we're a group without obvious bias.
(3) Believe it or not, many rank-and-file Republicans would actually be horrified to learn what some on their team has done and is doing. Even though the conventional wisdom says that expanded voter rolls favors the D's, there ARE honest R's out there, and we should try to appeal to their sense of fair play.

Being highly partisan is satisfying in the moment, but it doesn't advance the cause of "one man, one vote."

I think we should avoid ending up with a wiki where most of the links go to lefty blogs and media. Change won't come by preaching to the choir! We must convince mainstream independents that this is important, and therefore we must get the attention of, and cite (as much as possible) mainstream media!

thoughtfulconservative: Well, I was invited to take part, although as a GOP voter, I feel somewhat out of place. It seems that the opinion by most is that the GOP is behind virtually all voter suppression and that the only suppression that can take place is when people are denied the opportunity to vote.

So I'll probably just leave this comment and search for a more non-partisan forum.

I have no problem with every legal voter voting. Maybe some in my party do, but I'm not one of them.

But I also don't want my vote diluted (and isn't this a form of suppression?) by people voting more than once, or people who are not legal voters voting (and I realize this is different in different states). Is that too much to ask?

handtek2k: My answer is no.... I regard voter suppression as a special form of evil in a democratic society. Its a rigging of the system and inherently anti-democratic. It is the mechanism of tyranny. It should be exposed, challenged and defeated no matter what party is practicing it.

I believe we maintain a higher level of credibility and integrity within our effort if we stay non-partisan. I believe we should should ready to savage any political party engaging in voter suppression tactics.

I also think that its perfectly appropriate and credibility building for us to be clear about what appears to be the pro-Obama leaning and leftward politics nature of the majority of the WIKI's contributors. So people can be clear about that and they can evaluate the information we supply accordingly. That doesn't make us partisan, just straightforward.