By Nolan Finley

I didn't vote in the August 2004 Michigan primary. I can't really say why. Maybe I got tied up at work and couldn't get to the polls.

Maybe there was nothing on the ballot that I felt needed my attention. Maybe I had a flat tire. Maybe I was just too lazy.

Whatever the reason, I can't remember it. In fact, had I been asked, I would have said, "Of course I voted. I always vote."

But apparently not in the 2004 primary. I know this because I got a blue sheet of paper in the mail the other day notifying me of my lapse. It came from an outfit called Practical Political Consulting of East Lansing, and it detailed the Finley family's recent voting history.

As it turns out, I was the only civic duty shirker in the household that August. Everyone else managed to drag themselves to the polls and mark a ballot.

You might wonder why Practical Political Consulting is poking around in my family's voting records, as did I. So I made a call.

The firm is run by political analyst Mark Grebner, who explains that his etov.com project (vote spelled backwards, which is annoying on its face) is actually a research effort with Yale University to determine what would motivate border-line voters.

His target is those people who say they vote, but never actually make it to the polls.

"The fact that they're never checked up on allows them to slip past," Grebner says.

Grebner's letter, sent to 80,000 homes, notes that who votes and who doesn't is public information, and that he will be watching Tuesday to make sure I don't slack off again.

The not-too-subtle threat is that if I miss the vote, I'll be outed.

Crossing the privacy line
The next phase of Grebner's research will track 100 city blocks in Michigan and send out notices to all residents listing which of their neighbors didn't get to the polls.

The hope, Grebner says, is that "wannabe voters" can be embarrassed into becoming real voters, to make not voting a social stigma.

He says that Australia fines people for not voting, that Italy posts the names of nonvoters, and that early New England towns voted in public meetings.

But this tactic of public humiliation is somewhat grating.

The decision to vote or not vote should be as private and personal as the decision of who to vote for. It's nobody's business but my own.

On his Web site, Grebner thanks voters for participating, "however unwilling!"

I'm not sure I want half-hearted voters shuffling to the polls to avoid the shame of a public outing. Increasing the raw number of votes isn't as useful as bumping up the number of engaged and informed voters.

Grebner is well-intentioned and his work fascinating, if more than a little self-righteous. Churches long ago learned the value of passing the collection plate during the service, so all can see who kicks in and who passes.

But there's something off-putting about applying the approach to voting. It used to be in America that if you poked your nose into other people's business you were liable to get it punched.

But nose punching has fallen out of fashion. Too bad. It would put a quick end to this sort of meddling.