Another AAPORite reponds:
>See Nonvoters: America's No Shows (Doppelt, Shearer), Sage Publications,
>1999? They indicate nonvoters aren't so different - if they would have
voted
>they wouldn't change outcomes.
This is a regular statistical quote and on it's face nonsensical. Non-voters are disengaged from the process and therefore unlikely to have strong preferences, so their votes are likely to be largely split evenly between the parties on abtract questions of who they would vote for. But that assumes they would vote the same if they were engaged in the process, an unlikely outcome.
Given that the demographic profile of non-voters skews poorer, younger and less educated than regular voters, it is remarkable that they vote the same as regular voters and implies that they would vote quite differently from the poor, young and less educated folks who DO vote.
So the bottom line is I don't buy it. Expanding the electorate would change voting patterns, and mostly in the progressive direction.
Nathan