If California's non-voters made their voices heard, state policies could be dramatically reoriented in a more progressive direction, according to a new report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), "California's Exclusive Electorate," written by PPIC research director Mark Baldassare.
California's electorate is significantly whiter, older, wealthier, and more educated than the population at large. "As its population has become more diverse, its voters have become less representative of that population," the report, notes. "And the difference between voters and nonvoters is especially stark in attitudes toward government's role; elected officials; and many social issues, policies, and programs."
For example:
• Governor Schwarzenegger's reelection chances would plummet. In May 2006, non-voters disapproved far more sharply (61-21 percent) than likely voters (48-42 percent).
• The $3 billion affordable housing bond (Prop 1C) could easily pass: 80 percent of nonvoters support it, versus 49 percent of likely voters in a May poll.
• California could have bigger government and higher taxes: Nonvoters prefer higher taxes/more services to lower taxes/fewer services by a 66-26 percent margin, compared to 49-44 percent among voters.
The correlations revealed in the report reflect larger relationships observed across time and geographical boundaries. A 2001 paper from the Brookings Institute, "Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?" found a direct correlation between welfare state spending and the size of minority populations-the more minorities, the lower the levels of spending. This held true both internationally (comparing more then 60 different countries) and nationally (comparing all 50 states).
The broader pattern this report fit into strongtly indicates that similar sorts of results would be found all across America: if non-voters became voters, the political status quo could change dramatically. That's the number one reason that GOP hates and fears ACORN and Project Vote.
One year later, Project Vote released it's own report on the 2006 elections. "Representational Bias in the 2006 Electorate" by Douglas R. Hess, which drew on data from US Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS). Key findings, listed in the executive summary included:
• A significant majority of eligible Americans (52 percent) did not participate in the 2006 general election, either because they were not registered (32 percent) or because they were registered but did not vote (20 percent). Of those registered, however, the majority (71 percent) did vote.
• A mong the states, the rates of registration and voting both ranged by approximately 30 percent age points in 2006.
• Electoral participation - both registration and voting - is stratified by social and economic factors, including age, income, education and race and ethnicity.
• Minority voter registration and turnout is lowest among young minority men. Only one in five Black men aged 18 to 29 voted in 2006 compared to more than one in four Black women in the same age group.
• If all eligible minorities had voted at the rate of non-Hispanic Whites, more than 7.5 million additional Americans would have participated in the 2006 elections.
• A mericans with household income in the top 20 percent of the population (over $100,000/ year) were 1.75 times more likely to vote than those with income in the lowest 20 percent (under $25,000/year) in 2006.
• The residential mobility of Americans is extremely high. More than four in ten Americans reported having lived at their current address for less than five years. Residential mobility is even higher among lower-income and minority Americans, and mobility appears to contribute towards low registration and voting rates.
On average, the report found, 68% of the voter eligible population (VEP) was registered to vote. This ranged from a high of 84% in North Dakota-- followed by Maine and Minesotta with 79%, South Dakota with 78% and Iowa with 77%--to a low of 55% in Hawaii, topped by Nevada with 56%, Utah, 57%, and California and Arizona with 62%.
Clearly, there is tremendous potential to increase participation among low income and minority voters all across the country, particularly in state like Hawaii, California and Arizona where there are large such populations, and bottom-of-the-barrel voting rates.
The combination of a presidential election year (which always boosts participation), the extensive ground game of the Obama campaign, and the efforts of ACORN/Project Vote, which registered 1.3 million new voters in 21 states, all points to the prospect of a significantly more progressive electorate than that seen in 2006, which was already the most progressive electorate seen in decades.
It's easy to see why the GOP would want to delegitimize this electorate, as it seems so far to have failed to discourage or defeat it. But even with that sort of outcome in sight, it will still be the case that older, whiter and more conservative voters will still be over-represented in the electorate this year.
We need to be seriously focused on a major transformation of democratic participation, if we are to establish a long-term progressive agenda in this country. Other democracies have voter participation rates of 85-90%, with virtually no clas bias in voting rates. If every state in America could acheive that range, a permanent Democratic majority could be assured.
This is what democracy looks like. And it is preciselty what conservatives fear.
