I'm going to second Tim Fernholz skepticism of using artists--and art, for that matter--as a way to influence elections. Vote or Die was a joke from jump, mostly because the people involved, while interested in the cause, overestimated their power. Frankly, I don't think people listen to music to figure out which way to vote. Nor should they. Music is influential, but not in the easy mathematical way (if you listen to this, you'll do this) that a lot of us want it to be.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Ehh nice try y the artists but doomed to fail.
IMO popular musicians today are mostly incapable of intelligently communicating on the issues of the day with their audiences because their art isn't personal any more. It's commercial; groomed and packaged to within an inch of it's life in order to appeal to the widest possible audience. They don't actually speak for anyone, they have no authenticity and no percieved authority. Why on earth would anyone listen to Diddy telling them to vote? Or Paris Hilton?
Pop music doesn't do politics well at all. I mean the best they can do is Luda's wack rhyme about Obama? Really? They're just not prepared to make intelligent statements about what's going on. And I'm not even an oldhead- I just think pop music sucks now.
A few things
- People usually don't get policy from artists. It's actually hard to figure out exactly where certain ideas and impressions come from, but it's hard to race it to 1 specific actor.
- In some circles, people do buy records/support from artists who they agree with - I.E. The people that like Kweli, Common, and the rest of that ilk, usually agree with that universe of ideas and values -> Those artists often preach to the choir. Soy Milk, No Tyler Perry, and Carol's Daughter for everyone.
- In other circles, people buy records/support from artists that they do not mentally engage at all. Plenty of people buy records "against" their interests. More than a few people dance to and sing-a-long to records that they may disagree with. Plenty of people that like Dead Prez or the Coup (sorta leftists), also have bought records from Wu Tang and 50 Cent - who arguably push a by any means necessary capitalist agenda. An even better case are the females who buy/dance to so-called misogynistic raps.
- The danger of artists pushing policy - is that they make bad ideas popular. Chuck D famously called Elvis Presley a racist (fight the power), but a decade later in an Elvis documentary he backpedals and actually praises Elvis. There is so much "policy" in old and new records, but much of it, is simple minded or just plain wrong.
So recap
- it's ineffective
- when it is effective - a)preaches to the choir, b) preaches bad ideas
OK, this will probably be the first, last, and only time I have kind words for Puffy but here it is.
This is a perfect example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't." If Puffy and others like him sit on the sidelines during election season they're criticized for being selfish and disinterested. Yet when those same cats jump into the fray, they're derided as a "joke." As ridiculous as it is that a nihilist like Puffy would suddenly get "conscious", I appreciated the fact that he was willing to use his wealth and notoriety to reach out to a group of folks that (in general) are woefully disengaged from politics.
I don't see anything wrong with artists being activist. Pop culture casts a long shadow over our society and any efforts to use it's influence in a more civic minded way should be applauded. However, artists should be held accountable and their entertainment images and messages weighed fairly against their activism. That said if they reach one person isn't it worth it?
I wrote about Vote or Die back in college and on the issue overall more recently a few months ago. I don't have a problem with entertainers (particularly hip hop artists) getting involved, but there has always been an emphasis in voter registration over voter education and I have a problem with that. Not to mention some of the choices in spokespersons have been interesting to say the least. I remember years ago various hip hop caucuses had to take many announced artists off their panels because organizers learned the artists weren't registered to vote themselves. I think this is a case of a good idea not executed properly.
Music is useful for "branding" but not "direct sales" as they say in advertising.
From an activist/organizer's perspective, it's always nice for your little noticed issue or campaign to get a boost in media attention and public support because a celebrity is involved.
But I've always thought it'd be better for the long-term sucess of said cause, if that celeb just wanted to be treated like any other volunteer, instead of playing up the cult of celebrity, which more often that not, brings ridicule to the cause and the celebrity, moreso since Fox News joined the conversation in the 90s.
The bottom line is, celebs can help, but they should leave the organizing to the dedicated volunteers and professionals who've given their time and money to cause, mostly in anonymity.