[net.politics] Voter turnout in US

carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/07/84)

In article <> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes:
>	Traditionally, the United States has had the second worst voter
>turnout of all nations that have an elective government~. Second, that is,
>only to Botswana.
>	Well, this year, for still unexplained reasons, the voter turnout in
>Botswana swelled to almost 70%, well eclipsing the United State's 52.4%, and
>leaving the United States with the world's worst voter turnout.
>[Source: NY Times, Dec.1]

The voter turnout in the other Western democracies is much higher than that
in the US (up to 96% in Australia, as I recall).  Some reasons for the low
turnout in the US:

1.  Voters must register in person in the US, whereas in Europe I believe one
may register by mail (I'm not up on the situation in Botswana).  It cost me
a fair amount of trouble to register, and I'm sure that's the case for many
others as well.  The comparative difficulty of registering probably accounts
for a good chunk of the lower percentage in the US.

2.  Voting takes place on a weekday in the US.  Does anybody have any idea
why?  

3.  There exists no mass-based working-class party such as British Labour in
the US which would serve to mobilize the working-class and poor voters, as
is indeed the case in western Europe.  (The Democratic Party?  Are you
kidding?)  This sector of the population has historically voted in lesser
numbers in the US, for various reasons that I won't go into.  

Someone on the net expressed the opinion a few weeks ago that the political
views of nonvoters don't count.  This could mean either that they are
politically ineffective (which is unquestionable) or that they are
unimportant and should be ignored by policy-makers.  Anyone care to defend
this latter proposition?  Since voters are generally more affluent, better
educated, and whiter than nonvoters, the low voter turnout biases the
American political system in favor of the former group, and the more
powerful maintain their dominance over the less powerful.  As usual....

Martin Van Buren was elected by 11% of the voting-age population (including
women and slaves).  The president elected by the highest percentage of the
voting-age population was LBJ with something over 40%.  Reagan's "landslide"
reelection was by about 30% of the electorate.  

Aren't you glad you live in a democracy?

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

holt@convex.UUCP (12/10/84)

Pondering on why voter turnout is so low in America, Richard Carnes states:

> 1.  Voters must register in person in the US, whereas in Europe I believe one
> may register by mail (I'm not up on the situation in Botswana).  It cost me
> a fair amount of trouble to register, and I'm sure that's the case for many
> others as well.  The comparative difficulty of registering probably accounts
> for a good chunk of the lower percentage in the US.

I registered by mail, and so did many other people in Texas.  Registration
laws are enacted by the states.  There are 50 different versions (more if you
count the territories).

Strike reason number 1.

People don't vote because they don't like their choices.

				Dave Holt
				Convex Computer Corp.
				{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs,ctvax}!convex!holt

grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP (12/11/84)

Some time ago, I saw a quote of a study in the NYT saying that if voter
registration were automatically transfeerred when you forward your mail,
voter participation would increase dramatically.

   I have to admit that it's true to some extent. In our area, many
people were unable to vote due to mishandling of the voter registration
information by inept or uninformed voter registration personnel.

   Also, the concept that I can't vote in a NATIONAL election, much less a
state or district just because I moved 2 blocks and didn't file a change of
address form is so obscene as to not merit futher comment. True, one would
like to eliminate double-voting, but at what cost?

wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (12/12/84)

I love it.  The guy is complaining that since he moved two
blocks, he couldn't vote.  Then, he admits he didn't send
out a change of address or notify the Elections Board of his
change.  How in the ever-lovin-blue-eyed world are they supposed to
find out he moved?   I wonder if he is getting his mail yet?
Elections Boards aren't mind readers.  You gotta tell them you
moved.  I don't think we want the government tracking our every
movement, do you?  
T. C. Wheeler

mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/13/84)

> Pondering on why voter turnout is so low in America, Richard Carnes states:
> 
> > 1.  Voters must register in person in the US, whereas in Europe I believe one
> > may register by mail (I'm not up on the situation in Botswana).  It cost me
> > a fair amount of trouble to register, and I'm sure that's the case for many
> > others as well.  The comparative difficulty of registering probably accounts
> > for a good chunk of the lower percentage in the US.
> 
> I registered by mail, and so did many other people in Texas.  Registration
> laws are enacted by the states.  There are 50 different versions (more if you
> count the territories).
> 
> Strike reason number 1.

In Canada, pairs of people come around to the door to register you.  Only
if you are inadvertently left off the list do you have to do anything
special about it other than confirm to the registrators who you are and
whether there are other potential voters in the house.

Don't strike reason number one.  To send mail requires an action that
affirms your interest in the process.  If you are passively registered,
you can decide on polling day that you do have a preference, after all.
-- 

Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt