[lbo-talk] more nonvoters

[Shane Mage]

Doug wrote:
>Michael Pollak wrote:
>
>>If that's all they've got, I'm afraid they've got nothing.  If their
>>results contradict all their basic theories and assumptions, then we have
>>to assume there's something wrong with their methods -- unless they can
>>explain what's wrong with the theories and assumptions.  The burden is on
>>them to explain the discrepency.
>>
>>Tossing out their their entire framework on the basis of divergent results
>>would be mindless empiricism.
>
>Pollsters can be mindless empiricists, which is both their virtue 
>and their flaw.
>
>But I think the theory is that nonvoters are passive and disengaged, 
>and >thoughtlessly absorb the dominant discourse.

But if they *did* vote then they would, by definition, no longer be
"passive and disengaged," and so even by the pollsters' theory
they would be expected to vote in accordance with their 
socio-economic/racial profile!

By the way, does anyone know if the "nonvoters" were asked
whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement "there
is no significant difference between the two parties?" And,
if so, what the results were?

Shane Mage

"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all 
things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even 
downright silly.

When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all 
things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true."  (N. 
Weiner)