Something’s Missing

Ezra’s post, The Politics of Mobilization, and Nicholas’ post, The Mostly Unfuzzy Math of William Galston & Elaine Kamarck, each refer to studies that make recommendations to the Democrats based on voter data. What strikes me in both cases is that the pictures drawn are incomplete. The current electorate is not the same as the potential electorate, and ignoring the possibilities to extend the Democratic base within the latter seems to be a rather glaring omission. Cernig from Newshog recently noted:

By American standards the turnout for the 2004 Presidential election was high—yet by the standards of other Western democracies it was woefully low. Chris Bowers at MyDD recently researched who didn't turn out to vote and came up with some interesting findings. In 2004, for example, the national median income was $35,100 p.a. yet the median income of the electorate was $55,300—a difference of 57.5%.

In other words, it is mostly the poorest segment of society who don't vote. Consider that although Bush gained 52% of the electorate, he only got 34% of all the possible votes. That means there is a huge potential constituency out there, between 25% and 30% of the potential electorate, who simply don't vote—and they don't vote simply because neither Republicans nor Republican-Lites have policies that address their concerns!

In moving rightward, the Democrats have abandoned a part of their traditional base—the working class and the poor, many of whom also face voter disenfranchisement on election day in addition to the political marginalization they experience on a regular basis. Difficulty voting, compounded by a lack of opportunity to vote for a party who passionately champions their issues has left an entire swath of potential voters feeling disencouraged from voting. One doesn’t have to be particularly politically savvy to understand the difference between actively pursuing policy from which they will benefit and disingenuous lip service during an election cycle.

There are things that can be done to help everyone vote—making election day a holiday, fair elections without 9 hour wait times to cast a ballot, etc. But beyond the functionality of making voting easier, they’ve got to be offered a reason to make the trip out the door in the first place.

It’s easy to dismiss this line of reasoning with the old “there’s obviously a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans” line, as if that ought to be enough, and for many of us, that difference is apparent. But I have worked with the truly indigent—not the working poor, but families who have been homeless (or are homeless), or have languished generation after generation in the projects—and the differences we may see between the Democrats and the Republicans do not help them. Neither party effectively addresses their needs. They didn’t “do better” under Clinton than Bush. They couldn’t care less about gay marriage, or which candidate is more churchy. They want someone who can help them, who can help their kids, who cares about a school with ancient books and no heat. No Child Left Behind didn’t make their schools worse—they were already as bad as they could get. In a town the county over from mine, the schools are in such disarray, they have lost accreditation from the state. Hands up in the air—oh well; we’re not giving you any more money until you can get your act together. This happened while Clinton was in office, and the state had a Democratic governor. It has not changed under Bush, nor under the new Republican governor.

What’s the difference between the parties in the eyes of those students, their parents?

When John Edwards talked about the Two Americas, he was talking about poverty and opportunity and access, but he could just as well have been talking about the America that votes, and the America that doesn’t.

(Crossposted at Ezra's place.)