Does it matter that 40 or 50% of the electorate don't bother to vote?

[Jackpine Radical]

Ask yourself just who those people are.

The rich tend to exercise their votes. Religious crazies vote. Rabid teabaggers vote.

The people who don't vote are largely
-disillusioned }
-depressed }
-disadvantaged } DEMOCRATS.
-dysfunctional }
-demobilized }
-disengaged }

The right is in power because they have managed to paralyze half the electorate into apathy, learned helplessness, and hopelessness.

[asdjrocky]

1. Disrespected.

That says it all.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Nail======>Head Pow!

[asdjrocky]

9. It's a fixed game.

I like to play a little poker, not that online crap, but real folks around a real table. I don't get to play as much as I once did because I only gamble what I can afford to lose.

Back in the day, I sat at some big tables and I can spot a fixed table from a mile away. Jack, this table is fixed.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Indeed it is.

But sometimes all a fixed game needs is a better fixer.

[asdjrocky]

20. True.

But how in the hell do you buy in so you can fix it? No one I know can afford to sit down at the table.

[Jackpine Radical]

25. Under the radar.

[Skidmore]

3. I would make no such assumptions.

Why would you assume that they are Democrats? The assumption that they are affiliated with any party also assumes that everyone is equally educated in civic process and responsibilities and that they track current affairs beyond who won American Idol.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. OK, I'll make it an adjective:

"Democratable."

[midnight]

4. I wonder if those surviving a jobless recovery have no resources

to get to and from the polls?

[Jackpine Radical]

10. That started a whole trend of thought in my pointy little head.

I think the Dems ought to get their act together on a personal, volunteering basis and start operating relief missions like many of the churches do, and get the party associated with concern for the welfare of people who are hurting. Organize a homeless shelter, provide food, & cart everyone down to the polls. Political proseletyzing sous le pont, as it were.

[csziggy]

31. That has to be done locally

Here, a part of the former Obama for America group split off from OFA after the election. They decided that they wanted to push local issues and campaigns that the OFA were not interested in, so they set up their own group. As a group, they are working to assist local food banks, voter registration drives and other efforts to engage and assist local people. Hopefully, this will add to our local voter base and get voter participation levels up.

While in the 2008 election over 70% of registered voters turned out, this year only about 60% turned out. This area seems to have a higher than average rate of voter registration - population in 2008 was estimated at 265,714 with 19.6% of that being under 18. There are 169,875 registered voters, which is about 80% of the eligible population.

[Jackpine Radical]

44. Yes, that's exactly what I'm thinking about. Exactly.

[treestar]

6. why is anyone to blame other than these people themselves?

They have no voice by choice and they don't get to complain. Or people so mad that they can't get their own way that they think dropping out is going to harm anyone other than themselves?

I think there is also a silly assumption, that if they DID vote, they'd vote for progressives or socialists. They'd be as likely to vote for someone worse than Bush for all we know.

[Better Believe It]

13. It appears to me from your comments that you're really out of touch with working class non-voters.

What choices do you think they really have in terms of electoral politics?

Many millions of people who voted for change in 2008 didn't see any changes that improved their conditions so they sat out this election.

Don't pass the buck and blame the victims!

[JuniperLea]

24. Got link?

I don't think the poster is out of touch at all. I think he's spot on, actually. Do you have a link to a study about working class non-voters that supports your assertion?

How long do these people, in your estimation, think it should take to get an entire country back on track after such a horrific fall? I keep asking this question, and no one seems to be able to answer... oh, but they (you) will use it just about every time.

This past election went as it almost always has; historically, this was the very predictable outcome.

[asdjrocky]

15. Some people don't want to play a fixed game.

Honestly, I can't look at it any other way. Obama won by how many votes? What percentage of the population supported the public option? What percentage of people want to end DADT?

It's a fixed game. They don't listen and there is no real incentive for them to do what they say they will do.

[Jackpine Radical]

23. It's not about blame. It's about tapping a huge potential pool

of voters.

They don't choose the experiences that result in their apathy.

They also wouldn't automatically vote for Democrats.

The point would be to find some ways to start bringing hope to them and maybe to talk with them as people. As of now, the only groups I see trolling the waters of poverty are fundamentalist churches who, whatever you might think of their theology and motives, are at least bringing some resources to those in desperate need of help.

[thereismore]

7. It matters because the fanatics are well motivated to vote. The rest play catch up. nt

[Better Believe It]

8. They don't see any party or candidates they can believe in.

Most non-voters believe that both major parties represent the rich, not working folks like themselves.

Given that opinion, what do you expect them to do?

[Jackpine Radical]

11. Right.

[leftstreet]

18. +1

[bigtree]

12. yeah, let's treat them like victims

. . . instead of the irresponsible citizens that they actually are. There's likely nothing preventing most of them from participating. I don't think our politics should be geared toward folks who don't bother to show up and make a choice like the rest who do.

Btw, there's plenty of attempts at 'paralyzing' folks right here on this board.

[Better Believe It]

16. They are working class victims.

Do you think that federal workers will now be inspired to vote for those who freeze their pay?

Do you think that those non-voters who will be hurt by bi-partisan cuts in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid cuts will be inspired to vote in 2012?

[bigtree]

22. bull

They're victims of their own irresponsibility. It's not as if their views should be assured in our political system. They have to work to get support for whatever they believe like everyone else. I refuse to act as if they should be catered to just because they choose to sit on their hands. If they want to be recognized as anything other than ignorant or obtuse, they need to get into the game.

[Individualist]

27. Fuck DLC!

[leftstreet]

28. well, at least you admit it's a 'game' n/t

[superduperfarleft]

33. For the sake of the Democrats...

...I certainly hope that you're in back stuffing envelopes as opposed to talking to potential voters.

[bigtree]

40. I've brought many, many voters to the polls in my lifetime

But, I certainly don't patronize or encourage apathy.

[Mimosa]

17. Not to the plutocracy. n/t

[unblock]

19. a lot of couples don't vote because their votes "cancel out"

i know plenty of couples consisting of one from each major party and they often agree to not bother voting rather than both voting and having their votes offset each other.

i think it's silly because they'd probably agree on some office or issue down-ticket, and staying home costs themselves two votes, but hey, not my call!

[gulliver]

21. Non-voters should have all of their interests deprioritized.

The interests of non-voters should be deprioritized, even discarded without a second thought. That's democracy. A non-vote should be taken as a vote to screw the non-voter as much as necessary to maximize the interests of voters.

[JoePhilly]

34. That's actually what is happening .... that's why ...

... corporations can ship jobs over seas AND get tax breaks for doing so ...

... Social security is attacked by the GOP, year after year ...

... unions are dying.

The folks that don't vote don't understand politics, and they don't have a sense as to who would protect their future interests. A lot of them are focused on NOW.

I suspect that if you studied these folks, from a psychological perspective, they are "present oriented".

What I mean by that is ... people tend to fall into one of three groups in terms of their "time perspective" ... PAST, PRESENT, or FUTURE oriented ...

Generally one's time perspective can change from situation to situation, it can take any of these orientations ... but usually, individuals, and even cultures, tend to focus on one of the three more than the other two. And as a result, many of their opinions, and decisions are driven by their view of time.

Elections are about the past and the future. I think the GOP tends to have a PAST focus. They think FDR was a socialist. The 50s were the golden era. They are "conservative" ... they prefer the old ways. They hate change. And Reagan is now a mythical figure (while both Bush's are ignored).

Meanwhile, the left is more FUTURE focused, PROGRESSIVE ... we expect change over time. We demand it. We want the future and we want it NOW.

The PRESENT oriented folks don;t really care about Reagan, or about who Obama might put on the supreme court in the next 2-6 years. They have dinner to make. And all of this politics talk is irrelevant to how I'm going to get one kid to a soccer game and an other to dance practice, within the next 30 minutes, with only one car.

[gulliver]

38. Good points.

I agree that non-voters are already being victimized and it makes sense that they tend to be NOW-oriented as you say. What they need is NOW-oriented decision-making criteria. Non-voters need to know that their interests will not be protected and will be traded away to satisfy the interests of voters. That's the kind of thing that motivates people to get involved, the idea that they will lose something to someone else if they don't. It's ironic how many people don't vote because "voting doesn't mean anything." They don't realize that not learning the issues and voting as effectively as they can is how voting comes to mean something.

[Hannah Bell]

26. they've managed to paralyze most of the electorate by turning voting into a futile exercise.

the choice is between candidates pre-selected by various ruling class factions.

[Little Star]

37. "candidates pre-selected by various ruling class factions" BINGO

[NorthCarolina]

29. Thank the DLC for Democratic voter apathy

When you are repeatedly forced to accept corporate conservative Dems to counter a GOP challenger, that leaves little choice other than voting for the lesser of two evils, where neither candidate represents your interests. Not much of an incentive to motivate the voter there. The Dems don't need a bigger tent, or to be led by conserva-Dems who share essentially the same interests as the GOP. Rather, they need a consensus of opinion that clearly differentiates them from the GOP, and that serves the common good.

[Individualist]

32. Hear, hear!

[H2O Man]

30. Absolutely!

Recommended, of course. I thank you for this OP/thread.

The discussion provides evidence that some people get it, and others do not. I'd like to address a couple issues regarding the disenfranchisement of people in our society. It goes beyond the outright crimes from Florida (2000) and Ohio (2004), when large numbers of citizens were not able to vote, simply because of their skin color.

To disinfrachise an individual or group is to deny them a right they are entitled to. There is obviously a long and ugly history of this, in the context of voting rights, in our country. For far too long, only white men of means were voters. It took a long time to correct this.

One responder -- not surprising -- commented on this thread that it is better to blame the victims of disenfranchisement, rather than the system itself. As Voltaire said, ignorance is the mother of all cruelty. Just as people, including blacks and women, were denied far more than voting rights, so today we have a social underclass that is disenfranchised by our culture. To blame them may seem easier, and even provide a sense of self-worth to some, but it is a cruel ignorance of the realities of millions of people's day-to-day experiences.

Just as some people are taught math, social studies, and a sense of self-worth growing up, secure in the knowledge that they belong to society, many others are taught from an early age that they are not worthy, and have no rights.

Are these people more likely to vote for a democrat than a republican? One can use a couple of measures: what party is more intent upon denying voting rights -- say, in 2000 in Florida? And what party do the vast majority of those who try to provide political education and a path to registration belong to?

[bigtree]

39. I don't know about disenfranchisement. Most of the apathy looks to be self-inflicted

Disenfranchisement has certainly been a factor in our nation's history, but merely refusing to vote is a consequential act which shouldn't be automatically conflated with discrimination or outright obstruction of votes. How do you accurately measure these non-votes to attribute one narrative or the other to that non-participation?

There is a widespread apathy about voting which likely reflects individuals own despair about their own condition and their skepticism about any remedy forthcoming from politicians. But that refusal to vote often has its own inherent consequence which is manifest in the diligence of voters who may hold opposing or contrary views and concerns which threaten to prevail without sufficient challenge.

I think that it may be helpful to be sympathetic to the reasons behind that apathy, but I'm not going to make excuses for what I see as irresponsible behavior from many folks who should know better. I'll admit that ours is a fight that will be won through education, information and activism. But, we also have to come to grips with our individual responsibility to vigilance. We have to show up every day to make certain the government is representing all of the people; not just the corporate few who show up every day to collect our money. They will always fill the halls of Congress with their favors, bribes, and obstruction. That's not something that's going to change just to accommodate the apathetic among us.

Through our virtue and our vigilance we must keep ourselves informed about those issues and concerns which we entrust to the bidding of those in Congress; and we must thoroughly involve ourselves in the process of resolving those issues and concerns in tandem with our legislators by challenging ourselves to read, watch and listen; with a respect and a desire for understanding of differing views and opinions in our deliberation and debate.

We must, in our respect for democracy (and ourselves), value, protect, and promote the right to vote. With our full participation in the voting process we promote respect for our nation and each other, and help ensure an equal chance for representation for all of our citizens in the deliberations of our government. Our vote is the instrument of our collective conscience and our warrant to the realization of our freedom, our liberty, and our well-being.

I believe the fact that millions of Americans abstain from all of that may well be due to our culture; but, not in the way you're probably thinking. Generations of Americans have been led to believe that they can have everything they desire without any need to fight, work, or struggle for it. Denied their way, they're more inclined to blame some shadowy 'other' who is holding back their reward than they are their own inability to effect the changes they seek.

We come to the political arena with our own beliefs and prescriptions for success, but, so do a wide diversity of individuals with many disparate views, needs and concerns. We put all those on our political scales and we weigh our solution toward the majority. That's our democracy. It's not some perfect or divine arbiter of all of what we need or desire, but it's as productive system as a nation of such profound diversity can reasonably manage. The political system only works on our behalf if we are able to coalesce together and agree to advance one remedy or the other. There's really little impetus or any actual means to measure the concerns of those who choose (or are compelled for whatever reason outside of disenfranchisement or obstruction) to sit outside of it all and not vote.

[H2O Man]

49. There is definitely

a large pool of people who are aware of their right to vote, who have the ability to register and the means to make it to that voting booth ..... but who do not, because their existence is defined by bright lights, loud music, strong drink, and other attempts to fill their empty lives.

But, there is also a very large underclass in America, who inhabit the invisible margins of our society. They are distinct from the first group, my Friend, even if they at times are found in the same bars, or living in the same general neighborhoods. These are the children who have not had supportive home lives, nurturing experiences in school, or who are respected in the community.

The very concept that they have a "right" to vote is undermined by the lack of the self-esteem and self-worth needed to believe they should vote, and actually could vote in a manner that would count. And the OP lists a significant number of people who fit the second group. Why? Because in his life's experience, he has encountered such a large number of those people. And I do not mean simply the forensic clients he has dealt with. No, I think he is talking more about their families and friends, as well as many others he has encountered over the years.

The various branches of social work put people in touch with that large, unseen population. If, for example, the forensic clients are the visible part of an iceberg, then the non-criminal underclass is the larger section of that iceberg, under water, and out of view. They are disenfranchised from our society in ways that only direct contact with them can show those of us that live more in the mainstream can imagine.

It's easy to confuse them with that first group of non-voters. It's easy to view them as an expensive burden on society. But, in truth, there are powers that capitalize on others' poverty, and make a good buck doing so.

Finally, I'd venture that it is no coincidence that leaders from Gandhi to King to Malcolm recognized the potential power -- indeed the very force needed to heal an unjust society -- is found within that underclass of which we are speaking. In my own opinion, it's not only one resource we should concentrate on harnessing, but it is exactly as Gandhi et al noted -- the best one.

[The Midway Rebel]

35. K&R

To expose the ignorance and apathy of some members of our own party.

[defendandprotect]

36. Agree completely ... this is purposeful and the Dems are also playing this rw game ...!!!

DLC has also kept a lid on Dems and populist issues -- and it's what

brings voters out --

[swilton]

41. There is no right left anymore

There are only elites and non-elites...I'll let you guess which one is in power.

[JoseGaspar]

42. There is a long history of research on this...

... not a little of it at the Kennedy School of Government.

One of the most important reasons for not voting is that people are not registered. The most common reason for that is that they move or are dropped from the voter rolls and they don't know how to get back on. The worst variations on this theme become forms of vote suppression, common in nearly 20 states.

Something like two thirds of those who don't vote belong to obviously Democratic demographics but their "benign neglect" is just as much at the hands of the Democratic Party as it is among the Republicans. When was the last major voter registration drive organized in the South or in urban America that was not part of a specific election campaign?

[superduperfarleft]

43. Good post. n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

45. Yes.

[Jackpine Radical]

46. Yes.

[AnArmyVeteran]

47. What if we had two countries, one right wing and the other left wing.

The right wing country wouldn't have roads, sewers, electricity, police, teachers, firefighters, food safety, environmental regulations, workplace safety, nada, zip, nothing.

The left wing country would be full of things built by people for people (government programs).

The right wing country would spend all of it's money on weapons and gold.

The left wing country would produce clean water and safe food.

The right wing country would be envious and use their massive stockpiles of weapons to take everything the left created and then once they plundered and killed everyone on the left they would starve to death because all they knew how to do was destroy.

[Jackpine Radical]

48. Kinda like a cancer that way,

killing off its host due to untrammeled greed for resources.

[upi402]

50. TV News and distraction/diversion

I blame their media first.