Personal data being mined to turn out vote

Strategists affiliated with the campaigns of President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney say they have access to information about the personal lives of voters at a scale never before imagined.

And they are using that data to try to influence voting habits— in effect, to train voters to go the polls through subtle cues, rewards and threats in amanner akin to the marketing efforts of credit card companies and bigbox retailers.

In the weeks before Election Day, millions of voters will hear from callers with surprisingly detailed knowledge of their lives.

These callers will identify themselves as volunteers for the campaigns or independent political groups.

Intimate details

The callers will be guided by scripts and call lists compiled by people— or computers — with access to details like whether voters may have visited pornography websites, have homes in foreclosure, have gay friends or enjoy expensive vacations.

The callers are likely to ask detailed questions about how the voters plan to spend Election Day, according to professionals with both campaigns. Asking such questions, experiments show, is likely to increase turnout.

After these conversations, when those targeted voters open their mailboxes or check their Facebook profiles, they may find that someone has divulged specifics about how frequently they and their neighbors have voted. Calling out people for not voting, what experts term “public shaming,” can prod someone to cast a ballot.

Even as campaigns embrace this ability to know more about voters, they recognize the risks.

Creeping out voters

“You don’t want your analytical efforts to be obvious because voters get creeped out,” said a Romney campaign official who was not authorized to speak to a reporter. “A lot of what we’re doing is behind the scenes.” While the campaigns say they do not buy data that they consider intrusive, the Democratic and Republican National Committees combined have spent at least $ 13 million this year on data acquisition.

The preoccupation with influencing voters’ habits stems from the fact that many close elections were ultimately decided by people who almost did not vote.