Do Facilitators Cast Multiple Votes on Election Day?

We have discussed some of the problems associated with Facilitated Communication (FC) in prior blog posts: use in psychotherapy, gender identity, false allegations of abuse, and facilitator crimes. We are documenting these concerns because FC continues to be promoted at universities in the United States and around the world despite the evidence against it.

Today’s blog post focuses on a practice that, perhaps, many people would not associate with the use of FC: voting in local, state, and federal elections. 

From the movie “A Mother’s Courage.” Through facilitated communication, Gabby types about plans of voting in the November election. (A Mother’s Courage, 2009)

Let me be clear that my concern is not with people using legitimate Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) to assist with communicating their choices on a ballot. 

However, I do wonder what the potential ethical and legal ramifications are for the facilitators choosing to use a discredited technique when participating in an activity directed at voting on an official government ballot.

Watching the pro-FC movie “A Mother’s Courage” recently, I noticed a young woman, Gabby, purportedly typing out her intention to vote in a November election. Gabby, like most of the individuals in the movie, is subjected to Facilitated Communication (FC). Followers of this blog will know that whenever FC is in use, questions arise as to how much influence the facilitator has over the typed messages (100% on reliably controlled tests). 

Gabby’s message reminded me of a scene from another pro-FC movie, “Autism is a World.” Sue Rubin, the young woman featured in the film, sits at the dinner table with her mother, father, and grandparents. Previously, we’ve seen her setting the table, pouring liquid into glasses, using a knife to slice bread, and performing other activities that require varying amounts of independent fine and gross motor control. From prior scenes (and those that follow), it appears Sue has basic comprehension skills and can, through verbal and non-verbal behavior, make her needs known at least on a rudimentary level. Sometimes her speech is unintelligible, but I found her facial movements to be quite expressive. As the discussion at the dinner table evolves, Sue’s mother, Rita, approaches her with a communication device held in the air, presumably to facilitate a conversation about voting. 

Sue’s dad says: 

Suz have you been following all the propositions that we will be voting on next Tuesday? I know that you vote absentee ballot pretty often, so maybe you’ve already done it. (emphasis mine)

With Rita standing behind Sue’s chair holding the communication device, Sue purportedly types as her mother says, “They are decidedly…[Mom adds an exclamation “gee!”]…confusing.”  The conversation gets a bit lost as both parents start talking at the same time. Sue grabs the communication device from her mother, closes it, and turns her body away from her parents at the table.* 

Without double-blind testing, it is impossible to know whether Gabby or Sue in these specific examples independently understood the ballots. But, since the practice of using FC to vote is included in internationally acclaimed FC films, I think it’s fair game to point out some potential harms. 

Voting absentee seems quite advantageous to facilitators who continue to practice and promote the use of FC despite the protestations of major educational, health and advocacy groups. Facilitators can avoid scrutiny or criticism by voting at home rather than going to the polls and entering the voting booth with their clients—much in the same way facilitators are now assisting with online college courses and (without admitting to it), partially or completely, earning a college degree through the process. 

Absentee voting, however, does not eliminate the fact that FC-generated messages are facilitator controlled. Whether facilitators want to admit it or not, their physical and verbal cues can and do influence what choices are made, whether on a ballot, letter board, keyboard, or other device. (See ideomotor response for more information)

This raises some questions:

•  How would local, state, and federal officials know the votes were cast independently, without facilitator interference, and that the selections represent the thoughts and wishes of the individual with disabilities? 

• How would local, state, and federal officials react to learning that a discredited technique with significantly high rates of facilitator control was used to cast the votes? Most organizations with statements opposing FC caution their members not to use FC for any major life decisions. 

• What are the legal ramifications for the facilitators who are, most likely, voting multiple times in an election? FC use calls into question the concept of one person, one vote.  

 * As an aside, this gesture of grabbing the communication device, closing it, and turning away from her facilitators is one Sue repeats throughout the film. Unless I missed it, Sue never initiates a “conversation” with the device and generally looks unhappy about being facilitated. Her non-verbal behaviors (scowls, pulling away from the facilitator, pushing the device away) make me wonder what she really thinks about FC.