LATimes: Why John Kerry Needs the Needy

[BadGimp]

By David K. Shipler
John Kerry needs Caroline Payne and Tom King. Neither voted in the last presidential election, despite their special stake in the outcome. Both are single, working-poor parents and thus reflect an irony of electoral demographics: They are the Americans who most need government services and are most vulnerable to cutbacks — and they are also the ones least likely to vote.

In 2000, Payne and King both lived in New Hampshire, a battleground state that Al Gore lost to George Bush by only 7,211 of the 569,081 ballots cast. If they and others like them had voted in their economic interests, chances are that Gore would have won the state's four electoral votes and Bush would not be in the White House today.

Historically, the lower a person's income is, the greater his support for the Democrats — but the less likely he is to vote. This pattern presents Kerry with both a problem and an opportunity. If families who earn less than $25,000 a year had been persuaded to participate in the last presidential contest at the same rate as those earning more than $75,000, an additional 6.8 million people would have voted — most of them probably for Gore.

Nationwide, the turnout of eligible voters in the last presidential election ranged from a high of 75% of those in households earning more than $75,000 a year to just 38% of those under $10,000. Support for Bush also declined with income, running from 54% of those earning over $100,000 down to 37% of those under $15,000, according to exit polls.

Payne says she was too overwhelmed that fall to think about politics...

condt http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shipler25apr25,0,1568593.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
-------------------------------------------------

Sad we can't get those that need the most to come out and vote for their own best interests.

[pop goes the weasel]

1. Yes, we can!

We just have to be more creative. I have been thinking about how to get my poor rural community to get out the vote, and I think one way will be to have a challenge to the community. If we can get 70% of the eligible voters to cast a vote, we could reward ourselves with a festival. We could do it on Veteran's Day, so the festival will have extra significance. In urban areas, this sort of thing could be done by giving the challenge to the traditionally low-turn out areas of town. The reward could be different, depending on the community. Since we would need to find donors, maybe in some places, it would be better to have donors pay for new playgrounds or to restock the community food pantry. Is there a reason that this can't be done? I know you can't pay people to vote a certain way, but are there laws that prevent us from rewarding ourselves as a community for public spirit?