The Truth About Voter Participation (Don’t Believe the Memes)
If you have spent any time on social media lately, you have seen a meme or post imploring progressives and lefties to vote for whatever Democrat becomes the 2020 presidential nominee, especially if the nominee is a centrist/conservative Dem like Joe Biden. I don’t know where this plea started but it stinks of ignorance and/or political prejudice, not verifiable truth. As they say in legal dramas, the plea assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. that progs and lefties are prone to playing sour-grapes and walk instead of voting for a candidate they don’t personally like.
The order to vote party line is based on false assumptions (or a cynical political tactic). Rather than being constructive, repeating this plea is useless nagging which can sow resentment and creates divisions. No one likes to be shamed or told what to do, especially when they have nothing to apologize for. This is true even when the order is framed as a friendly reminder.
Note that these pleas are always directed at the left, not at the center, even though 1) social media grumbling aside, historically — including 2016 — no significant percentage of Democratic-voting progs/lefties have refused to vote for a Democratic presidential nominee because they hold differing political views or don’t like the candidate. This also applies to die-hard conservative/far right-wingers and Republican nominees, and 2) historically, the fickle people hold the political center. While these people do not dropout, they switch sides. It is so common that establishment Dems insist that we must nominate a centrist so we don’t alienate independent centrists and the “white rural working class,” i.e. the Trump voter. If we were to base a plea not to defect/dropout on facts and not assumptions, we’d lay off the lefties and shame centrists into voting for whomever the Dem nominee is, even if that nominee is Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
I’ve just made a lot of assertions here and, if I am to be honest with you, I need to back them up with facts. Facts I have! I am going to throw a lot of numbers at you and I will try to be gentle about it. Note the numbers but don’t get hung up on them. Skim them if you want. There are no test questions at the end of this essay. The only thing you must absorb right now is that DNV is the shorthand for eligible voters who “Did Not Vote.”
After every election the U.S. Census Bureau does a breakdown of who voted and who didn’t and why people don’t vote didn’t vote based on the “Current Population Survey,” which according to Thad Kousser, Poly Sci Department Chair at UC San Diego and an expert on these things, “is indeed a highly reliable survey.”
The plea to progs and lefties is based on the assumption that these folks refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and that have proven not to vote for centrist/conservative Democrats. There is absolutely no data to back up this assumption. Let’s go to the numbers. Here are the percentages of DNV in every presidential election since Reagan beat Carter in 1980:
2016 (H. Clinton v Trump) 43.3% Did Not Vote/DNV
2012 (Obama v Romney) 45.1%
2008 (Obama v McCain) 41.2%
2004 (Bush II v Kerry) 43.3%
2000 (Bush II v Gore) 48.2%
1996 (B. Clinton v Dole) 51%
1992 (B. Clinton v Bush I) 44.8%
1988 (Bush I v Dukakis) 49.8%
1984 (Reagan v Mondale) 46.7%
1980 (Reagan v Carter) 47.3%
The 2016 DNV of 43.3% is not good; however, it is normal. Note that 2016 is tied for the second lowest DNV since 1980. Bush II v Kerry (2004) was the tie, turnout bumped by the opposition to the Afghanistan/Iraq wars. 2008’s Obama v McCain contest was the lowest DNV in the four decades surveyed. Also note that Hillary Clinton v. Trump had a lower DNV than both of Bill Clinton’s elections (in 1996, less than half of those who could vote voted!) and both Reagan elections. Again, 2016’s DNV percentage is normal (though I’d argue that we had a bump thanks to people who went to the polls to vote against the two historically unpopular candidates).
I want to go a bit further with these DNV stats just so you see how normal 2016 was. Since 1900, we’ve had 28 presidential elections. More than half (17) had a DNV percentage in the forties (including FDR’s two re-election contests). Ten had DNV percentages in the thirties, the last being 1968’s Nixon v Humphrey. The last election with a very low DNV (only 26.8%) was McKinley v Bryan in 1900 and that was 118 years ago! Again, 2016’d DNV was not an anomaly but totally normal.
Okay, let’s dive into why eligible voters do not vote. In their election reports, Census has a table called “Reasons for not Voting, by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin” in which there are general numbers and breakdowns by demographics. I am using the general numbers.
Census has twelve categories for DNV (the title headings or themes are mine). They are:
Circumstance
Illness or disability
Out of town
Too busy, conflicting schedule
Transportation problems
Registration problems
Bad weather conditions
Inconvenient polling place
Choice
Did not like candidates or campaign issues
Not interested/felt vote would not make a difference
Other
Forgot to vote
Other reason
Don’t know or refused
The three themes of Circumstance, Choice, and Other are mine not the Census.
Circumstance are non-ideological reasons that are seemingly beyond one’s control. They are structural. Yes, I know that some of these circumstances can be overcome, but this is America, man, where we often fall at the touch of a feather. Accept that a case of the sniffles might get in the way of someone voting. Anyway, the Plea to Progs is not based on DNV’s who fall victim to circumstance. The plea is to people who can vote but choose not to, hence theme two:
With Choice a potential voter has control over what they do. Whether they chose vote or not is political, psychological, or both. The Census classification “Do not like candidates or campaign issues” is decades’ old. “Not interested” has undergone changes over the years. From 2004 until today, “Not interested” has been “Not interested.” In 2000, it was “Not interested/felt vote would not make a difference.” Prior to 2000, it was “Felt vote would not make a difference.”
Other are reasons that are unknown or just plain stupid (Forgetting to vote). Don’t know or refused is not “refused to vote” but “refused to answer the question.” Other is anything from “I got in a car crash on the way to vote” to “I will not participate in the pig system” to “Aliens, yo.”
Time for more numbers: I went through each presidential election since 2000 and came up with the percentage of DNVs for each theme. I found that on average 55% of DNVs fall under Circumstance, 24% under Choice, and 21% under Other. The high/low on these averages are pretty tight (like 53–58% Circumstance). One year bucks these averages: 2016. In 2016, Circumstance accounted for 43% DNV, Choice 40%, and Other 17%. Before you jump up and yell, “See! See! Sour grapes lefites didn’t vote because of Hillary!”, remember that for that to be true, 2016’s overall DNV numbers would have to be abnormally high. As reported above, 2016’s DNV percentage was the second lowest in nearly two decades. What has changed is not the number of people that did not vote, but the excuse these people gave for not voting! Also, the bump in 2016 Choice is not just Clinton. It is also Trump. Both candidates were unpopular.
One more time: The percentage of DNVs according to Circumstance, Choice, and Other is fairly consistent, with one small outlier. As important, the percentage of DNVs since 1980 is pretty consistent, averaging 47% (3.7 percentage points higher than 2016’s did not vote).
If an average of 55% of DNVs do not vote because of circumstance and only 24% do not vote because they chose not to, I’d say that the problem here is structural not political or psychological. This is good news: We know how to fix structural issues such as No time/too busy/out of town (federal voting holiday, mandated paid time off for voting, extending the window for voting, more vote-by-mail), Transportation problems (free bus/ride service to polling places, more polling places), Inconvenient polling place (voting centers, more polling places), etc. Circumstances such as Registration problems and even problems with polling places can be attributed in part to voter suppression laws. While there are always political fights around increasing and limiting voter participation, we know what works.
On the other hand, getting someone to change their political outlook is difficult. Imploring people to change their psychological make up is impossible. No one really knows how to convince people to vote for a candidate that they don’t like. Appeals to self-interest have not been successful. Have you ever tried to persuade a cynic that their vote matters? Good luck. Actually, I know how to get these people to participate: Years of therapy focusing on their emotional immaturity and tendency toward cynicism and how these things influence their political and life decisions. I am not being a smart ass here, nor am I mocking or belittling people who can’t escape their base emotions when it comes to politics. I’ve had my own battles with idealism and cynicism, and it is a tough struggle to get out of the mind frame that nothing fucking matters and we are all going to die anyway. A meme or social media posting isn’t going to do it.
When we implore non-voters to get over their dislike for a candidate or their politics, we are appealing to the minority of DNVs who choose not to vote, people whose psychological mindset is resistant to change, especially change through shaming. Knowing that both cynicism and emotional immaturity are psychological defenses, all shaming and blaming does is give defensive people a reason to be more defensive. Hell, let’s assume you have none of these hang-up, here’s a tasty question, “When was the last time you liked it and responded when someone tried to shame you into doing something? What is your normal reaction to being ordered to do something by a complete stranger on social media?” My textbook response starts with a “FUCK” and ends with a “YOU!” If you want to go with fictional metaphors, please check out how Cersei Lannister reacted to her public shaming. Not a successful tactic, you think?
Now for a follow up question, “Who does the Shaming/Fuck You call & response benefit?” Here’s a clue: The only people who benefit from shaming are people who want to create divisions on “our side.” This isn’t just me being a smarty pants. The Mueller Report, Senate hearings on the 2016 election, and lots of good journalism confirm that the Trump campaign, Russian intelligence, the alt-right, and others have and still are trying to drive wedges in the Democratic Party and its allies. Hector progressives and leftists who vote, as well as non-voters, we do Trump and the Russian’s work for them.
Attacking voting progs/lefties and DNVs is not only counter-productive, it is a waste of time and energy that could be used to do a lot of things that actually change elections. Such as:
- Working for increased easy access to polling places, time-off for people to vote, and more voting by mail.
- Organizing against voter suppression laws and helping those targeted with jumping through hoops so they can vote.
- Help drive up participation of youth and people of color, specifically Latinx — people who typically participate at a lower rate than average but who could have a profound effect if they make it to the polls.
Not only is all of this stuff no-brainers, in the 2018 midterms, organizers met each of these challenges and increased voter participation by historical proportions (something I wrote about last week).
There are four more things you can do that are more constructive than shaming progressives and lefties who have reliably voted Dem:
- Normalize Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s politics and policies. Sanders and Warren are only radical or extreme if you believe Trump and the far right are reasonable. Sanders is more of a New Deal Democrat than a socialist. He is looking to expand the social safety net not nationalize industries or enact central economic planning. Warren’s policies also reflect America’s regulatory past. She is big on Teddy Roosevelt’s trust-busting, FDR’s regulation of the financial industry, and the Eisenhower era approach to progressive taxation. None of this — including tuition-free college, an idea from 1960/70s California — is beyond the political pale.
- The establishment says that a progressive or left Dem will cause centrists to bolt. Remember that is their choice. Turn the meme plea around: Do not shame. Rather gently convince centrist and conservative Democrats that the world will not end if Sanders or Warren gets the nomination. However, given Trump’s complete hostility to democracy and human decency, shit will get really bad if he gets a second term. So, if they really care about “the children,” they need to vote Dem regardless of who gets the nomination.
- Do not try to stifle debate in the primaries. Now is the time to air our differences and fight for the candidate we like. Forget “electability.” It is a sham. Don’t worry about debate or criticism damaging a candidate. Fact is, Republican opposition researchers don’t need us. They are pros. They don’t look to us for tips. They know far more about the Dems than we do. They know our criticisms before we voiced them. And every candidate was vetted by their own people. Seriously, if a candidate can’t survive social media scrutiny in the primaries, they won’t win the general. That said, keep your criticism to candidates and policy. Do not attack another candidate’s the supporters. If you get attacked, let it slide. Again, plenty of these attacks are generated by bots and paid trolls for the purpose of making us fight among ourselves.
- Take absolutely everything you see on social media with a grain of salt. Remember, you lived most of your life being informed without social media. You don’t need it for politics. Use it to share pictures of food or your child, turning people onto music, talking about your dog or cat, arguing about sports, or whatever silly and fun stuff you are into. That is exactly what social media is good for. When you do these things, you come away from social media happy. When you use it for stupid political fights you wind up frustrated, angry and sad. Know this for a fact, you do not need social media. It needs you. You not only generate content, you are the content. Because you control your content, it is your responsibility — not Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. — to know what you are talking about, to talk politics from an informed place rather than from emotion, and to fact check everything you post. Don’t pass on information that you have not researched to be true. Ask yourself what you seek to accomplish in your posting. Use your power wisely and constructively.
None of these seven suggestions is as easy as posting a meme, but they are proven effective ways of making change. They take some time and effort, but that is how change is made.
This essay originally appeared in the May 10, 2019 issue of Soriano’s Comment №56. Free Subscriptions available here. Become a patron here.
