the slight majority of the electorate which abstains from participating in
> it are more politically advanced than the slight minority of voters who
> sees some difference between the two parties.
>
No, nobody said any such a thing except you and Doug, who are wrangling with straw men.
> By your standard, the US working class would have to be considered the
> most politically advanced in the West since its abstention rate is the
> highest
>
I can only echo Shane's language about "[t]he point, the only point originally raised," since it still doesn't seem to have sunk in. Here it is again, in his language (although it can double as a fair summary of my own perspective):
a majority of the American electorate sees so little difference between the
> duopolistic candidates offered to them that they perceive no reason to make
> the minimal effort involved in voting and therefore abstain.
>
And in case that was insufficiently clear, he helpfully prefaced it with:
The point is not that the "poor and powerless," the non-voters, are a [more
> than potentially] radical-thinking constituency.
>
Will that suffice? Because I don't think I can do much better.
-- "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað."