Why do lower income people vote in lower numbers?

[HughMoran]

Why do people who make less, vote less?

This is true for all age groups too (18-24, 25-44, 45-64, 65-74, 75-up), so it's not just low-income kids that don't vote. These numbers are from Obama's 2008 election where one might expect that more low income people voted than normal (sadly, the proportion of low-income/high-income voting wasn't much different in 2006.)



"Low-income voters tend to favor the Democratic Party while high-income voters tend to support the Republican Party."

Hello!!

Politicians care more about middle/upper-class voters

because they vote!!!

[Edweird]

1. Because we are busy trying to make a living.

Our bosses don't give us the day off - we couldn't afford the loss of a day's pay at any rate.

[treestar]

11. Isn't that why the polls are open until around 9 pm?

[Edweird]

27. Sometimes that doesn't cut it.

[havocmom]

87. especially for those needing to pay for child care/ relying on public transportation

The distances involved, the schedules of transportation cause a lot of logistical problems for the poor. And if you end up paying a day's wages for going over on your child care hours....

[CTyankee]

113. All the more reason for folks who can, to step up and volunteer to drive voters

to the polls on election day. I know I have a flexible schedule and could certainly pick up some voters and take them to the polls and wait for them to vote and bring them home.

Another option is making the absentee ballot more available to voters. Volunteers could help them navigate the form and mail it for them. Having used the absentee ballot in several elections, I know my way around them (altho I had to have some assistance when I went to City Hall the first time I voted AB.).

These are things that many of us can do...even if we just can spare an hour or so of our time and car, it would help!

[havocmom]

114. Yep. Get aware of the logistical problems others face, then help them overcome

Plus, doing good work makes you healthier! Volunteer for what is dear.

[slampoet]

121. +1

[midnight]

100. Our Govt. should treat this day as a day off with pay.

Allow those corporations who use it a big tax break.......

[slackmaster]

116. We middle-income people are busy trying to make a living too

I've never missed an opportunity to vote in a public election, even during the 20+ years when I was poor. My first one was the California Democratic primary in 1976.

[Mz Pip]

2. Because for a lot of these people

not much will change no matter who is in office. It's pretty easy to get disillusioned when you're barely scraping by.

[Gormy Cuss]

77. Sadly, there's a lot of truth to that.

Outside organizers worked long and hard to get people to register and vote in my old, very low income neighborhood and yet there were still a lot of people who just couldn't see the point of it.

[Kali]

3. they don't feel it does any good

nobody seems to actually care about the poor, doesn't matter who wins elections to people in dispair or just tired from working all the time.

[treestar]

13. Well but that's because they don't vote

[Edweird]

32. Uh, maybe you didn't notice, but a LOT of people

voted in the last election that might not have typically. We still got fucked. Talk about 'negative reinforcement'.

[treestar]

35. You did not

Most poor people who voted don't feel that way.

If you give up that easily, you're handing the freepers, on a silver platter, proof they are "right" about poor people. Holy cow.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[treestar]

94. Stupid. Why are you even here, then?

That's just stupid. Wallowing in self pity only. You convince the right wing that they are right and give them ammunition to claim it.

[Arkana]

52. And the vicious cycle continues.

It's only going to break when poor people decide that maybe their vote might matter.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Because those at the bottom of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs...

are two busy trying to eat and put a roof over their head and find security.

Shit rolls down hill, and those at the bottom are often too busy dodging to become involved.

[Stinky The Clown]

5. I bet if they had gotten actual health care or an actual helping hand when the banks fucked 'em . .

. . . . they might be more inclined to vote for the guy that gave it to them. the way things are today, what's in it for them?

[me b zola]

82. +1,000 n/t

[Blue Meany]

6. Perhaps because there are few candidates who represent

their interests.

[panader0]

7. felony records?

[SocialistLez]

9. Yeah, that is a factor.

I think EVERYONE over 18 should be allowed to vote.
Prisoners should be allowed to vote.

How can we call ourselves a democracy when people are denied the right to vote?

[RoyGBiv]

10. I just want to clarify ...

Are you actually suggesting that the reason lower-income people vote in lower proportions than middle to upper income people is because enough of them have felony records that it would skew the ratio in this manner?

[SocialistLez]

21. They're probably poor because they have a felony background

It is not as if a lot of employers are jumping up and down trying to hire ex-felons.

One could also make the case a lot of poor people have criminal backgrounds because of their socioeconomic status.
"I had to steal in order to feed my child."
"I sold drugs to put food on the table."

So on and so forth.........

[Bobbie Jo]

51. "They're probably poor because they have a felony background." WTF?

Do you actually know any "poor people?"

Since when did poor = ex-felon?

Would you care to elaborate?

[SocialistLez]

68. I am not saying poor=ex-felon. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

What I'm saying is that a lot of ex-felons are probably not in a bunch of high paying jobs.

A lot of ex-felons are black because of our "criminal justice system" and racist society.

Many blacks are on the lower end of the socioeconomic totem poll and there are lots of black ex-felons.

Sure I could have stated my position a bit better but I am not trying to say POOR=ex-felons.

[Bobbie Jo]

86. I didn't put words in your mouth, I used your own words.

Hence, the quotation marks, etc.

Like this one:

"Many blacks are on the lower end of the socioeconomic totem poll and there are lots of black ex-felons."

So as to prevent any further digging, on you behalf, you may want to consider adding the word DISPROPORTIONATE. It makes a difference.

[RoyGBiv]

111. She *quoted* you ...

On what planet is that putting words in your mouth?

You last sentence is the focal point of this sub-thread. You phrased yourself poorly. You would do well not just to throw that off as an afterthought.

If you're not communicating your opinion effectively, you're not doing yourself any favors. And, considering that more than one person took you to mean something you say you didn't mean, I think it's rather clear you communicated ineffectively.

In any case, I'll take you at your word that what you said is not what you meant and leave this alone, but please don't pretend it's our fault for not being able to read your mind. You've got some correlation and causation issues all munged up in your explanation of your position.

[RoyGBiv]

54. Rules of civility prevent me from saying what I want to say ...

So I'll just say this.

That is a grossly ignorant statement.

[SocialistLez]

67. Oh don't be civil. Say what you want to say. NT

[Radical Activist]

56. Then you consider the racial statistics about who is more likely to get a felony.

That makes the electoral implications clear. In some states I believe it very much is an intentional effort to keep black people and the poor from voting.

[RoyGBiv]

59. I agree with this ...

But the statistically significant correlation is upon the higher incidence of minorities who are given felony convictions in comparison to whites arrested for similar crimes. For instance, a black man arrested with a pound of pot in certain states is more likely to be convicted for felony intent to distribute than a white man who more often is granted a plea bargain to a lesser charge and may not even get jail time.

[SocialistLez]

66. I do consider it.

I recently read "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.

I didn't need to read it to get a lot of the facts she stated but I've known for quite some time there are a lot more blacks in prisons than whites and it isn't accidental.

[panader0]

26. I don't think it's a huge factor, but it has some percentage.

I know a few ex-felons and when I've talked politics with them, they say it doesn't matter because they can't vote. Poor people suffer depression and think nothing matters.

[SunsetDreams]

37. Yeah I want clarification of that one too

[Radical Activist]

55. Yes, depending on the state.

Even some states that allow ex-felons to vote make it needlessly difficult for them to register again with bureaucratic barriers.

[RoyGBiv]

57. That is not the question ...

The question is whether the number of felony convictions among low-income populations is enough to skew the voting behavior of the block enough that it gives us the results in the OP. I am aware that it has *some* effect, but the reasons for lower voter turnout among low-income people are vastly more complex than "felony convictions."

There are numbers and numerous studies on this. I know from having discussed things with you before that you, of all people, are aware of that and have some insights into this. I don't believe that you believe the implications inherent in the way this subject was introduced.

[Radical Activist]

58. What if 5.3 Million More Americans Could Vote?

This is an interesting article I just googled.

http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/archives/what_if_53_million_more_americans_could_vote/

There's a high correlation between being low income and having a felony record. Of course it's not the only reason for low voter turnout but it's an important one. I believe states that don't allow ex-offenders to vote are intentionally trying to skew elections against the interests of the poor and racial minorities. It works.

[RoyGBiv]

60. Granted ...

But, again, I think that article brings out the complexities of the issue in a way that the initial commenter did not, though s/he has since clarified to some extent.

[Radical Activist]

70. Sure.

I see your point.

[SocialistLez]

69. "There's a high correlation between being low income and having a felony record."

Thank you for this!!

[Yupster]

107. Another reason is they move residences more

than middle class or upper class people.

When you move, you have to vote in a different precinct. Each time you move, you lose some people off the rolls.

[SocialistLez]

8. I agree with the first 4 comments

I especially agree with the part about getting the day off to vote.

I remember watching the video of the voters in Garland County here in AR where one of them said if they didn't vote that day, they wouldn't be able to because their employer wouldn't allow them the day off.

I personally think an employer should be fined say...$50,000 per OCCURRENCE when he/she denies an employee time off to vote.

[treestar]

12. Agree with that - everyone should have the day off

I guess it would be up to each state to make a law about it.

Maybe absentee voting of some kind can be arranged for cases like that, too.

[SocialistLez]

16. I'd be fine with absentee voting arrangements being made

The process just has to be user friendly.

I personally wish absentee voting requests could be done online.
I wanted to absentee vote in the primary for my state BUT you had to call and request the form.
I was fine with that but I know it would be more user friendly to just be able to do it online, at any time of the day.

One of my old jobs allowed people to take time off from work to vote.
It wasn't paid time off but it was time off nonetheless.

[bemildred]

14. They work on Tuesday? nt

[undeterred]

15. Some of them get no sense of empowerment from the voting process.

If they never make a connection between their vote and the way things are, they will not vote.

[Warpy]

17. Voting is made difficult for working people

First, it's one day during the week when most people are working and the polls are open mostly during working hours. Going early or late means bucking the biggest crowds.

Second, polling places are near one's home, not one's job. Poorer working people have an especially difficult time since often they rely on mass transit, meaning they can't vote early and make it to work on time or vote late and make it to the polling place before it closes. That parsimonious hour off to vote won't do it if there's an hour and a half mass transit commute each way. Add child care to that and the logistics are simply impossible.

Third, while the process for getting absentee ballots has been liberalized somewhat, people who are knocking themselves out working shit jobs for low wages are probably not going to be that organized.

Some states now have early voting, but the polling places are few and far between and still connected to homes instead of workplaces.

Our system also doesn't particularly want lower income people to vote, which is why it has been kept to an antiquated standard that fit an agrarian country well enough but not an industrialized one at all.

In addition, too many people on the bottom quite rightly feel the government isn't about them, doesn't listen to them, and is completely unconcerned with what they need.

Those are the reasons for disparity. The only wonder is that it's a surprise to some people.

[Bonobo]

31. +1

[SocialistLez]

36. Very great points, especially the polling places. NT

[RidinMyDonkey]

18. I live in an apartment for people with low-income

There is a social worker who comes in every friday or something who tries to help people find jobs and such...

Well, during the '08 election, she offered free rides to the polling place for anyone who couldn't otherwise get there on their own. Most people who couldn't drive, had never voted in the past. By the end of the day she claimed to have made over fifty trips in her van. Most of whom, had never voted before or hadn't voted in long time.

I imagine if polling places were easier to get to (ours was a church on a highway, you couldn't walk to it if you wanted to) or public transportation was made cheaper during elections more low income people would vote.

[SocialistLez]

40. Free public transportation on election days would be nice.

Of course more states could also explore voting by mail.
No need to worry about driving to the polling place, all you have to do is just mail in your vote.

[depakid]

19. Socio-economic status has a strong positive correlation with with educational levels

Not difficult to consider that the more educated people are, the more likely that they'll be better informed and more engaged.

[SocialistLez]

22. These days it seems getting an education doesn't correlate with higher income levels.

I do see the point you're making.

I think I remember reading that in a sociology book.

[Downtown Hound]

20. Because it doesn't really matter who they vote for

They're screwed either way. In the end, both parties will sell them out to corporate interests.

[HughMoran]

30. Aren't we screwed as a nation if we just say "well, that's all you're gonna get"

and just give up on the people who rely on government the most?

Seems like an odd attitude for an activist political board like DU.

[Downtown Hound]

42. I never said that's what we should do

I'm just answering the question of why poor people don't vote more.

[HughMoran]

76. Yeah, sorry, that was more of a rhetorical question

:hi:

[treestar]

43. Not true at all, and there have been programs passed for the poor

So why would they have that attitude, in large numbers, towards government?

[Downtown Hound]

46. The programs passed for the poor are a band aid on a bullet wound

And don't tell me that in the end, politicians don't come down on the side of corporations over the people. If they really wanted to help the poor then politicians would be talking about things like livable wages, but oh no, then they'd have to confront business about being a bunch of cheapskates. Even with our Democratic majority we haven't been able to get more than a few reforms passed.

Are those reforms better than nothing? Yes. So don't go shooting the messenger about the need to vote. I agree that it's necessary. I'm just saying that this is what most poor people believe. If you think they are wrong, then talk to them about it.

[treestar]

90. Why would the poor think about corporations so much?

And if they were to think government programs not enough, do they really suppose the Ds are as bad as the Rs? Like the Rs would not dismantle what is there which you describe as a mere bandaid?

Then you speak for the poor, and I don't really know if you have much authority to do so.

[Downtown Hound]

104. I never claimed I speak for the poor

But if you want my "credentials" for lack of a better word, well, I have been homeless before and lived in transitional housing. I still volunteer for the homeless when I can. And they are as diverse a group of people as any when it comes to politics, but one thing I can pretty much guarantee you is that pretty much all of them believe the government just doesn't give a shit about them, regardless of party. And I would be so bold as to say that many of them have formed that opinion based on experience.

So there you have it. That's my "speaking" for the poor. Feel free to take it or leave it.

[Kali]

85. you're not poor are you?

[treestar]

89. What's the point of your post?

The poor need to vote. It's in their own interests. And don't give me crap about Ds being the same as Rs. They are not.

Nothing stops the poor from voting. It's not expensive. there's no poll tax (indeed the objection to it was that it would stop the poor from voting).

IOW, quit being a victim and do something. You hand the freepers ammunition to claim they are right with this kind of crap.

[Kali]

97. I wouldn't necessarily be the one giving you that perspective,

I know there is a little difference - but face it a hell of a lot of people see NO difference.

Blaming the victims by telling them to buck up and quit being victims is the kind of condescending bullshit that turns people off to voting. Just an FYI.


and my question about you being poor was because I have a pretty good hunch you've never experienced dealing with those "programs for the poor" or you wouldn't tout them like they were some kind of solution to issues of poverty/voting.

[treestar]

101. Voting would make them less victimized

Not voting increases their victimization.

What is the point of that?

Then you probably blame the politicians for not caring about them - if they don't vote, why should they?

Not voting is like saying I don't care if I'm a member of this society - it can make rules for me without my say-so.

[Kali]

105. lets try something else, next election

try offering one person a ride, or to help them register, you will be doing far more good than telling me (and yourself) that poor people essentially deserve what they get because they are poor. (by the way that is a theory of another political party)

[Hippo_Tron]

63. But that's a catch 22

If poor people did vote in larger numbers, politicians would be less inclined to sell them out to corporate interests because they want to win votes.

[Downtown Hound]

64. I agree. The trick is to get them to do the same. n/t

[HughMoran]

84. EXACTLY!

The only way to initiate change is to vote!

Mission Statement

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority consituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.

[Kali]

91. bingo

glad you didn't post this so people could keep dumping on poor people a la too stupid to vote and help themselves

[treestar]

93. Ergo, the Republicans attack ACORN

low and moderate income not voting = good for Republicans.

[HughMoran]

95. What has been the reponse from the left to this assault?

apathy?

Damnit! This is a great way to get more progressives into office - why aren't people seeing the point I was trying to make in this thread?????????????????????????

[Number23]

23. This is one of the reasons that Republicans fight compulsory voting

and giving voters the day off to vote so much. The more folks and the more TYPES of folks at the polls, the worse they do.

[amborin]

24. residential dislocation, due to poverty, often leads to failure to register to vote

[Kali]

92. not to mention actual homelessness

[HughMoran]

25. Does anybody think we should have more voter outreach so we can get what we want - more progressives

?

Seems to me there is a fruit ripe for the picking here.

[treestar]

41. Especially from people who want progressives in office

Presumably the poor will vote for the more left wing candidate. The far left must not think that's true, or they'd be working for some of the reforms suggested on the thread.

[matt819]

28. Or. . .

The non-voters realize that their vote doesn't mean a hill of beans, and the rest of us haven't quite got that message yet.

[HughMoran]

88. So the 'smart' person does not vote?

Is that what you're promoting?

[Bonobo]

29. Why are elections held on working days?

Why is it intentionally made more difficult to register?

Why not just register people automatically for example?

[HughMoran]

33. Agreed on all points

So, what are elected politicians doing to address these concerns?

Where are the people raising hell to change the laws to make it easier to vote?

Apathy is NOT the answer.

[Bonobo]

38. Cause people is overwhelmed.

Just too overwhelmed and conditioned to believe that meaningful change is beyond their reach.

And it probably is.

[SocialistLez]

39. Oooh automatically, that would be nice.

I always liked the same-day voter registration but automatically would be a hell of a lot better.

I can't really speculate why it's made difficult....

[Retrograde]

49. If they were held on holidays we'd hear complaints about working people losing their day off

I can't speak to how other states do it, but California in recent years has had an aggressive campaign to get people to become permanent by-mail voters. Every election notice I get form to send back encouraging this. And once you've signed up, you get your ballot in the mail about a month before the election, so you can read the position statements and vote at your leisure. It costs a first-class stamp to mail it back, but it can also be dropped off at any polling place in the county on election day, or at various city halls the week before that. If you're concerned about whether it got lost in the mail, the county registrar's website can tell you when it was mailed to you, and when they received it back. No fuss, no muss, no excuses. And we still got a pathetic turnout in this month's election.

Ignorance, apathy or a combination. No matter what there's someone who complains it's too hard and too time-consuming to vote.

Voting on Tuesday is a historical artifact. You couldn't vote on the Sabbath, after all, and back in the early days of the republic you actually had to travel to a county seat to cast your vote (those of you who were eligible) and it could take all day Monday just to get there, and another full day to get back. Tuesday was probably the least disruptive time for most farmers.

[tekisui]

34. It has to do with education and the information threshold.

The higher one's education, the more likely they are to vote (and have higher income).

It requires some education or information to know when to vote, how to vote, where to vote, what the issues and positions are, etc.

Low-income individuals are less likely to have high levels of education. They are less likely to read (the newspaper or the internet), and are less likely to vote.

If we made better efforts to educate everyone, our voting percentages would be much higher.

[HughMoran]

79. Agreed

I wish this was a larger focus than it is now.

Oh, and has anybody mentioned organizations like ACORN yet? We need more ACORNs!

[KT2000]

44. Many have given up

this was something I noticed over the years doorbelling for candidates.
The lower income neighborhoods seemed to have more people who responded cynically, with more sarcastic comments.

I do not think it is always about politics, it just seems that the more people are burdened, as is the case for lower income people, the less hope there is.

[treestar]

98. But isn't that just increasing that very problem?

After seeing this thread if I believed everything on it, I'd be like, well the poor want to be left out - all they'd have to do is vote every two years and they won't even do that.

Feeds right into the hands of the Republicans.

[KT2000]

109. It sure does increase the problem

When I was doorbelling it made me angry that people would throw away what power they did have.
For some though, it is safer to be cynical. But it is a sick attitude.

That is what Republicans have to their advantage - if they beat people down enough, they get to keep their power.

[sendero]

47. Because they are smarter..

... than the rest of us, they "get" that it won't make any difference.

[noamnety]

48. By the time we get up at 5am

leave at 6am, drive over an hour to get to work - drop our kid off half asleep at daycare when we work - do 9 hours on the job, pick up the kid, drive another hour plus to get home, make dinner because the child's hungry, we're worn the hell out and our kid's still needing some quality time with a parent. And by quality time, I don't mean waiting in line for hours with us because we're marked as poor/democratic, so we're deliberately given only a few voting machines to handle thousands of people.

For those of us who take public transportation and work long hours, we may not have a way as women to get to the polls safely after dark.

Sometimes we are sick, and we are afraid, without health insurance, to make ourselves sicker by walking through a cold rain and standing in line outside in it when we have a fever, or worse. When we don't have medical care, our health sucks.

I can't speak for all poor people, but those are things I've experienced.

My daughter, she couldn't vote for a while because someone stole her wallet and all her ID. She went months without a drivers license or any other ID because the hours she worked didn't track with the hours she could get to the right offices and try to get those things replaced. Even getting them replaced costs money.

[treestar]

96. This is talking about one day

Where the activity could make a difference.

[noamnety]

102. The OP asked

and I answered. When people are exhausted and know their one vote isn't going to make the difference - and may not even be counted, the exhaustion wins out. And when women have to worry about their safety, we tend to put our immediate safety first. Go figure.

[HughMoran]

118. Should the left be doing more to make it easier for these people to vote?

Mission Statement

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) aims to organize a majority consituency of low- to moderate-income people across the United States. The members of ACORN take on issues of relevance to their communities, whether those issues are discrimination, affordable housing, a quality education, or better public services. ACORN believes that low- to moderate-income people are the best advocates for their communities, and so ACORN's low- to moderate-income members act as leaders, spokespeople, and decision-makers within the organization.

Who on the left is helping to re-fund ACORN? Who is putting new organizations in place to provide similar services, including registering voters? I don't see the urgency - it bothers me.

[Oregone]

50. Because they know politicians don't give a fuck about them

The lucky middle and up still cling to the illusion until their boat runs aground

[Odin2005]

53. Because we have to work all day to make ends meet.

And because TPTB make efforts to disenfranchise us.

Oh, and why bother, anyway, the fuckers will just stab us in the back.

[Radical Activist]

61. Unnecessarily restrictive voter registration laws disenfranchise millions every year.

This is only one of many reasons and it varies by state. Low-income people are more likely to move once very 2-4 years. People forget to update their registration, or they don't have proof of address, or they missed the deadline, or some other little thing county clerk's come up with to make it difficult for people.

These little bureaucratic barriers are there intentionally and they disproportionately work against the poor.

[William Z. Foster]

62. bingo

Politicians care more about middle/upper-class voters.

Not only that, the suburbs are where the "swing voters" are, where elections hinge.

Now that we have established that the politicians represent the people from the upper 10% income brackets, we can look at the rest of the picture. But not quite yet. This has to sink in a little more for people.

The politicians represent the needs and desires of the upper 10% of the population.

[county worker]

65. Most everyone can vote by mail here in CA.

You have to buy a stamp but you can vote anytime you are not doing something else at home.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. For one, voting is a dominated strategy

The odds that your vote could swing the election are minuscule. Yes if poor people voted in larger numbers, politicians would care more about poor people. But whether an individual poor person votes or not doesn't make a bit of difference. If everybody else who cares about my issues votes and I don't vote, politicians will care about my issues. If everybody else who cares about my issues doesn't vote and I vote, politicians won't care about my issues.

Therefore in order to make voting worthwhile, one needs to either be fooled into believing that their one vote makes a difference or have some kind of external or psychological benefit. For some it's civic pride. For some, it's a way to express outrage against incumbents. But whatever that benefit is, it has to outweigh the cost of getting oneself to the polls. I lived in a dark red state and I honestly pondered not bothering to vote in 2008 even though I had spent some time volunteering for the Obama campaign. I ultimately decided to because I wanted to tell my kids some day that I voted for the first black President.

[Alcibiades]

72. Sweet Jesus: that's not a question, it's a dissertation topic

Do you have google? This is a question that has been answered, to a great extent: poor people don't vote because they have a low sense of political efficacy. This has two components: internal efficacy, the belief in one's own political competence, and external efficacy, the belief that one's participation matters in a meaningful way. Poor folks have been socialized to think that they are not competent to understand politics, and, even if they are, the political process is such that their participation does not matter.

It's worth noting that the founding fathers, in the Constitution, from the very beginning of the republic, actively sought to minimize the participation of the poor: they let states set the qualifications for voting, rather than mandating universal suffrage; they provided for direct election only in the House, and left the Senate's members to be appointed by state legislators; they provided for the most circuitous and indirect method of electing a president imaginable. Read Holton's "Unruly Americans and the Origins of the Constitution" for a far more comprehensive list of the ways in which Madison and the other founders sought to constrain the people. To the extent that these things have become part of our political system, it's not surprising that our voter turnout is lower than in places where people's votes are designed to actually count, rather than dilute, the voice of the people.

It's also been noted that poor folks have less resources available to them to manage the demands of participating in the political process. They also have less access to the sorts of groups likely to mobilize people politically--for example, labor unions, trade and professional associations, and all the various political organizations, most of which have a major middle class bias and which demand annual payments of $25 or more for membership.

Finally, game theory suggests that poor folks have it right, and that, in any election, the probability that your vote will be the deciding one is indeterminate but probably very low, and as is the payout, but the costs associated with voting are known and fairly high, so a rational person would not choose to vote in any event. This is called the Paradox of Voting, not to be confused with the Voting Paradox, which is an entirely different, though also fascinating, problem in the voting literature.

I have much more written down, somewhere, in my notes for my comprehensive examination in American government. Suffice it to say, though, that there is a complex relationship at work here: yes, politicians pay attention to the rich because they vote, but other folks have also learned that politicians don't pay attention, and so it's irrational for them to vote. The good news is that a good GOTV campaign can increase voter participation by 10%, so, if this really bothers you, go knock on doors in a poor neighborhood. That's what I do to bolster my own political efficacy. One reason, I think, for low levels of political participation is that no one is asking people to vote: say what you will about the corrupt bad old days, they did know that, in order for people to vote, you have to go and ask for their votes. Sometimes, that's all it takes.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[varelse]

75. Yes, that does seem to be the OP's intent (nt)

[HughMoran]

103. The intent is in posts 84 & 95

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8647837&mesg_id=8648524


Why isn't the left supporting ACORN or helping promote similar organizations?

[varelse]

124. I am

I don't speak for "the left" in general, though.

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughMoran]

80. Logical falacy

& nasty attack to boot. Cut it out.

[treestar]

99. If they voted the government would neglect the more?

The poor are the ones needing the help from the government.

And they do get some. Don't try to pretend there are no programs. Even if they aren't good enough they are something. The rich didn't do them voluntarily, the government did.

[donco6]

74. Well hell! Fuck the poor, then!

They're of no use to us in our "winning" strategy. And we have to be practical above all else.

(Appalled and going to bed to try to cleanse my brain of this garbage.)

[HughMoran]

81. I was hoping for someone to point out that ACORN and other groups

need to be promoted to register and educate people on voting.

What's with the nasty awful interpretation?

[noamnety]

106. I see good intentions and poor listening.

And that may be indicative of a larger problem, because that's not just you.

When people in poverty list their own obstacles for voting, it is almost never "I'm not educated enough to vote."
When do-gooders from outside the community step in, much of what I hear is: "they need more education."

What's up with that?

[HughMoran]

112. Dunno, I read it in this thread repeatedly

I know that ACORN did serve a function in getting people registered and providing other information. I don't know why people vote proportionally more depending on their educational level. I do know that my interpretation of 'education' was more in the realm of 'needed information' and since I am from the poorest of the poor areas in the city, I would never assume a negative inference here.

[noamnety]

120. What I see in this thread

is that the people who have been there are saying there's a problem with access to the polls.

And then the outside do-gooders are saying "Gee, what could be the problem? They must need more education." And that's happening even THOUGH right here in the thread peopled are repeatedly saying we have a problem with ACCESS.

Now if I read "getting to the polls is prohibitive" what I'd take away from that is: "Maybe we need to campaign more for alternative ways to vote, like wider access to absentee ballots." It's not rocket science. You (the system, not you individually) fuck over the poor by giving them at times up to an 8 hour wait at the polls, and seriously think that the problem is education? No, it's not.

If you are going to try to help a community, first step ALWAYS is to listen to their needs - not try to force a solution based on an outsider's preconceived notion of what those people must be like. Put yourself in the position of a single mom who's got a couple of children, maybe one of them is sick, she can't afford daycare any extra daycare, she hasn't got a car - or money to pay for parking where the polls are downtown or money for bus fare for herself and kids, she's coming off a long shift from work - and imagine yourself saying to her face: "you know why you aren't voting? You just don't know enough about what's going on politically, you need to be educated and I'm here to help."

[Rex]

78. Because the working poor work a lot longer and harder hours

then the 'ruling elite'. I'd say they work harder then the middle class, but since that animal is going extinct soon...it is a moot point.

[HughMoran]

83. Doesn't this data emphasize the need for organizations like ACORN

& underscore why the Republicans targeted and destroyed it?

I'm still angry about the destruction of ACORN :mad:

[hayu_lol]

110. Oregon has managed to garner about 70+% of the votes...

every election since going to 'vote by mail.' All too many states prefer the confusion that occurs when they offer absentee ballots and other methods/hours/days that make the process too complicated for many people.

Repugnants prefer the 'confusion/obfuscation' of the more traditional election day panic.

[noamnety]

122. vote by mail, yes.

And I'll add that they need some changes there, including how they count them and government officials who can help answer questions about how to fill out the form. The one time I tried it, it was because I lost faith in the electronic machines. So I thought - I'll do a paper vote.

I have a freaking master's degree, and I couldn't figure out the directions for the ballot, and it seemed like if you didn't do everything exactly right they were going to toss out your vote. I had zero confidence I followed the directions right, and it shouldn't be that hard. I was appalled. And if I did do it wrong, nobody ever notified me, there's no way to check if it was correct so I'd know for next time.

And to top it off, I hear politicians conceding elections before any of the absentee ballots are even counted, so I assume they never are. I don't understand the rationale behind not counting those votes - they may as well state up front that they aren't going to count the votes of the elderly and disabled, or soldiers. And people wonder why some demographics don't bother. :(

I am fed up with people putting the blame on individuals, instead of fixing the systemic problems that disenfranchise people.

[USArmyParatrooper]

115. I remember talk about making the GE a national holliday

Does anyone care to guess who was against that idea? Yep, the Repubs.

What possible reason can there be to oppose that besides, "Hard working poor people who work long hours vote Democrat"?

[HughMoran]

117. Yeah, it's pretty sickening

Seems like something the Dems should be really pushing for on a state-by-state or national level. It might not give Dems more House seats, but Senate and Presidential elections for sure. How much you want to bet that poor Republicans in rural areas vote in higher numbers that poor city people?

[Jennicut]

119. It should be one. Ridiculous that it is not.

[OregonBlue]

123. Or go to vote by mail like Oregon. I love it. I can actually sit down with my ballot and my

manual and read the statements by politicians, judges, etc. I'm unfamiliar with. I can also read endorsements and the full text of initiatives. I can do it any time within the 2 week period from when by ballot arrives and when it's due. It really is wonderful to be able to do this in a thoughtful manner.