Roger Chelsey, associate editor of the Virginian-Pilot’s editorial page, relates in his op-ed piece today the story of a case of an attempt to shame nonvoters into casting ballots:
In Tennessee recently, a black weekly newspaper took a page from that classic and affixed another “A” – for apathy – on individuals who didn’t cast ballots during the August primary. The Tennessee Tribune printed a 28-page section just before Nov. 7, publishing nonvoters’ names and addresses. The Nashville-based paper hoped to shame them into voting come Election Day.
The result?
…the Tribune’s publisher said the district’s turnout on Nov. 7 was 65 percent, up from the usual 30 to 35 percent…
Chelsey believes that the tactic is a legitimate one. I agree.
What is embarrassing is 30-35% turnout. Not a day goes by that I don’t end up having a conversation with someone complaining about the state of affairs in our city, our state and/or our country. Too many people have dropped out of participating in our democracy.
In the November election, Norfolk’s overall voter turnout was 47%; however, there were nine precincts in Norfolk with turnout of 35% or less. Seven of these were majority minority precincts, with six of them falling in the third Congressional district, where Bobby Scott ran unopposed. While that can explain some of the low turnout, there were other items on the ballot, most notably the Senate race.
As Chelsey said, “African Americans should flat-out know better.”
Too many people were clubbed, punched, stomped and slain in the struggle to gain true voting and civil rights in this country.
[…]
That many of those struggles occurred roughly a half century ago is no excuse; all Americans should be periodically reminded that the relative ease with which blacks are able to vote today was paid for in blood, guts and perseverance.
Yes. And if it takes printing people’s names and addresses in the newspaper to shame them into voting, so be it.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Can we shame people into learning about the candidates and issues, too? I’d rather have low voter turnout than have a bunch of ignoramuses voting.
I agree with Jack. If someone doesn’t PAY ATTENTION, and has to be “shamed” into voting, they more than likely aren’t paying attention to anything – and shouldn’t be voting to begin with.
Did I just step into the Twilight Zone? People here are AGREEING with me!?
I just love when an issue like this shows what people really think of other people.
Someone who doesn’t vote is an “ignoramus?”
I know some very smart people who will skip an election because they decide that either candidate will be equally bad.
To use an analogy, maybe if people don’t order from the menu, it’s a problem with the menu, and not the people.
Read it again. I never said that all those who don’t vote are ignoramuses. However, many of those who do vote are.
I don’t think you can equate not voting with lack of knowledge of the issues any more than you can equate voting with possessing a knowledge of the issues.
Bottom line for me is that so many have chosen not to participate. And I believe in participation.
This is a bunch of crap. If people are virtually forced, or dare I say inimidated to vote, thet won’t vote smart.
They will vote whatever is easiest if not the first name they see.
Voting a right, not a requirement. If people don’t feel like voting so be it.
Insider is right. Worth repeating:
To use an analogy, maybe if people don’t order from the menu, it’s a problem with the menu, and not the people.
To stretch out the not-very-good analogy: whether you order or not, the meal comes to the table and you’re forced to eat it. So some motivation to figure out what’s on the menu and make some kind of choice is most likely a good thing.