|
|
<< US Iraq Death Toll Passes 500 | Main | Congrats to Kerry >> January 19, 2004Myth of Declining Voter TurnoutTAPPED has a post pooh-poohing the idea that Howard Dean, or any Democratic candidate, can succeed by expanding voter turnout. The key evidence-- the massive decline in voter turnout in recent decades. Citing a Wall Street Journal story, Tapped quotes: The rate of voter turnout has declined steadily in the four decades since 65.4% of those eligible cast ballots in John F. Kennedy's 1960 victory over Richard M. Nixon. In the Bush-Gore contest of 2000, 53.8% of Americans voted.Sounds like a devastating number. Except for one thing-- this oft repeated stat ignores the 26th Amendment of the Constitution, the one that gave 18-20 year olds the right to vote. Since younger voters turnout in smaller numbers, passing this amendment immediately dropped turnout as a percentage of the now-expanded voting population. In 1972, the first year with the Amendment in effect, overall turnout dropped to 55.21%. The worst Presidential year turnout was in the 1988 election, a low of 50.11%, while turnout in 1992 jumped back to 55.09%. So since 1972, turnout has swung up and down 5%, a healthy margin to worry about-- add in the new possibilities of mobilization pioneered by Dean and the new union strategies for mobilization this year and turnout strategies look extremely attractive, especially compared to the uncertainties of appealing to the last couple of percentages of the "uncommitted." It isn't that swing voters should be ignored, but given the polarization in the electorate, spending all your effort appealing to the maybe 10% of the population really in the swing category, compared to the 50% of the population that doesn't vote just seems stupid. BTW I just saw CNN repeating the 1960 versus 2000 turnout comparison canard. Actually, on Martin Luther King's birthday, this argument is especially disgusting, since blacks in the South, for example, turnout in far larger numbers today than they ever could back in 1960. Update: Centrist Coalition has a response here. As I said, I'm all for going after swing voters-- I've said that dumping issues like gun control in favor of a stronger economic justice message is the best way to go after lower-income whites who have trended more Republican in some states. I just reject the "reaching out to nonvoters is useless" message that the mainstream tends to harp on. Posted by Nathan at January 19, 2004 06:50 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Comments"Actually, on Martin Luther King's birthday, this argument is especially disgusting, since blacks in the South, for example, turnout in far larger numbers today than they ever could back in 1960." Damn that's a great point! I'll have to steal it. :-) Posted by: Kevin Block-Schwenk at January 20, 2004 01:08 AM In the figure for 1960, are southern blacks counted as eligible (even if they weren't able to Seems like if southern blacks had been able to vote in 1960, then the percentage turnout would An apple-to-apples comparison would need to Everything I've heard says that the baby boom Posted by: Aenglish at January 20, 2004 07:36 AM It's certainly worth investing money into registering new voters, and perhaps this is a particularly good year to do it. My concern is about taking positions that might appeal to new voters but alienate currently registered ones. I don't agree with those who say that centrism has been a losing proposition for the Democratic Party. It worked for Clinton, and is not to blame for the loss of Congress. Recall that congressional Democrats were perceived to be to the left of Clinton, hence the term "triangulation." The Democratic Party has to edge further to the center, win a majority, and by governing well, build credibility for a more progressive agenda. Posted by: Rick (Centrist Coalition) at January 20, 2004 10:59 AM If the figures represent people who did vote as a percentage of people who are legally qualified to vote, then blacks in the South pre-1965 would be part of the denominator. But if the percentages reflect the ratio of voters to people who are registered to vote, then I think that pre-Voting Rights Act southern blacks just aren't part of the calculation. Still, Nathan's point about comparing pre-VRA data to post-VRA data is a good one. Even if southern blacks just weren't counted at all in 1960, you could have a phenomenon like the one he describes for 18- to 20-year-olds. If southern blacks, having finally won a meaningful right to vote, had a different voting-to-registration ratio than other groups, that would have affected the calculation even if everyone else's behavior stayed the same. Posted by: J. J. at January 20, 2004 12:18 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|