Thus "a large majority of the population dismissed [the election process] as unrelated to their interests and concerns, regarding it as a game played by wealthy contributors and the Public Relations industry, which trains candidates to focus on 'values' and 'personal qualities,' and to keep away from issues...
"On many important issues, there is a considerable gap between an elite consensus and popular opinion, as polls reveal. Voting is heavily skewed towards the more wealthy. Years ago it was shown ... that non-voters -- about half the population -- have a socioeconomic profile rather like those who vote for labor-based and social democratic parties in Europe, but feel that they are not represented in the US."
But that opinion in itself doesn't distinguish non-voters from voters, except when a small set of the latter can bring themselves to believe a candidate promises "hope and change," however much they're disappointed after the fact.
There are of course those like some Millerites (q.v.) who continue to Believe. --CGE
On Mar 12, 2012, at 12:31 PM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
> Eric Beck:
>
>>> Nonvoters are not all that different from voters ...
>>
>> But that's not the point. The point is that they didn't vote.
>
> That doesn't sound like "a point" to me; what's the implication
> you're getting at?
>
> The usual one, which Carl seems to try to make explicit, is that the
> reason the US gets the outcomes we get is because only a small
> percentage of people are required to win an election. Doug refutes
> that, which sounds like a point to me. What's yours?
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk