On voter information

Andrew Coyne raises some noteworthy points about what political parties know about us and how they use that information. But while I agree as to the need for parties to treat voters as something more than a resource to be exploited, I'll sound a note of caution that some of his plans may only make matters worse.

To start with, I'll note that the PIPEDA which governs commercial activity sets up accountability requirements which make sense for a commercial organization which doesn't face "black ops" on the scale of, say, Robocon. But it would be difficult to imagine a more easily-abused system than one imposing the same standard for political parties - who could face the prospect of thousands of coordinated complaints around election time (or at another moment designed to cause problems in light of a party's limited resources, which Coyne then proposes to reduce further). So the obvious potential for manipulation of any formal system to hold parties accountable needs to be kept in mind.

But more importantly, improved collection and use of personal information offers an opportunity for better and more responsive interaction between citizens and political parties - which we should be eager to encourage in deciding how parties should be able to collect and use information.

Yes, it's a serious problem if voters are being targeted based on their age, location and party support for false robocalls intended to discourage participation. But the fundamental issue lies in the falsehoods and suppression tactics, not the mere fact that parties can develop customized appeals to specific types of voters.

And ideally, better voter databases hold out the possibility of parties being able to connect and listen to voters only on the issues where they're most interested in participating, rather than engaging in the blast strategies that have been the Cons' main form of voter contact. Indeed, more information (put to its highest and best use) may well be a solution to the irritation of unfocused robocalls and other broadcast political communications tools - while limiting parties in what information they have about citizens may discourage that type of development.

Of course, the above doesn't deal with all of Coyne's suggestions. And I'll readily agree that parties should be bound by the do-not-call rules and general consent principles applied to other businesses (since I see little value in allowing parties to intrude where a citizen has already declared they're not welcome), as well as that a more fair electoral system would work wonders in eliminating the incentives that have made the Cons so determined to drive down turnout among opponents' supporters.

But we shouldn't go too far in presuming that the asymmetric flows of information between citizens and parties should be dealt with by making it more difficult for parties to engage the public - as that may only enhance the rewards available to the party which best capitalizes on the detachment of low-information voters.