Talk:Voter caging

message: News out today via Mark Halperin (thepage.time.com) that the Obama legal team is suing the Michigan GOP for caging using foreclosed home lists. I put in an initial entry but this story is developing so we should keep adding. Also, I don't know proper citation format so if someone could fix my inartful citation...
--71.189.50.2 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obama vs Michigan GOP 

message: This doesn't really explain what the political practice of 'caging' is; it merely asserts that some politicians were accused of doing it, and opines-as-fact that fears are justified. -- Sylvar 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: For obvious reasons, I've restored the previous revision of the page, while incorporating the text of the most recent version of the page.  While a "caging list" is a term of art in direct mail, it also has meaning in a political context.--SoLeft 07:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caging is not necessarily a bad political thing 

message: I, too, came here looking for "caging list" in a political sense, but was surprised that there was a) little explanation of what a caging list was in the general, non-political sense, and b) zero discussion of the controversy of the issue.  Having read the article, I have no idea what's so bad about it, and I feel like I should feel bad that I don't--and that, my dear, are tell-tale symptoms of NPOV.  The article obviously argues that Reagan and George W Bush were monsters for questioning the living arrangements of people whose mail was returned as not living there by the post office (who I would assume is generally right on these matters.)  Whether or not the results come back skewed against democrats is merely a positive side benefit.  And if that's all caging is, I've done it all the time as my office sends out monthly newsletters whose real purpose isn't to keep people abreast of changes in our company but to see who's moved to skip out on their bill.  All reasonable companies of a particular size do that.  --Mrcolj 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A year later, I second my own statements above... :)  No, really, this article still doesn't mention what a caging list is outside of politics and why it is 100% necessary; doesn't mention why it's bad (or if it's bad) outside of the stringing together partisan adjectives.  I still don't understand why, if someone doesn't list in your precinct, you're not allowed to question whether they live in your precinct, especially if they don't live in your precinct.  --Mrcolj 17:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple answer: because someone does live in your precinct, and you are questioning them not because they don't live in your precinct, but because you'd rather your interrogation dissuade them from casting a ballot, presumably for a candidate of whom you do not approve.  Whether you find this bad or not may very well depend on your view of what exactly the "equal right to vote" means, or the importance of it.--SoLeft 08:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Reagan and George W Bush were monsters for questioning the living arrangements" -- What interest would they have in people's living arrangements? What do living arrangements have to do with whether someone is entitled to vote? "Whether or not the results come back skewed against democrats is merely a positive side benefit." -- Funny joke, that. That is necessarily the main, in fact the entire, benefit, as it is the only point of value to a political candidate. The reason they come back skewed against Democrats is because they are sent to people who are likely to vote Democratic ... that would be the natural, rational thing for Republicans to do. "to see who's moved to skip out on their bill.  All reasonable companies of a particular size do that." -- Not marked "do not forward". Political candidates aren't trying to see who skipped out on a bill, they are trying to get more votes than their opponent. There are ethical ways to do that an unethical ways to do that ... removing citizens from voting rolls so that their vote doesn't count falls in the latter category. -- 96.248.235.14 (talk) 08:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy is not addressed 

message: It looks like we've had a considerable number of comments from those who either don't see caging list as an exclusively political term, or are offended or confused at the perceived bias with which the current article is written.  There is controversy here, and no mention of it in the article, and that's also a point of confusion to many.  I vote that we have enough of these comments to justify a rewrite factoring in the concerns listed above, for the first person that's in the mood.  So be bold and see what happens--the wikipedia is as much an experiment in democracy as the US.  --Mrcolj 14:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If these tactics are equally common, then you should be able to provide equal examples for each. The reason the article only lists GOP examples is because the GOP is the predominant perpetrator, contrary to your assertion. "This looks as if it was edited by Daily Kos fanatics...." -- This statement clearly illustrates that your objection is based on political ideology, not fact. -- 96.248.235.14 (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV rewrite 

message: I removed two sentences regarding provisional ballots because they are not true in general, and certainly not true in every state, or even in every county.
It's not true for Federal elections that a voter has to prove his or her eligibility to vote. The burden of proof is on the challenger, and the determination is made by the state or local authority in charge of the list.
And not every election is a federal election, so blanket statements on provisional ballots and how they work and what the state will or will not do are simply not appropriate.
Janus303 16:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provisional Ballots 

message: Should this somehow be added?  http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/23/goodling-caging-griffin/
Also, does caging's status in the news mean this article should get locked down for a while?
Jdblick 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement is completely contrary to fact, reason, common sense, and WP principles and guidelines. Objectivity is a matter of reality, not "balance". Sometimes -- in fact usually -- the facts are not equally distributed. -- 96.248.235.14 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Events 

message: The comment that the caging lists being used in 2004 were a "goldmine" by the director of the Bush-Cheney campaign should be mentioned. Badagnani 02:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Goldmine" comment 

message: Kobach wrote in an email in the past week to supporters that his group had:
:"To date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!"
Purposeful caging of potential voters like this is illegal.  More here:
http://bluetiderising.blogspot.com/2007/12/kobach-admits-to-coordinated-voter.html
This is a blog source at the moment, but mainstream sources should be coming along soon.
--64.230.120.51 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas GOP chair brags explicitly of "caging voters" 

message: Is this tactic solely used by the RNC? Are there any other examples? I mean, if the RNC is the only group that does this then maybe that should be noted. Or if not, maybe it should be noted where else it has occurred? 174.114.231.69 (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sooo

message: Although you added a neutrality cleanup tag in 2014, I do not notice any problems with the "neutrality" of this article. Can you suggest any changes that need to be made to the article? Jarble (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually don't remember. I think it may have been that I thought there should be at least one instance of Democrats doing this discussed, but maybe there actually aren't any? If you could find one and add it, that would completely satisfy me. Robert (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality cleanup tag

message: Could this use a 2016 update?  http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/voter-intimidation-democrats-rnc-230352 DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a new section "2016:  No new violations established".  DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  2016 update 

message: In the first paragraph it states: 
"Voter caging is challenging the registration status of voters and calling into question the legality of allowing them to vote. Sometimes, it involves sending direct mail to the addresses of registered voters and compiling a list of addressees from which the mail is returned undelivered. If the mail is not returned, it is seen as proof that the person does not live there."
It first states, that direct mail is sent to addresses of registered voters. Then a list is compiled of mail that is returned undelivered and those voters are removed from the registered voter list. The next sentence then states, "If the mail is not returned, it is seen as proof that the person does not live there." Shouldn't the sentence state, "If the mail is returned..." As written this seems contradictory.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Outtacontext (talk • contribs) 21:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is This First Paragraph Incorrect? 

message: As best I can tell from some internet searching, "voter caging" is not a term used in other countries. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) If someone is willing to dive deeper to verify this is true, then we should remove the section header "United States" and make it clear in the lead paragraph. 
The tag for "neutrality" in the section "Examples" was added 4 years ago by an IP editor with the comment "Added NPOV tag - too many references to Democrat-biased sites; only examples of GOP caging". This  was the version on that day. Evaluating if that tag should remain or not is beyond me. Maybe someone else can tackle evaluating it.
The article suffered from a bad case of "too many cooks in the kitchen", and even though I cleaned up quite a bit of it, it needs another thorough 'going over'. Platonk (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter caging is a USA term; Neutrality tag