The Party of Nonvoters seems to be the majority in the US.
Almost certainly, however, there will be far more nonvoters than voters this year.
Turnout in midterm elections typically is less than 40% of the voting age population (in 2006 it was 37%), and there is no reason to expect that it will be dramatically higher in 2010.
To be fair it did increase slightly in 2010 but that is still not the point. This vintage article has more to say that is relevant today. The low turn out is disturbing in many ways. We worry about voting rights, etc. but there is a message here we either do not understand or ignore. Read on below for more explanation.
Certainly with all the money being spent to focus on the election we should have more response. That is unless those spending the money are missing the point which they may well be. Here's what was said in 2010:
Who are these likely nonvoters who constitute a majority of the American public this year?
Based on an analysis of a September national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, nonvoters are younger, less educated and more financially stressed than likely voters.
Nonvoters are significantly less Republican in their party affiliation than are likely voters, and more supportive of an activist federal government. Despite their more difficult economic circumstances, nonvoters express greater satisfaction with national conditions than do likely voters, and are more likely to approve of Barack Obama’s job performance.
Had they voted things might have been somewhat different. But who knows?
Here's some demographics on these non voters:
As is typical in U.S. elections, nonvoters are significantly younger, less educated and less affluent than are likely voters.
Nearly three-quarters of nonvoters (72%) are younger than age 50, compared with only 42% of likely voters.
Similarly, a majority of nonvoters (60%) have not gone beyond high school, compared with just 34% among those likely to vote.
This education gap is somewhat larger among young people: 55% of nonvoters younger than age 40 have only a high school education, while the figure among young likely voters is just 20%.
Low education levels and low incomes go hand-in-hand: 43% of nonvoters have family incomes under $30,000, compared with just 19% among likely voters.
Reflecting their low incomes, many more nonvoters (31%) than likely voters (14%) describe their personal financial situation as poor, and fully 51% of nonvoters say that they or someone in their household was out of work and looking for a job at some point in the past 12 months. Among voters, 36% had this personal experience with unemployment.
A much higher proportion of nonvoters than voters identify as Hispanic or Latino: 21% of nonvoters vs. 6% of voters.
The article goes on to say that these non voters are somewhat more liberal than likely voters.
The question of who will stay home in November is an important one, especially if we hope to change their minds.
There are some things about this that really make me wonder about what we are doing. The country is a mess. The Teabuggers and libertarian cult members certainly seem to be able to mobilize crackpots. Clearly voting them out would seem a compelling reason not to stay home.
When a minority of the voters elect someone what legitimacy do they really have? Arguments that center around the role of government in our lives seems to fall flat when people just don't seem to believe in it enough to participate in choosing it.
We read more and more that we are not a democracy but an oligarchy. Are the non voters more aware of this than the voters? Is it possible that these non voters are more aware at some gut level of the failure of the electoral process to provide ways of solving most problems?
Whatever the reasons, the next congress will be representing a minority of the voters no matter who they are. Can such a process really work? It seems like it is not working.