"the percentage of people who can swing an election is teeny-tiny"

[phantom power]

But what I really want to highlight from all this is the reminder that the percentage of people who can swing an election is teeny-tiny. Most people's votes are set in stone before the candidate is even selected. People forget this, because lots of voters call themselves "moderates" or "independents", but those designations usually mean "partisan but have absorbed the toxic notion that there's something wrong about being partisan, so I'm going to pretend that my vote is up for grab, even though it's not, because I like deluding myself that I'm open-minded". That's a widespread phenomenon in the U.S. In fact, social science demonstrates that Americans are generally quicker to paint a rosier picture of themselves according to certain social standards than people in many other countries, for reasons that are still a little hazy.

And to make it worse, the very small number of people whose votes are up for grabs are pretty much the polar opposite of the thoughtful citizen who has an open mind and spends the weeks before the election somberly reading up on the candidates before making a well-informed, well-considered opinion. Swing voters tend to be the most ignorant ones, which is probably why they manage to keep voting for Republicans, in between voting for Democrats, even though they basically never like the results of voting Republican. The truth of the matter is that someone who actually pays a lot of attention to politics is going to become a partisan, and there's no shame in that. It'd be like following sports or music intently without ever developing opinions about any teams or bands.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/a_reminder_that_politics_should_be_a_long_range_game

[LiberalFighter]

1. I absolutely agree.

IMO those that say they are independents are in fact Republican. Checking the few times that some have made that claim showed their voting history to be all Republican Primaries. If one is an independent they would not vote in a primary or would vary the primaries that they do vote.

[meegbear]

2. The percentage of people is one ...

one vote is all it takes.

[BeFree]

3. Independents suck

And people who don't vote suck on the independents.

And then you have bushco suckers and the teabaggers who are the biggest suckers.

True democrats always give a reason to vote. If you vote for democrats you are voting for the masses. If you vote against democrats you are voting for the few rich bastards who love to make slaves of everyone.

[MineralMan]

4. There is another group that can swing an election, but it's

one nobody talks about much. That group is the group that has to be convinced to even go to the polls and vote. Typically, they're jaded, think their vote doesn't matter, are busy, bored, apathetic, and more. This group, when it can be convinced to turn out and vote, often makes an enormous difference in elections, as we saw in 2008. The problem is how to get them to show up and vote and to vote for candidates you support.

What I found, in 2010, was that physically walking my precinct for two months prior to the election and talking to everyone I could contact discovered many of these people. When I talked to them, the first thing I did was asked how they felt about the election and the candidates. The ones who told me that they had already decided who to vote for and who said they'd be voting for them got some candidate literature and I answered any questions they had about issues and candidates. For the most part, nothing I said would really change their vote.

However, the ones who told me that they weren't going to vote, for whatever reason, got another approach. I asked them why they didn't plan to vote, and then talked to them about that. I asked them what the things were they felt were truly important to them, individually. Almost always, the answers they gave me could be linked to positions held by the Democratic candidates for whom I was campaigning. I focused only on the particular issues each individual brought up, and explained how the positions of a candidate addressed those issues.

All of that required that I actually study this stuff in advance, so I knew those positions and could articulate them. Each of these voters got whatever amount of time required to deal with their issues. In most cases, it all came down to a single issue, which varied from person to person.

The result of that activity was dramatic. In my precinct in St. Paul, MN, the turnout in 2010 was almost exactly 60%. That was between 5-10% higher than statewide turnout. Even more encouraging, every Democratic candidate on the ballot in the precinct won with a majority vote in the high 50% to low 60% range. All of this is a matter of record in the 2010 election.

So, there is an untapped group of voters who WILL respond to a personal, informative contact and WILL change their mind about voting at all. They WILL turn out and, if you've helped them see why your candidate best addresses their issues, they WILL vote for that candidate.

I highly recommend this method of election activism to anyone who has the time and energy to commit to it. It works. It can counteract a lot of money spent on advertising and make a distinct difference in the outcome of the election.

You can see the website for my precinct, of which I'm the DFL chair, at the link in my signature line.

[phantom power]

6. that is very interesting

:thumbsup:

[Cool Logic]

5. "someone who actually pays a lot of attention to politics is going to become a partisan,..."

That depends on what you mean by partisan.

I am a partisan, with respect to ideas, but not the random whims of political parties.

[pscot]

7. Self-delusion

It's the national passtime.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. No. Not the percentage who can, the percentage that usually do.

To confuse that which always has been with that which always will be is not always wise.

[Nostradammit]

9. In fact, here's a picture of them at work -