Amanda Fritz Changes Mind on Candidates Gone Wild
Portland City Council candidate Amanda Fritz describes at her website her reasons for previously deciding against participating in the upcoming Candidates Gone Wild event on April 28, and why she has since changed her mind:
Candidates Gone Wild (CGW) is a joint production of Willamette Week newspaper and The Bus Project, a non-profit working to increase voter participation especially by young people. This year's web site says, "Since 2002 Portlanders have looked forward to this irreverent approach to local candidates and campaigns" and "'Debate the issues, get to know your candidates, drink a lot of beer. That's our mission statement,' says Mark Zusman, editor of Willamette Week". Mark told me the event is intended to show voters the human side of candidates, instead of seeing us behind microphones on stage at forum events. And to appeal to younger voters who might not attend more formal debates.When I performed in Candidates Gone Wild in 2006, each candidate was asked one real policy question, giving me precisely two minutes to talk about serious issues facing Portland. The rest of the time seemed to me to be aimed at making the audience laugh at candidates, rather than with us. I don't mind people laughing at me -- a key survival strategy for the past twelve years of parenting teenagers has been to not take myself too seriously. But some of the content seemed cruel, not funny. Cut-and-paste video films, substituting different questions, gave false impressions (it's hard enough for candidates to give straight answers to complex questions, and to convey who we are and what we mean, without editors distorting our words on purpose). Requiring a "talent" performance with no dress rehearsal or assistance with microphones, music, and lighting would hinder even professional artists. At the time, I felt honored that as the only Public Campaign Finance Fund candidate, I was the only challenger invited on stage with the incumbent. Later, I realized my co-stars also running for the seat would have added to the entertainment, and wished they had been included. I heard suggestions from observers that the evening seemed to be structured to make Willamette Week's endorsees look good. The word "sexist" came up in more than one conversation.
In short, it was Not Fun, and left me with the firm resolve to decline future invitations to participate in CGW, should I ever run again.
However, she has since decided to participate in this month's event:
I met with the organizers last week, to tell them why I was declining their invitation. And I heard enough sincerity, and specific plans to improve the format in response to my concerns, to convince me that creating a negative or biased environment was never the intent. The organizers accepted my urging and that of at least two other Public Campaign Finance Fund candidates, to invite all six contenders in our race. They acknowledged my feedback graciously and constructively. So, I will give the event another chance.Here's why I hope it will be better:
* The program has been changed to allow all Public Campaign Finance Fund candidates to participate, with a firm resolve to provide equal opportunities/challenges in the show.
* Information will be provided to campaigns before the event, on the order of skits and the rules for each.
* We will be offered time to rehearse our "talents" in the theatre, the day before, to plan stage management, sound, and lights.
* Organizers will be clear that the intent is to have good-hearted fun, rather than to humiliate and mock.
* I am assured there will be no cut-and-paste videos of candidates in my race, and no home invasions.
* More transparency will be evident, to assure participants and the audience that there is no bias in questions, order of performance, and team assignments.
* Candidates must have a second person on stage with them for the "talent" potion, which allows for live music and potentially a more entertaining performance.
* Campaigns will be asked for evaluations after the event, to provide subjective feedback on logistics and tone.
Read the rest. Learn more at Candidates Gone Wild. Discuss.
|
April 17, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 17, '08
"No home invasions?" Do we need to specify "No kidnapping in the trunk of one's car?"
10:57 a.m.
Apr 17, '08
" The program has been changed to allow all Public Campaign Finance Fund candidates to participate, with a firm resolve to provide equal opportunities/challenges in the show."
This strikes me as a significant development, after past coverage here. Can anyone give more details?
James X, I think you must not have been at CGW '06! The "home invations," based on MTV's "Cribs" TV show, were one of the most memorable elements.
11:28 a.m.
Apr 17, '08
And I'm not sure I'd describe them as invasions. Each candidate met the camera crew at the door -- and it seemed to have been done with an appointment, since (almost) everyone had a nice clean house.
Apr 17, '08
Except for Diane Linn's cockroaches. She didn't seem to mind them.
I was invited late, after they uninvited Emilie Boyles. I'm glad they didn't do the "crib" thing with me. My house was cleaner than Linn's, but not by much.
Apr 17, '08
CGW condescends to young voters. I wish Bus Project would dump their connection with this WillyWeek publicity stunt.
... and since they won't (too much money in it, and Bus Project likes money), I'm at least glad they stepped away from the sleazy way the publicly financed candidates were chosen, and will allow all of them on-stage.
Mocking government and the people who run it has been core Republican strategy for 25 years. I hope the Bus Project either matures enough to take an objective look at what they're doing, or goes the way of X-Pac (remember them?)
Apr 17, '08
@ steppingofthebus . . .
Yep! The Bus is in it for the money, and our mission is to preserve the status quo and lionize the powers that be.
Fact is, we work with the funny and smart folks at WW because we like them and enjoy making a great program with them. Oh, and we pay several thousand dollars towards the program expenses and make not a single nickel from the event. The Bus and WW lose money on it every darned year.
It costs money and it's worth it. An independent academic study has shown that CGW increases voter participation by 25% among people who go.
12:56 p.m.
Apr 17, '08
Dave, they were ants, not cockroaches. (And my house is no better either!)
Apr 17, '08
I love the idea that the Bus Project is a money-hoarding, election-rigging house of power brokers. To anyone who has actually sat in on one of their planning meetings, such an idea is ridiculous. The Bus is made up of high-energy idealists who accooplish a lot -- not because they're Machivellian, but because they care about the principles of democracy and people-powered politics.
Apr 17, '08
Amanda just needed to straight out say that she didn't want to perform because she knows the audience is going to rip into her. She's a nice lady but an odd duck in her mannerisms and doesn't perform well in unscripted situations. Also, Amanda's recent Orstar filing is interesting. She gave her campaign a $4,000 donation for production costs for her commercial that's being produced by a member of evil Mark's spin machine. Must be nice being married to a wealthy Dr. I wonder how many other candidates in the Council 1 race can could afford to give their campaign $4,000 in shot on top of the 150 grand that the voters have given them? It's definitely legal but it sure as hell doesn't pass the smell test.
Apr 17, '08
I saw the Cribs videos, I just enjoyed how it was phrased as "no home invasions!"
1:32 p.m.
Apr 17, '08
I know folks may think I have a, well, warped sense of humor, but as someone who's certainly not in the target Bus Project demographic (read: way older), I've got to say that I always find CGW to be hysterical, and one of the highlights of the political season.
Let's face it - especially after last night's ABC Philly Fiasco, how many of us actually think most of the mainstream candidate debates tell us shit? (Exception: a shout out to Willy Week for putting their candidate interviews online.)
By contrast, CGW gives us something that's sorely needed in the heat of campaigns (especially ones in which the internecine bloodletting has been as nasty as it has this year, including right here on BlueOregon): a chance to laugh at ourselves and for candidates to let down their hair and engage in some winning self-deprecating humor.
More to the point of Amanda's critiques: Personally, one of the most memorable aspects of CGW for me has been the way it's humanized candidates whom I might otherwise, well, loathe, based just on their policy preferences. Who can forget Dave Lister's performance on the blues harp, or Mary Starrett's date with Adrian Chen?
1:44 p.m.
Apr 17, '08
Speaking for myself, I'm in my 50s, and I think CGW is genius. I would hate to miss it for anything. I rescheduled my John Kroger house party so I wouldn't have to miss this one.
I loved Dave Lister's harmonica, and I really enjoyed Dan Saltzman's "programming a VCR" talent (not to mention Amanda's Heimlich maneuver on an inflatable dinosaur, and Erik Sten's magic act. That's one of my favorite things about CGW, and I agree that it humanizes people that voters may know little about.
Apr 17, '08
I would have had more fun if I'd been able to get drunk. That PBR they were pouring didn't do it. I should have smuggled in a pint of Lauders.
2:41 p.m.
Apr 17, '08
Caitlin, you got a cite for that study?
Apr 17, '08
Sorry, Caitlin left work early today to go roll around in her giant piles of money.
Paul, to answer your question: Dr. David Nickerson of Notre Dame conducted a controlled experiment of randomly assigned attendees and absentees to CGW 2006. Studied attendees turned out to vote at a 24% higher clip than absentees, 50% to 26%.
I don't think the study ever got published, but I'd be happy to send you the preliminary write-up, so long as that's okay with Dr. Nickerson.
Apr 17, '08
Ha! Alex that was funny! I like imagining Caitlin rolling around in her giant piles of money.
4:48 p.m.
Apr 17, '08
Alex... Hilarious.
To the substance, it would be accurate to say that CGW attendees had a 24% higher voter turnout than non-attendees... but not that it increased turnout. That implies a certain causality, when it's entirely plausible that the kind of people who show up at CGW vote at a higher rate.
I actually find it odd that half of the people at CGW don't actually vote.
5:07 p.m.
Apr 17, '08
Speaking of research and political humor: A recent study has now provided 'facts' confirming the 'reality' (as opposed to the simple truthiness) of The Colbert Bump.
To quote the author, "The results show that Democratic candidates who appear on the Report receive a statistically significant “Colbert bump” in campaign donations, raising 44% more money in a 30-day period after appearing on the show."
So much for the Pelosi/Emanuel dictum warning Democratic members and candidates not to appear on The Report. I think this is another example of the benefits that accrue for politicians who can display a good sense of humor, a little humility, and an aptitude for playing along with a good joke, even when you may be the butt of it.
Apr 17, '08
I think it's great that they did the right thing and opened it up to all the competitive candidates. I plan to attend because of it.
Apr 17, '08
The last CGW was funny as hell, but there were certainly times when I cringed at how the candidates were being depicted. It's a hard line to walk to be both cutting edge funny and still display respect for the candidates, people who are giving so much of themselves for the opportunity to serve the public.
I have a lot of respect for the way Amanda Fritz both thoughtfully stated her concerns and worked with the organizers to address them. Kudos to the organizers as well for hearing her.
Apr 17, '08
The last CGW was funny as hell, but there were certainly times when I cringed at how the candidates were being depicted. It's a hard line to walk to be both cutting edge funny and still display respect for the candidates, people who are giving so much of themselves for the opportunity to serve the public.
I have a lot of respect for the way Amanda Fritz both thoughtfully stated her concerns and worked with the organizers to address them. Kudos to the organizers as well for hearing her.
Apr 17, '08
The last CGW was funny as hell, but there were certainly times when I cringed at how the candidates were being depicted. It's a hard line to walk to be both cutting edge funny and still display respect for the candidates, people who are giving so much of themselves for the opportunity to serve the public.
I have a lot of respect for the way Amanda Fritz both thoughtfully stated her concerns and worked with the organizers to address them. Kudos to the organizers as well for hearing her.
Apr 17, '08
i have no idea how i triple-posted. sorry about that.
12:00 a.m.
Apr 18, '08
You didn't randomly assign individuals to the treatment (attend) vs. no treatment (not attend).
Best you can do is to estimate a model of turnout, based on the most information you can collect, and include a variable attend / not attend. And unless you have some insight into the motivation behind the decision to attend, it's quite likely that that variable alone explains the turnout effect, not any information provided or excitement generated by CGW.
David is awfully good at what he does, but that impact is awfully large, so I'd have to see it to believe it. I'm also not sure calling this "independent academic research" is completely accurate. Wasn't it funded by the Bus?
9:44 a.m.
Apr 18, '08
I look at my message and think it sounds a bit snippy.
Let me say again that David Nickerson is one of the leaders in this area, and would not be associated with shoddy academic research. He's done marvelous work on youth participation in a variety of contexts.
The 25% number seems very high to me, though, and I'd love to see the research behind it.
Besides, Caitlin knows darn well if she cites "independent academic research" I'm going to ask to see it!
10:18 a.m.
Apr 18, '08
Kari said:
I actually find it odd that half of the people at CGW don't actually vote.
A very good point. What's up with that?!
Apr 18, '08
Given how distracting my great big piles of money are, I wouldn't be too surprised if I mis-stated the results of David Nickerson's research.
(I recall the gist of it--we were doing good work.)
Seems like the simplest thing is to ask David to chime in and clear things up.
Apr 18, '08
Paul (and concerned others),
I'll describe the study. You can see whether you find it convincing.
The Bus held aside 50 tickets for the 2006 CGW. Once the show sold out, they started to sign people up for a ticket lottery (full name, address, email, and phone were required). When 100 people entered the lotter, the Bus handed over the list and I randomly assigned people to receive a ticket or not. The Bus then distributed the tickets to the correct people. On average, the people who won the ticket lottery and lost the ticket lottery should be the same (and voter file and survey information verifies that the samples are comparable).
Of course, it is always possible that treatment members failed to attend and people assigned to the control attended. It should be noted that failure to treat and violation of control would mitigate against seeing an effect of CGW, I mention this only to demonstrate that we were being careful. The 50 lottery tickets were numbered, signed, and used, so I believe the treatment individuals attended. Since CGW was sold out, it was unlikely that a member of the control group attended the event. As a rough check, I couldn't find control member's names on any sign up sheets or petitions.
I matched the 100 names up against a voter file obtained from Multnomah county. The treatment group voted at substantially higher rates (around 20% with a standard error around 9, if I recall).
I also conducted a survey of lottery participants after the event via email. The response rate for both treatment and control groups was around 40% (N=39), which is not bad. The survey asked questions about feelings towards politics and knowledge about the candidates or the election.
Regarding knowledge, roughly 50% of the people who attended the event could correctly identify incumbents compared to roughly 25% of the control group. That was the only statistically significant result. There was no differences regarding any of the factual questions asked between the two groups. The control felt slightly better informed than the treatment group, but that result did not cross traditional thresholds of statistical significance (p = 0.11).
Regarding attitudes about politics, people attending were more likely to think "local elections affect my life" (p < 0.03). Treatment individuals were no more likely to report being interested in politics, thinking voting was important, or that politicians listen to people like me.
Note: Among the survey respondents, the treatment group voted at a rate 24 higher than the control group, which is the headline that Caitlin mentioned above.
The problem with the study is not methodological, it is size. 100 people is not a lot and 39 survey respondents is positively small (but comparable to many laboratory experiments).
Personally, I think CGW is a lot of fun. I would like to see a little time devoted to substance -- perhaps give the candidates time to field questions taken directly from the audience, but it ain't my show. Anything that gets people interested in politics is not all bad.
I'd be happy to answer any other questions regarding the study.
<hr/>