HOME / the chat room: Real-time discussions with Slate writers.

Knock, Knock!It's Christopher Beam, taking readers' questions about the most effective kinds of political volunteering.

Posted Thursday, Oct. 9, 2008, at 1:56 PM ET

Slate political reporter Christopher Beam was online at Washingtonpost.com to chat with readers about the most effective kinds of political activism. An unedited transcript of the chat follows.

RSS

Christopher Beam: Hey everyone. We've got 26 (!) days left till Election Day, and if there was ever a time to maximize the time and money you give to your favorite campaign, it's now. Looking forward to your questions!

_______________________

kwheless: Does knocking on doors work? I was called by one of the campaigns, asking me if I would "knock on doors" for candidate X. My first thought was "gee, I hope they don't knock on my door, that's really annoying." I asked many of my friends, and they said the same thing: "Ugh, I hate when people knock on my door. It's so intrusive and annoying. It just makes me want to vote for the other candidate!" This was true of the Democrats and the Republicans—all of them thought a door-knocker would turn them off, rather than attract them. Who wants some annoying stranger at their door?

Maybe I'm in the minority on this, or maybe it's generational. After all, there are people who like being called by telemarketers, people who think spam is great, and people who love getting a visit from a Jehovah's Witness. But I find a stranger at my door about as appealing as a root canal. And I wonder if it really helps the candidates.

Christopher Beam: This was my initial reaction—who wants to answer the door EVER, let alone twice a day? But the campaigns insist it's the best way to win over voters. "Personalize, personalize, personalize." If you already know who you're voting for, it's useless. (In that case, put up a "Do Not Knock" sign or something.) But if you don't—which is still a big chunk of the population—it's a rare chance to get actual information about the candidates from a real, live person.

Plus, it helps campaigns keep tabs on how voters are leaning. If voters in a particular neighborhood used to be for McCain, but are now reconsidering, the campaign knows there's a problem.

_______________________

Gulfport, Miss.: Hi, I really enjoyed your "busy person's guide." On the subject of getting voters to the polls ... I heard that sometimes misinformation is spread about polling places being closed or changed, in order to prevent some sections of the community from voting. What do campaigns do to combat this, and how do we help?

Christopher Beam: The only solution is to combat bad information with good information. Tons of voting rights groups are out there monitoring neighborhoods—particularly low-income areas—for misleading fliers with inaccurate polling locations, etc. Rumors also circulate about voter ID laws (in some states, you need to show a driver's license, in others you don't). This happens every year. The real threat this year, I think, is cyber-dirty tricks—emails and robocalls designed to confuse voters.

The best place I've seen to find your polling location is maps.google.com/vote. Type in your address and you can see where you're supposed to vote.

_______________________

Philadelphia: Someone is going around Philadelphia posting a notice that anyone with an outstanding warrant or unpaid bill, such as an electric bill or student loan, will be arrested by a plain-clothes police officer when they go to vote. What is my civic duty to counteract this?

Christopher Beam: Classic dirty trick. Some fliers also say you'll be arrested if you have overdue rent. Or if you don't have the proper ID. Or if you or a family member has ever been in prison.

These kind of rumors are ALWAYS untrue. The problem is, correcting them is tricky. Sometimes, by denying the rumors, you end up reinforcing them. (Lots of good articles about this phenomenon this election.) The trick is to spread the good info without repeating the bad.

_______________________

Middle America: Aren't the campaigns worried about donor fatigue, especially in this very uncertain financial climate? I gave $500 to Obama in the primaries and had planned to give more for the general, but I won't because of the economy and because signs all say he will win anyway.

Christopher Beam: Donor fatigue is only a problem if most of your donors have maxed out. In the Obama campaign's case, that hasn't happened. Last time I checked, the vast majority of donors were still giving in small increments and were nowhere near approaching the $2,300 limit. The flagging economy could dampen donations, but I think the race is tight enough and the stakes high enough that people will continue to give through Election Day.

_______________________

ellamenta: The most important thing to do is to try to make certain that voting takes place without improper restrictions. See today's article in the New York Times. The Republicans have been making their own arrangements to ensure that the system is gamed by widespread voter disenfranchisement. I am predicting chaos on Nov. 4 unless this issue is addressed quickly and very publicly.

washingtonpost.com: States' Actions to Block Voters Appear Illegal (New York Times, Oct. 8)

Christopher Beam: That article is a good example of how restrictions on voters can be non-partisan in theory, but partisan in practice. It's a systematic problem: election officials are using the Social Security database to confirm voter registration—a process that often results in invalidation—as a first resort instead of a last resort. They're not partisans. But because Democrats have much higher registration levels this year, it ends up hurting them more. The Obama camp has an army of lawyers across the country dealing with this kind of thing. But your "chaos" prediction may come true if one of the swing states is especially close.