>fwiw: some mainstream poli sci people claim there is little
>difference in political attitudes of voters and non-voters, thus,
>they assert that markedly higher turnout would produce few
>differences in already existing outcomes...
Yup. I presented some evidence of that a while back and was roundly denounced by Nathan & Co.
Apropos turnout benefiting the Dems: the standard wisdom I was citing was that of pundits, not political scientists.
Doug ******************************************************************
In Australia, people are fined if they don't vote. Thus, most people participate in the elections and, of course, one of Shrub's best poly-pals, John Howard has been Prime Minister for years now. To be sure, the Labor Party, which is full of Tony Blair clones, awaits in the wings. Personally, I think it would be great to see Labor MP Julia Gillard become PM. Ah, but more proletarian pipe-dreaming on my part, I'm afraid. Raising the non-voting fines might get 100% turnout, but I'm afraid the problem of conservative conformism amongst the "middle class" (Nixon's old "silent majority") would not be solved by such a measure.
Best, Mike B)
****************************************************************** Time would pass, old empires would fall and new ones take their place, the relations of classes had to change, before I discovered that it is not quality of goods and utility that matter, but movement; not where you are or what you have, but where you come from, where you are going and the rate at which you are getting there. C.L.R. James, BEYOND A BOUNDARY (1963), 116-117.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com