>Not exactly a specimen of dialectical thinking. There could be a whole host
>of other reasons why people don't vote, starting with regulations that make
>it difficult for them to register and vote in a timely way. There does happen
>to be a rather substantial literature from the left on the subject, anchored
>on the one said by Cloward and Piven, who believe that the non-vote would
>vote on the left, and thus see the low voter turnout as one of the major
>reasons why the US has not developed a social democratic/labor party, and on
>the other end by Texiera, who says that non-voters would pretty much vote the
>same way as voters, and that a focus on non-voters is a dead end.
I know Teixeira says that, but the few surveys of nonvoters that exist were conducted after the election, and people tell pollsters they would have voted pretty much the way other people voted. That's not surprising, given that no one wants to be perceived as a loser. It's hard to believe, though, that people with below-median incomes would vote like those with above-median incomes if their interests were seriously addressed by plausible candidates.
I also know that Cloward & Piven emphasize the formal obstacles to voting, and those aren't unimportant. Even so, it's not *that* hard to register and vote. What's harder is for an insurgent candidate to get on the ballot in most states, and if s/he gets on the ballot, it's even harder to get any press coverage. Anything outside the status quo gets ignored, or mocked by apologists for the status quo.
If the potential threat to the status quo weren't there, it wouldn't be so hard to register, to vote, to get on the ballot, or get noticed. And if someone does get through all these filters, like Ralph, then they get patronized and mocked by the likes of Leo Casey and the NY Times editorial board.
Doug