Why The Fixation on Swing Voters?

[ulTRAX]

While a vote is a vote in more democratic nations, in our system the value of a vote depends on one's state residence. This, in part explains the "logic" of gambling on a few swing voters in a few swing states instead of gambling to motivate some of those 50% of potential voters that don't vote. Our expectations for American "democracy" are so distorted and perverse many actually believe when Reagan got a mere 26% of the voting age vote, it was a "landslide".

I suspect the traditional wisdom says the Party must appeal to its base at the expense of expanding the base. Are Democrats convinced there's NO issue that can motivate some of these non-voters?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Increased Registration Plus Swing Voters Equal Victory

nt

[ulTRAX]

5. registration mean little if.......

DemocratSinceBirth wrote: "Increased Registration Plus Swing Voters Equal Victory"

Registration means little if there's no motivation to vote. That's where the hook has to be. According to http://www.idea.int/vt/country_view.cfm (go to US)

In the 2000 election there were
213,954,023 potential US voters
156,421,311 registered US voters

99,738,383 actual votes for Congress
105,404,546 votes for president

Some 50+ million registered voters sat out the 2000 election. Because of our anti-democratic system, the result was decided on 550 voters just because they happened to live in Florida.

[drdigi420]

6. Bush is motivation enough for most ppl to vote for Kerry

[ulTRAX]

8. I'd agree

If I thought Kerry was running a decent campaign. I don't. But there's also the issue of whether the Democratic Party is going to see as its mission bringing those 50% of non-voters into the system.

Of course, this might take some structural reforms to our anti-democratic system and the Dems have never show much of a commitment to democracy to actually work for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. If You Look At Polls Of All Adults Versus Likely Voters

there is a slight edge for the Democrats which is important in close races...


It's not a huge edge as some here believe

[KurtNYC]

2. The other factor is supressing registered voters

who would turn out for the opposition. I see the Right do more of that but an ABB attitude may keep some GOPs home this time.

[Cocoa]

3. it's not either-or

they pay attention both to the base and to swing voters.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. I don't think the campaign IS fixated on swing voters.

True, the talking heads want you to believe that's what this is all about, but that doesn't mean that the campaign agrees.

[fujiyama]

9. If people don't vote

they are stupid.

That's all I can say. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to live in a democracy (or what remains of it) and refuse to vote - instead all these non voters do is just bitch and moan.

I don't have much sympathy. We have party primaries for a reason. There are different candidates. Are the primaries set up in a great way? No, not really. I don't like how IA and NH have so much of a say, but that's how the system is set up. If one has a problem with that, they should try to change the rules. Many primaries allow independants to also vote in party primaries.

Why don't these 50% that don't vote vote for one of many third party candidates? It's not as though Nader (or the libertarians, constitution, etc) was able to do such a great job with them last time - and it's not like he's doing such a great job now - even with near 100% name recognition.

Information is VERY easily accessible now. The internet offers more than enough information. All it takes is a search engine and typing in "2004 presidential candidates" and various sites will show up. Usually the official links to the candidates will also show up. Many people own a computer now and an internet connection as well. The sites that show up at the top of the search list usually say something or the other about the candidate and they can make some sort of decision based on these and the candidates official sites.

Also, why is it always assumed that the 50% that doesn't vote leans left? Many of them could be extreme RW fanatics that are upset about a bunch of issues.

I agree voter outreach is important, but people are doing about as much as possible this time. The "hot" issues right now should resonate with people - the war, the economy, tax cuts, civil liberties, or even stupid wedge issues like abortion and gay marriage. Whether they favor it or not, they should say SOMETHING. If they don't for whatever reason, then they are not interested in voicing their vote. That's their own choice.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. There Have Been Studies Of The Attitudes Of Voters And

Non Voters And There Is Little Difference....


Theoretically in a close election this might make a difference...

[ulTRAX]

14. there's more than the presidential race

There's more than the presidential race. There's also Congress and the Senate. But let's leave the practical matters aside.

If the Democratic Party is not committed to insuring that the greatest number of citizens are participating in elections, then they are not committed to the bedrock concept that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. If all someone can see is the next election instead of insuring the health of a democratic nation... then I dare say they share in that moral failure.

[ulTRAX]

15. maybe non-voters are disgusted

fujiyama wrote: "If people don't vote they are stupid. That's all I can say. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to live in a democracy (or what remains of it) and refuse to vote - instead all these non voters do is just bitch and moan."

On the other hand central to democratic government is that the majority shall prevail. In our nation this is not true. The federal constitution is a giant vote weighing scheme. Just look at 2000. A voter in Bush's Florida lead weighed 1000x a voter in Gore's national lead. Our system is both anti-democratic... allowing minorities to govern, and essentially reform proof. What's the point of elections of vote losers can be imposed upon the nation?

That some citizens throw up their hand in disgust may be a more rational response than those who revolve their lives around our dysfunctional system.

Just a thought.

[fujiyama]

16. If it's the electoral college

you are talking about, I completely agree. It's an antiquated system and should be abolished. It is unfortunate that a liberal's voice counts for little if anything in say TX.

However it's simply impossible to get rid of it. I think one thing democrats might want to do is support IRV. It's a good idea, but I doubt anyone really knows about it. Independant groups/greens/libertarians, etc should try to educate people about it.

[ulTRAX]

17. moral bankruptcy of Democrats

fujiyama wrote: "However it's simply impossible to get rid of it. I think one thing democrats might want to do is support IRV. It's a good idea, but I doubt anyone really knows about it. Independant groups/greens/libertarians, etc should try to educate people about it."

The Constitution is both anti-democratic and virtually reform-proof. The amendment process is state-based and is giving a dwindling minority in small states increasing power to thwart reform. It's now theoretically possible that some 4.5% of the US population in the 1/4 smallest states can block ANY reform demanded by the remaining 95.5%. This is insane.

It might take 50 years to get rid of the EC but I don't believe it's impossible. But it's never going to happen if the Democrats are AWOL on democracy itself. Progressives should never excuse this moral bankruptcy.

It's unfortunate that the lesson learned from the Civil War was only that slavery was evil. So too is a political system that straight-jackets future generations with the primitive politics of dead.

As for IRV... it may get rid of the so-called "spoiler" effect in elections, but it doesn't insure civil equality where all votes weigh the same. Currently the vote for President by a citizen in Wyoming weighs 3.5x that of a citizen in California. The Constitution was the nation's first Affirmative Action plan granting extra power and privilege to some citizens at the expense of others based on state residence.

[skygazer]

10. I think non voters ARE being motivated

I personally know several people who have NEVER voted who are excited and eager to vote for Kerry this year. I also know many, many people who don't usually pay a lot of attention to politics who are closely following all the developments. This is a crucial time and people recognize it. I don't know about the polls or what the "experts" say but what I see with my own eyes is a whole lot of motivated people who were never all that motivated before. And it's not because they support Bush - it's because they want him out of the WH.

[AirAmFan]

12. IMO Democratic pols, like GOP pols, frequently DO NOT WANT new voters

now that an unprecedented proportion of elective offices are very "safe" seats. Positions that are "red", most likely stay "red", and positions that are "blue", most often stay "blue".

This means that for most incumbents, virtually the only way they can be dislodged from lifetime careers in Democratic politics is to be defeated in a primary by an insurgent Democrat. Insurgents very likely represent forces who despise the incumbents, such as Al Sharpton in the Mark Green NYC mayoral primary last time. Insurgents also tend to be those most effective at organizing new voters from disaffected sectors of society, such as the poor and minorities, whose urban concerns have been "sacrificed" in DLC-led appeals to "swing voters".

If Dems running for "safe" seats want to make sure their elections not even close, they'll court "swing" voters for a margin of safety. But going after a much larger group who don't vote at all is seen as very risky to their careers, and would require drastic changes in their positions on issues of concern to groups who tend not to vote. These issues include welfare "reform", the minimum wage, high rates of incarceration, police brutality, and racial profiling.

See a book by JHU polisci professors called called "Downsizing Democracy: How America Sidelined Its Citizens and Privatized Its Public". Part of it is online at http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0801871506/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-4296268-9662312

[ulTRAX]

13. does the Democratic Party give a sh*t about democracy?

AirAmFan wrote: "IMO Democratic pols, like GOP pols, frequently DO NOT WANT new voters now that an unprecedented proportion of elective offices are very "safe" seats. Positions that are "red", most likely stay "red", and positions that are "blue", most often stay "blue"."

I think this gets to the heart of the dysfuncionality in the Democratic Party: they have no use for democracy. They are no committed to the bedrock concept that government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Because they don't the Democratic Party has no need to involve those 50% of citizens that don't vote in the political process. Dems have no need to advocate for democratic reforms to an anti-democratic Constitution even after election 2000. But for every 2000, there's a 1992 where Clinton was installed with only about 43% of the vote.

The Democrats want the support of Progressives but their best argument is that they're not as bad as the Right. And as long as this remains a dysfunctional 2 party system then citizens are always forced to either vote their conscience and never get representation or vote the lesser of the evils and never see basic reforms.

But my question about appealing to the non-voter is not just philosphical... it's also about winning this year's election. If there's not enough SWING voters, then it's a good strategic move to find SOME way to motivate some of those NON-voters. I think if Kerry showed some leadership in tackling the nation's big problems in a manner that was non-partisan, that would go a long way. But do you think Kerry's up to taking on the drug companies wasteful business model? Is he up to taking on the Israeli hard Right? Is he up to advocating that in America each vote should weigh the same and the EC has to be abolished? Is he up to fighting the big oil and car companies to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Is he up to truth & reconciliation with the Arab world that we've done so much harm to these past 50 years? I'm sure others have other "big issues". Those are some of mine.