Support NeoGAF

[soul creator]

From 2014 (is there any updated data like this?), but I've posted this a lot for non-voting demographics: http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/31/the-party-of-nonvoters-2/

A few quotes

The Party of Nonvoters
Younger, More Racially Diverse, More Financially Strapped

Nonvoters’ Weak Partisan Ties

Nonvoters Much Less Likely than Voters to Affiliate with a PartyReflecting their low levels of political engagement, only about half of nonvoters (47%) identify with either political party; 29% identify as Democrats, 18% as Republicans while 45% are independents. Among likely voters, 68% identify with a party (37% Democrat, 31% Republican) and just 30% are independents.

Nonvoters do not have particularly positive views of President Obama’s job performance, or of either political party. About as many approve (44%) as disapprove of the way Obama is handling his job as president.

Nonvoters’ views of the Democratic Party are more favorable than unfavorable. Still, only about half (48%) view the party favorably, while 40% have an unfavorable impression. Among likely voters, both parties are viewed negatively, on balance.

more nonvoters say that government aid to the poor does more good than harm than say the opposite (51% vs. 43%). Likely voters, by 52% to 43%, say that government aid to the poor does more harm than good.

 

[Buckle]

People are poorly informed when it comes to anything but the presidential election.

Wouldnt be surprised if a bunch didnt think there was anything to vote on.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

My cousin hit me with that "Obama has done less for black people than Trump" business at a family get together (this was in March '16) and the entire table was dumbfounded for a few minutes. Not sure what to do in those cases :S

Does he know that Trump continues to believe 5 innocent black men should by put to death despite being exonerated?

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-central-park-five-5-guilty-2016-10

 

[sugarhigh4242]

I agree we need to build the movement regardless of who won the election. So why didn't some alleged progressives come out and vote to keep every minority/woman/LGBTQ person in this country from getting fucked?

You can do both, you know.

Well they didnt. Browbeating apathetic voters is going to bring them out.

 

[Staccat0]

Shrug. Maybe. What I'm seeing is that they won't vote for anybody at this point that has money or comes from money. I least I think that's the common denominator. At least for candidates that don't immediately strike out with them through policy alone.

Oh I don't doubt it.

 

[Zukkoyaki]

People are poorly informed when it comes to anything but the presidential election.

Wouldnt be surprised if a bunch didnt think there was anything to vote on.

That's what I'm thinking as well. I know of very few young people that vote in their local and city elections in the spring and summer. Thankfully many come around every two years.

 

[Gattsu25]

Does he know that Trump continues to believe 5 innocent black men should by put to death despite being exonerated?

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-central-park-five-5-guilty-2016-10

Yes. It's "in the past" according to him (funny how that only goes one way). Not going to try to defend him. My cousin's a fucking idiot.

He spent his 20s getting a legal degree and then copped a criminal record and now can't act on the degree. He was already a semi-hotep and then that happened (while Obama was president which is important because...?) and he's been full on stupid since.

 

[whyamihere]

No it's not that- hope is never lost when you look at it over a long enough timeline. But don't expect "doing the work" to be enough, sometimes, the mood of the country is going to want a red scare and we're going to pass the Patriot Act part three whether we like it or not.

That doesn't mean fighting against it is worthless.

Trump is one of the most unpopular presidents since polling began and despite Sam Bee's piece, special election turnout for Democrats has been gigantic (except for the LA elections where ~we don't have data because of vote by mail and these weren't competitive races~)

 

[JABEE]

There is no such thing as a perfect government. It is always about lesser evils.

That's the spirit that brought about progress. Corruption and corporate monopolies can't be fought, because it means losing elections. Tell that to Theodore Roosevelt and change agents that actually tried to change things to their own detriment. They actually took risks to try to improve the country.

The democrats want pragmatists who will protect the interests of their corporate overlords and power brokers above all else. The people who advance in politics in our deeply flawed system, not just imperfect, are candidates who "fundraise" the best.

The Democratic Party has been the party of compromise for far too long. The pragmatists who sold out this country. Change isn't gradual. It's only gradual if you make it so. Change often comes quickly and swiftly. Overnight change can happen. You only have to wait for change and better days when you believe in a system that enriches few at the expense of everyone else. And those few pay to protect their status, but at least they aren't bigots.

They'll smile at you while they privatize schools, strike deals to reduce the taxes of their handlers, leaving the burden for the masses to endure. People need to vote for candidates who speak to them, and not for candidates who live off market tests and tame threats.

 

[Arkage]

This video segment is pretty bad all around.

L.A.s top two candidates were a Democrat versus a Democrat, which explains voter turn out. There's nothing to fight for/over.

The Louisiana runoff only gives a statewide voter turnout, not specific to liberals/democrats.

The Minnesota vote comment from Maddow doesn't show a lack of liberal turn out, it shows that a generic democrat lost by much less than Hillary did for that county, which if anything reinforces the notion that Hillary was a terrible candidate to run against Trump.

Hillary was a bad candidate for the Democratic party. It was also a Republican-leaning cycle due to eight years of Obama. That's about all that needs to be said in regards to voter turnout.

 

[whyamihere]

This video segment is pretty bad all around.

L.A. top two candidates were a Democrat versus a Democrat, which explains voter turn out. There's nothing to fight for/over.

The Louisiana runoff only gives a statewide voter turnout, not specific to liberals/democrats.

The Minnesota vote comment from Maddow doesn't show a lack of liberal turn out, it shows that a generic democrat lost by much less than Hillary did for that county, which if anything reinforces the notion that Hillary was a terrible candidate to run against Trump.

Hillary was a bad candidate for the Democratic party. It was also a Republican-leaning cycle due to eight years of Obama. That's about all that needs to be said in regards to voter turnout.

Democratic voter share is beating Hillary in the past district's performance in every single special election since November 8th besides one in Virginia, which was one point off.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Well they didnt. Browbeating apathetic voters is going to bring them out.

Pointing out that their actions (or lack thereof) have consequences isn't browbeating.

Unless you're talking about the party doing the browbeating, in which case that's obvious.

Change isn't gradual.

Uh, I know more than a few groups who have fought and achieved change in this country that would tell you that this statement is bullshit.

 

[Foffy]

Why is one shocked by this?

I know I keep harping on name dropping people like Mark Blyth and Guy Standing, but they've explained it: it's a combination of the lack of a clear, comprehensive vision from the progressive angle -- the ones with a vision right now are the neonationalists to the past, and that's people on the right -- mixed with a great deal of people having straight up apathy because the system appears to be omitting them, either in meaningful representation, or proposing actual ideas, ideals, and values people can get behind.

The "monster" in Standing's terms being President doesn't exactly change these things. Then again, he argues we need a revolt for things to change...maybe people need to see their entire social foundations aflame.

 

[entremet]

Many liberals are purity test requiring idiots.

The younger ones don't understand strategy or the long game and that's why the older generation is wreaking havoc on them policy wise.

Medicare will never be cut because seniors vote reliably.

 

[JABEE]

Pointing out that their actions (or lack thereof) have consequences isn't browbeating.

Unless you're talking about the party doing the browbeating, in which case that's obvious.


Uh, I know more than a few groups who have fought and achieved change in this country that would tell you that this statement is bullshit.

Change isn't gradual when you have the power and authority to make actual change. I feel that Democrats had the ability to do that with Obama and with Clinton. Other interests won out. Talking to rich philanthropists and attending banquets in the Hamptons was more important than taking the fight to corruption in campaign finance.

It was safer to take the corporate money and say, that stuff is bad, but I'll wet my beak, because that's the way this crooked system works and why am I not entitled to my share?

 

[cdyhybrid]

Change isn't gradual when you have the power and authority to make actual change. I feel that Democrats had the ability to do that with Obama and with Clinton. Other interests won out. Talking to rich philanthropists and attending banquets in the Hamptons was more important than taking the fight to corruption in campaign finance.

It was safer to take the corporate money and say, that stuff is bad, but I'll wet my beak, because that's the way this crooked system works and why am I not entitled to my share?

Nearly half the country voted for a platform of white supremacy. You think that's going to go away overnight? The Dems could nominate Jesus Christ himself and that change wouldn't happen overnight.

Hillary adopted a lot of Bernie's platform for campaign finance. That was potential change. Not good enough, apparently.

The GOP would likely still control the House even if the November election went well for the Dems. How are you going to enact sweeping change overnight without owning both sides of Congress?

 

[UltimaPooh]

The Democrat party is the only big tent party left... so you'll have a lot of infighting because there are people concerned with discrimination, racism, sexism, women's rights, economic issues, environmental issues, and so forth...

Then you got whatever moderate Republicans that are left... and their choices are either go with what the GOP has become or grit their teeth and go Dem.

Then there what is the GOP which has pretty much become a party for white people whose message for a long while is that to be white is to be best and we should protect that.

 

[Cocaloch]

Pointing out that their actions (or lack thereof) have consequences isn't browbeating.

Unless you're talking about the party doing the browbeating, in which case that's obvious.

Individuals not voting doesn't have consequences in the vast majority of situations. What does have consequences are systemic and institutional factors that leading to non-voting. Non-voters shouldn't be your target, the causes of non-voting should be.

A big part of the problem is that the electoral system, beyond just the electoral college. A two party system with big tent parties is always going to lead to depressed turnout because a lot of people simply won't be represented. Especially in America where the spectrum of 95% of political opinions runs from far right to moderate right.

Many liberals are purity test requiring idiots.

The younger ones don't understand strategy or the long game and that's why the older generation is wreaking havoc on them policy wise.

Medicare will never be cut because seniors vote reliably.

I mean is it really a purity test? You are getting a lot of people that if they would Europe would simply be voting for different parties voting for Dems. Some of those people are essentially completely unrepresented outside of policy that isn't a binary between GOP supporing something that is obviously evil and Dem's simply supporting the not brain dead option.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

That's the spirit that brought about progress. Corruption and corporate monopolies can't be fought, because it means losing elections. Tell that to Theodore Roosevelt and change agents that actually tried to change things to their own detriment. They actually took risks to try to improve the country.

The democrats want pragmatists who will protect the interests of their corporate overlords and power brokers above all else. The people who advance in politics in our deeply flawed system, not just imperfect, are candidates who "fundraise" the best.

The Democratic Party has been the party of compromise for far too long. The pragmatists who sold out this country. Change isn't gradual. It's only gradual if you make it so. Change often comes quickly and swiftly. Overnight change can happen. You only have to wait for change and better days when you believe in a system that enriches few at the expense of everyone else. And those few pay to protect their status, but at least they aren't bigots.

They'll smile at you while they privatize schools, strike deals to reduce the taxes of their handlers, leaving the burden for the masses to endure. People need to vote for candidates who speak to them, and not for candidates who live off market tests and tame threats.

Thanks for this post. It's funny how liberals attack the left for "purity" and naive impetuous demands while the right just runs roughshod over our institutions without consequence. These days, liberals are the ones embodying William Buckley's description of conservatism: "standing athwart history, yelling Stop".

The right plows ahead with its agenda and the left is stymied by allegedly pragmatic centrist liberalism which gets nothing done. The left loses as a result.

There's no easy solution to this. The Clintons and Schumers of the world are not going to abdicate power voluntarily. The left has to (re)build its own institutions: social movements, media, art, schools, labor unions, even worker cooperatives. It's a longterm project, but there will be gains along the way. The Democratic party, and even Republican party will offer compromises in an effort to discourage this work. The really hard battle will be convincing people to not to be pacified by those compromises.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

Bad candidates. I know a lot of my friends who are considered liberal aren't voting because they feel they're only being offered neoliberal candidates. They're strangely optimistic about progressive candidates at the mid-terms tho.

There weren't even that many candidates to vote for on my ballot, only two local measures and the city council vote, which is largely void of partisan issues since they all basically promise the same things. LA re-elected a mayor who has largely avoided public scandal like his predecessors so perhaps that depressed turnout but YEESH is the left just fucking awful at showing up to the ballot box.

 

[Fracas]

I thought Trump would change things, but it isn't gonna happen. Young liberalism is basically a joke, little more than sharing social media posts and talking a big game. That bloc just doesn't vote. Reminds me of that kony 2012 nonsense.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Thanks for this post. It's funny how liberals attack the left for "purity" and naive impetuous demands while the right just runs roughshod over our institutions without consequence. These days, liberals are the ones embodying William Buckley's description of conservatism: "standing athwart history, yelling Stop".

The right plows ahead with its agenda and the left is stymied by allegedly pragmatic centrist liberalism which gets nothing done. The left loses as a result.

There's no easy solution to this. The Clintons and Schumers of the world are not going to abdicate power voluntarily. The left has to (re)build its own institutions: social movements, media, art, schools, labor unions, even worker cooperatives. It's a longterm project, but there will be gains along the way. The Democratic party, and even Republican party will offer compromises in an effort to discourage this work. The really hard battle will be convincing people to not to be pacified by those compromises.

And how do you propose you do this without voting?

 

[FStubbs]

They aren't serious about what they preach about. Especially on a social media basis. I spent too much time arguing with certain individuals I know over the election last year who presumably I expected to me on my side given the candidate they endorsed, to sit they asses home on Election Day while I got myself, my wife, and my father to the polls. The only conclusion I ever managed to get to was they don't care and don't dare question their right to now vote because they walk away at that point.

And at that point I call them what they are. Trump supporters who are cool with his agenda. Their words are meaningless and their actions show who and what they support.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Theory: They're not really liberals. They're progressives and social democrats with no political representation in the US.

Democrats offer nothing to these people and get no votes.

Editor's note: GAF needs to learn what liberalism actually is.

I'd say that a LOT of people need to learn these terms.

But yes, if progressives play the zero-sum game they will be on the wrong side of reactionary policy.

 

[onadesertedisland]

This is why we are where we are. Not because the country has a majority of shitbirds.

 

[old]

I voted. Didn't like my choices but I still voted.

I think one thing that might help young people vote is letting people vote at any booth. This would allow groups of friends to go to the same station and make it into a social event/outting. Young people hate being bored. Young people love hanging out together.

Figure out the logistics. Make it happen. Change rules if need be.

Right now voting currently requires standing in lines for an hour by yourself not doing anything. Who wants to do that besides bored retired people?

Edit: and make it a national holiday so they're not to busy working.

 

[Mivey]

Who wants to do that besides bored retired people?

People who care about stuff that affect their every day life and feel kinda responsible as citizens? It's not even egotistical, since not voting hurts yourself the most. It's just dumb.

 

[old]

People who care about stuff that affect their every day life and feel kinda responsible as citizens? It's not even egotistical, since not voting hurts yourself the most. It's just dumb.

Okay make people feel more "responsible".

 

[Raven117]

I thought Trump would change things, but it isn't gonna happen. Young liberalism is basically a joke, little more than sharing social media posts and talking a big game. That bloc just doesn't vote. Reminds me of that kony 2012 nonsense.

This has been this way since forever...(though there was a solid turnout for Obama).

Facebook posts, Twitter, NeoGaf, "destroyed on late night", "sick burns", doesn't mean shit in the long term. Its all about voting. Its only about voting.

 

[Deepwater]

This has been this way since forever...(though there was a solid turnout for Obama).

Facebook posts, Twitter, NeoGaf, "destroyed on late night", "sick burns", doesn't mean shit in the long term. Its all about voting. Its only about voting.

it's a gross misrepresentation of the civic process to reduce it down to voting. It's not just about voting and you're a fool if you believe it is.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

People who care about stuff that affect their every day life and feel kinda responsible as citizens? It's not even egotistical, since not voting hurts yourself the most. It's just dumb.

The pure utility of voting (as in, the physical benefits) are actually much lower than the costs and represents a net loss for most people, especially the poorer they become. It's actually why we spend so much time talking about the sanctity of voting and the civic responsibility, because people have to feel like their vote is important (even though it isn't) to motivate them to the polls. This isn't a binary thing, making voting easier encourages voting by making the costs lower and a candidate being more inspirational gets more people to the polls because they gain fuzzy warm feelings from voting for them. Whether or not people vote basically entirely depends on how meaningful it feels and how much it costs them, because the actual usefulness of a single vote is basically nothing.

 

[AlfonzoPalutena]

1. Typical progressive voters are busier, they're not retired, they trend younger

2. They're sometimes *too progressive, see all the voters who endorsed the Bernie or Bust idea. Oftentimes the most progressive candidates are filtered out or bent into moderation, losing the youth vote (See HRC)

3. Young people just don't care, in general. It's the source of the lazy / apathetic teen stereotype seen in movies. It's a real thing for many young people, they don't believe they have any control so they don't bother voting.

4. Gerrymandering reduces the amount of raw votes a Republican needs to win anyway, and Republicans draw most districts

5. Voter ID laws often target Democratic voters and decrease their turnout.

I think that about covers it

 

[sugarhigh4242]

And how do you propose you do this without voting?

I'm not telling you not to vote, but this work is almost entirely outside the electoral biyearly extravaganza.

 

[cdyhybrid]

I'm not telling you not to vote, but this work is almost entirely outside the electoral biyearly extravaganza.

That's not what I asked. I'm asking how people are supposed to enact sweeping overhauls of our government and society when they don't vote.

 

[Mivey]

The pure utility of voting (as in, the physical benefits) are actually much lower than the costs and represents a net loss for most people, especially the poorer they become. It's actually why we spend so much time talking about the sanctity of voting and the civic responsibility, because people have to feel like their vote is important (even though it isn't) to motivate them to the polls. This isn't a binary thing, making voting easier encourages voting by making the costs lower and a candidate being more inspirational gets more people to the polls because they gain fuzzy warm feelings from voting for them. Whether or not people vote basically entirely depends on how meaningful it feels and how much it costs them, because the actual usefulness of a single vote is basically nothing.

Seems a lot of people not going to vote might have caused the Trump administration. I understand that the US absolutely has a problem with Republicans making it harder to vote for minorities. But you are not going to change this by crying about it, but by making some crosses on ballots, no matter how expensive in time. A few hours and one lost day at work is worth less than four years of Agent Orange.

 

[Nipo]

That's not what I asked. I'm asking how people are supposed to enact sweeping overhauls of our government and society when they don't vote.

Violence. America was founded in revolution and made a world power though conflict.

You're already seeing in the Antifa movement that voting isn't working so other means are used.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Violence. America was founded in revolution and made a world power though conflict.

You're already seeing in the Antifa movement that voting isn't working so other means are used.

Wouldn't it be easier to just vote?

 

[SlickShoesRUCrazy]

The holier than thou attitude of liberals that did not vote or voted third party is one of the reasons why the country is fucked for the next 50 years.

Once trump gets to stack the court with another conservative judge or two, it's over for a long time.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

Just a bunch of virtue signallers out there marching in the public eye. No glory in voting in private.

 

[RPGCrazied]

Don't believe it. I'm itching to go out and vote and replace some senators and eventually this President. You'd have to be brain dead not to care whats going on. Its the truth.

 

[sugarhigh4242]

That's not what I asked. I'm asking how people are supposed to enact sweeping overhauls of our government and society when they don't vote.

Do you think the 1% has its policy preferences enacted because they vote?

 

[LegendofJoe]

I voted. Didn't like my choices but I still voted.

I think one thing that might help young people vote is letting people vote at any booth. This would allow groups of friends to go to the same station and make it into a social event/outting. Young people hate being bored. Young people love hanging out together.

Figure out the logistics. Make it happen. Change rules if need be.

Right now voting currently requires standing in lines for an hour by yourself not doing anything. Who wants to do that besides bored retired people?

Edit: and make it a national holiday so they're not to busy working.

The county where I live does this. You can vote anywhere in the county, even in a different city, and your ballot is exactly the same as it would have been if you voted in your local precinct.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Do you think the 1% has its policy preferences enacted because they vote?

Do you think votes were completely irrelevant?

I can see that I'm not going to get a straight answer to my question.

 

[III-V]

1. Typical progressive voters are busier, they're not retired, they trend younger

2. They're sometimes *too progressive, see all the voters who endorsed the Bernie or Bust idea. Oftentimes the most progressive candidates are filtered out or bent into moderation, losing the youth vote (See HRC)

3. Young people just don't care, in general. It's the source of the lazy / apathetic teen stereotype seen in movies. It's a real thing for many young people, they don't believe they have any control so they don't bother voting.

4. Gerrymandering reduces the amount of raw votes a Republican needs to win anyway, and Republicans draw most districts

5. Voter ID laws often target Democratic voters and decrease their turnout.

I think that about covers it

This is all true, but I would like to add another:

Elections held on weekdays also tend to lower democratic turnout due to jobs situations/other.

 

[Doc Holliday]

People didn't even get out to vote for Bernie in the primaries over Hilary and were still hearing this "get the right candidate" crap. Get out and vote or stfu!

 

[Kite]

Okay make people feel more "responsible".

... lololol this is such a milinial response.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

If I may defend the recent LA election situation described in the video:

The election was largely inconsequential. Most people are pretty happy with Garcetti's performance and he had no serious challengers. His reelection was a foregone conclusion. I even voted against him because I think landslide victories foster complacency, but I only did so knowing he would win re-election easily.

The most contentious thing to vote on was measure S, which would have drastically slowed housing development and limited density. It was soundly defeated as well.

The rest was a pretty no-brainer initiative to fight homelessness and then some school board positions. There was really no "enemy" to vote against or Republican to defeat. I don't think this particular election really says much about whether or not "The resistance" will get out and vote when it comes to Senate races and such. The election for the seat in GA will be a much better indicator.

 

[Cocaloch]

... lololol this is such a milinial response.

How is that a millennial response? It's isolating the problem and finding a solution to it. I would call that a social scientist's response if anything...

 

[watershed]

Idiots who want to burn the system down but never actually exercise their right to vote to make the system work better by putting better people in positions of power. I see it all the time. Then they complain about the consequences.

 

[CrispyBoar]

When they wake up & see what's about to happen to them across this country, they'll be changing their minds quick.