>The basic error in _both_ propositions is that they treat humans
>unhistorically and mechanically as though they were objects in a
>laboratory experiment, in which it is possible to vary just one element.
>
>If a non-voter voted, he/she would not be a non-voter. So what we have
>to look at is not the _present_ attitudes of non-voters (whatever those
>may be) but at the conditions under which a non-voter would not be a
>non-voter. Those conditions, not the non-voter's opinions now, would
>determine the vote of the (now) voter.
You mean you're advocating agitating and persuading? What happened to agentless History?
Doug