Skip to main content

The direct approach on an issue like fracking can be hard and controversial.  Sometimes it's possible to to make gains by working on a related and less contentious issue, though.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.

It can be difficult to write about activism in an open-ended effort like the one against fracking.  It isn't like a campaign where all the activity is geared toward election day, at which point everyone will know who won and who lost.  It's different even from an issue like the Keystone XL pipeline, which is a single (continent-spanning) contiguous piece of infrastructure, and which will ultimately get a definitive yes or no.

Fracking involves lots of activity in communities dotted across the nation.  There are big shale plays in some parts of the west, some parts of the Midwest, some parts of the east, and so on.  But nothing connects those dots, and that makes it hard to give the thing a sense of its nationwide scope.  Coverage will tend to be on a smaller scale, which makes it easier to dismiss it as a purely local or parochial concern.

Another issue with coverage is that developments tend to move slower than the news cycle.  Activists like our group might start something like a monthly water monitoring program, but after kicking it off there really isn't much new to report on it.  You can't make much of a story out of: We're still monitoring!

This week there was an interesting new development though.  Our county had not approved an increase in funding to our health district since 1955.  We've had lots of renewals, but no increases.  Counties and other regional bodies are capable of providing valuable services to residents, but those services cost money - paid through taxes.  Asking people to raise their taxes is a pretty heavy lift, as our track record on this issue shows.

Because of the contacts and knowledge our group has gained through our water monitoring program, we knew about the replacement levy coming up and invited someone from the board to speak.  He talked in general terms about what the department was doing, what its challenges were, and so on.  We raised our concerns about fracking to him, and he said the department would look into subsidizing the cost of its water testing program if the levy passed.1

So we ordered a batch of signs and put them out on our lawns:

We also talked up the issue with friends and neighbors, and generally tried to promote the issue as we could.  We weren't in any way prime movers in the effort, but we pitched in as we were able to.2  And miracle of miracles, it actually passed.  

There are a couple of interesting notes in the article.  The eye popping one for me is this: voter turnout of 8.87 percent.  My experience at the polls was certainly congruent with that.  I got there about a half an hour after polls opened and I thought I'd gone to the wrong place.  It was deserted.

Inside, I initially went to the wrong room (misplaced signage - not my fault!) and found out I was the first voter to show up.  I then made my way to the correct room and found out I was the first voter there as well.  By contrast, last November I arrived about ten minutes after polls opened and there was already a long line.  It was quick inside the booth as well - the health levy was literally the only item on the ballot.  That wasn't true county wide, of course, but it's safe to say there were considerably fewer issues than in November.

These two factors make an interesting dynamic:  Lower voter turnout means each voter who does show up gets more bang for the buck.  Your vote has more weight if it's one of ten than it does if it's one of a million.  And the thinner ballot means the election results generally were something of a referendum on the levy itself.  Last November's replacement levy defeat was bundled with votes for president, Congress, and so on.  But Tuesday's replacement levy success was close to an endorsement of the levy, plain and simple.

There are potentially some good lessons for activists.  The first is that action on a controversial issue like fracking can be taken through less contentious avenues like health department funding.  Lots of people enthusiastically support the oil and gas industry, but the population opposed to local health department funding is pretty much limited to anti-tax zealots.

Second, a group that believes it has popular support on an issue might do well to look to special elections to get on the ballot.  There is less chance of the issue getting diluted or obscured by other issues, and activists can translate their support into maximum leverage at the polls.  

Finally, the process of identifying issues and reaching out to key players is a great way to build social capital.  It gets you in touch with people you wouldn't have been in touch with otherwise and find ways to support a related issue in ways that might not have been obvious.  And every now and then it all translates, as it did on Tuesday, into a surprising and pleasant victory.


1.  Technical/legal note: we refer to our program as water monitoring and not water testing, because we don't want anyone to think the handful of metrics we look at is in any way equivalent to the far more extensive testing done by the county or the EPA.  We are very careful about our word choice.

2.  This sort of purely grassroots effort is exactly the kind of situation where a third party could make hay.  One would think that a party like, say, the Greens would be strongly in favor of, say, adequate funding for health departments.  To the extent they are absent, they are missing out on party building opportunities.  They may not have the time, resources or inclination to do so in my neck of the woods, which is fine.  But I will be decidedly unimpressed with their guilt trips about supporting the awful two party system when the next presidential election rolls around.

Originally posted to danps on Sat May 11, 2013 at 04:27 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  this is basically what republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ybruti, Alice in Florida

    did to build their base with antichoice and progun as their bait, later on mixing in homophobia and immigrant fear.

    It was party loyalty gained from these issues that got their corporatists elected.

    I don't think anybody wins a lot of voters purely through philosophy, I think it's much more about addressing specifics at ground level.  It's hard to motivate people about things that effect the whole planet or whole country, but bring it to their neighborhood and they'll begin to pay attention.  Also at this level, votes really count and people who realize that keep voting.  

  •  Canvassing on a local issue today, I often (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    danps, Alice in Florida

    stressed this point you made:

    Lower voter turnout means each voter who does show up gets more bang for the buck.  Your vote has more weight if it's one of ten than it does if it's one of a million.
    I would say to a supporter "Very few people will vote, so your vote will count a lot. Please be sure to vote." And they would promise to do so. I've read that perhaps 10% of our voters will vote in the upcoming special election - and that may be optimistic. The issue is whether or not to privatize trash collection, giving a huge money-making operation to a private company. The other side is making more noise with TV ads and the mayor fighting strongly for her idea, but I sense from the voters I spoke to today that if enough people like them bother to vote she will be defeated.

    The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right. -- Judge Learned Hand, May 21, 1944

    by ybruti on Sat May 11, 2013 at 06:41:01 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site