Robust voter turnout is fundamental to a healthy democracy. As low turnout is usually attributed to political disengagement and the belief that voting for one candidate/party or another will do little to alter public policy...
Thus begins a page of the FairVote.org website. The first sentence is a simple declarative statement, a simple truth. Who amongst us denies this basic truth?
The opening of the 2nd sentence is a supposition, but we here would probably agree it's a pretty damned good guess -- most of those who don't vote simply believe their vote would alter nothing. Whether or not such an inaction on an individual basis is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy doesn't really matter does it? We can wag our fingers all day at the non-voters, cuss them out, factually lecture them about why every vote DOES matter, but to what end? That's not going to get the marginalized to the polls because they'll still hold on to that central, depressing thought that nothing will change.
[A counter supposition might be that many simply can't get to the polls, some are having their votes taken from them, and some are too busy trying not to drown. These are all certainly true, but the larger set of non-voters probably fall into the "it won't matter" camp.]
As counter argument, those with the energy after a long day of two 8-hour shifts at minimum wage followed by a scary drive home in their old car terrified a racist cop will pull them over after they've picked up their kids from expensive daycare might fire back that they DID come out and vote in 2008, as evidenced by this Census Bureau headline:
Voter Turnout Increases by 5 Million in 2008 Presidential Election, U.S. Census Bureau Reports. Data Show Significant Increases Among Hispanic, Black and Young Voters
...but what did that get them? Besides increased deportations
(Obama's administration deported at a record pace) and
continued terrible unemploymentamong our young black neighbors and the simple reality that the economic "recovery" is a lie that plays with averages to cover the fact that all the gains have been for those at the top, the already rich and well off --
a Rich Man's Recovery, in the words of Krugman. What did that get them but an epidemic of cop murders caught on video hinting to the thousands not able to be reported by our dogged righteous hell raiser Shaun...even with a black man behind the Resolute Desk and a black attorney general directing the DoJ? And even acknowledging no one is getting it worse -- by a long shot -- than young black men in this country, it ain't no picnic even for the shrinking middle class -- white, black, brown or fuchsia.
In fact, more than 60 percent of the gains went to the top 0.1 percent, people with annual incomes of more than $1.9 million.
Basically, while the great majority of Americans are still living in a depressed economy, the rich have recovered just about all their losses and are powering ahead.
These are thing we really don't need links to authoritative sources to accept though, wouldn't you agree?
So here's what's so frustrating to me:
We all know voter turnout drives a healthy Democracy and we accept most non-voters don't think their vote won't matter. Even knowing this, all the "rational people" keep pointing to polls about likely voters, never even aware that in doing so they cynically give in to the notion those non-votes are forever lost. Instead, shouldn't we be looking at ways to eliminate those numbers, ways to lead people to engagement? And I don't mean through registration drives; though that IS CRITICAL and NECESSARY it only addresses the mechanics, not the fuel that leads to non-voting.
What must be done instead stares right there at us in that first supposition:
...the belief that voting for one candidate/party or another will do little to alter public policy...
Instead of impressing us all with polling prowess and pragmatism, why not work to change hearts and minds of the 40% or so of eligible Americans who have given up, to make the disenchanted think this time their vote can make a difference? This, I'd argue is THE point and THE energy driving the Sander's enthusiasm. I'll also personally assert many on the Left believe that a Clinton nomination -- the embodiment of the Establishment every bit as much as Bush, even if on opposite side -- (and probably the same on the Right for a Bush nomination) will do nothing to raise the voting rolls. Sure, maybe were are wrong, but let me close with
one simple factthat should give you pause:
Nonvoters favor Barack Obama over Mitt Romney by a wide margin (59% to 24%). While most nonvoters (64%) have a favorable view of Obama, just half as many (32%) view Romney favorably.
By contrast, likely voters are evenly divided in Pew Research’s most recent national survey (47% Obama, 47% Romney). Nearly identical percentages of likely voters view Obama and Romney favorably (51% Obama, 52% Romney).
That 40% percent of non-voters? They massively skew liberal. In fact, as a percentage, they comprise twice as many liberals as the people who do vote, yet here we are even in the primary season and a massive segment of Democrats have already accepted stasis of the voter rolls because their entire focus is on only likely voters.
The path to victory is engagement of non-voters, not triangulating our way to tepidly tipping the scales of eligible voters.
[Note: I changed the title because while I think Sanders is the better candidate to raise the voter rolls, this is not really a Bernie diary.]