Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Voter turnout in US Message-ID: <246@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Thu, 6-Dec-84 20:55:34 EST Article-I.D.: gargoyle.246 Posted: Thu Dec 6 20:55:34 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Dec-84 05:54:31 EST Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) Distribution: net Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science Lines: 44 In article <> werner@aecom.UUCP (Craig Werner) writes: > Traditionally, the United States has had the second worst voter >turnout of all nations that have an elective government~. Second, that is, >only to Botswana. > Well, this year, for still unexplained reasons, the voter turnout in >Botswana swelled to almost 70%, well eclipsing the United State's 52.4%, and >leaving the United States with the world's worst voter turnout. >[Source: NY Times, Dec.1] The voter turnout in the other Western democracies is much higher than that in the US (up to 96% in Australia, as I recall). Some reasons for the low turnout in the US: 1. Voters must register in person in the US, whereas in Europe I believe one may register by mail (I'm not up on the situation in Botswana). It cost me a fair amount of trouble to register, and I'm sure that's the case for many others as well. The comparative difficulty of registering probably accounts for a good chunk of the lower percentage in the US. 2. Voting takes place on a weekday in the US. Does anybody have any idea why? 3. There exists no mass-based working-class party such as British Labour in the US which would serve to mobilize the working-class and poor voters, as is indeed the case in western Europe. (The Democratic Party? Are you kidding?) This sector of the population has historically voted in lesser numbers in the US, for various reasons that I won't go into. Someone on the net expressed the opinion a few weeks ago that the political views of nonvoters don't count. This could mean either that they are politically ineffective (which is unquestionable) or that they are unimportant and should be ignored by policy-makers. Anyone care to defend this latter proposition? Since voters are generally more affluent, better educated, and whiter than nonvoters, the low voter turnout biases the American political system in favor of the former group, and the more powerful maintain their dominance over the less powerful. As usual.... Martin Van Buren was elected by 11% of the voting-age population (including women and slaves). The president elected by the highest percentage of the voting-age population was LBJ with something over 40%. Reagan's "landslide" reelection was by about 30% of the electorate. Aren't you glad you live in a democracy? Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes