Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
Michael Hoover wrote:
But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the
uses and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above
exposed it for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters & nonvoters. One
"deconstruction" isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
If preferences of voters and non-voters are practically identical to
each other, despite differences in class, race, age, partisan
identification, etc. ("In November [2000], 48 percent of eligible
voters didn't go to the polls. These no shows tended to be younger
[27 percent of nonvoters were under 30] and less educated. They had
lower incomes and were more likely to identify themselves as
Independents. [Forty percent of nonvoters identify themselves as
Independents, compared to 27 percent of voters.]" [Pete Boyle and
Michael Fleischer, "Survey of Voters and Nonvoters Identifies Clues
," http://www.pewtrusts.com/news/news_subpage.cfm?content_item_id=679&content_type_id=7&page=nr1";>March
12, 2001), why spend money and hold elections at all? The
government might simply commission a polling firm to do a survey of a
couple of thousands of eligible electors (whether they are likely or
unlikely voters) and decide on the winners based on their
preferences. That would be much cheaper.
--
Yoshie
* Critical Montages: ,
, &
* Solidarity:
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
"Devine, James" wrote: > > In my much more humble opinion, I agree with Michael: it doesn't make sense to me > that non-voters and voters would vote in a similar way, since the former are poorer, > more minority, and less educated than the latter, and many votes correlate highly > with income, ethnicity, and education. > Jim D. > Another thing left out. If Non-Voters were to vote it would be because something had happened -- but no conceivable question that can be asked a _present_ non-voter can throw light on those (hypothetical future) events which would have changed the non-voter to the voter. This error seems to me rather fundamental in bourgeois ideology. Consider a recent post on the Milton-L list: "If John Milton could observe the world of today (I mean the Milton we know from his writings, not Milton as he might have turned out had he lived today) would he take sides in the 'War on Terror?' If so, who would he support and why? Or would he call down a plague on both their houses?" I replied to this question as follows: - I don't believe your specification -- "(I mean the Milton we know from his writings, not Milton as he might have turned out had he lived today)" -- is tenable. The "Milton we know from his writings" (and the writings themselves to a great extent) simply could not exist abstracted from the ensemble of social relations which in a very real way constituted that Milton. And whatever principles we ourselves can abstract from those writings almost certainly could (and will be) used to ground all possible positions on the War on Terror. The difficulty in answering your question, then, is that the question is incoherent. I would even argue that prior to the last 50 years the verbal construct, "War on" follwed by an abstract noun, would not make sense. War on Poverty. War on Drugs. War on Crime. War on Terror. All these expressions are essentially incoherent. Your subject line, "USA v.Al-Quaeda," is a tacit recognition of the incoherence of "War on Terror." Al-Quaeda consists of a specific group of persons, organized around identifiable principles, and it was possible to imagine a _that _ war. (Cf. a "War on the Mafia" vs a "War on Crime.") But that (possible) war became impossible when the Bush administration, instead of launching a standard sort of criminal investigation, used 9/11 as an excuse for what is developing into a "War against Everyone." That war the U.S. will inevitably lose, though one may fear that in the process the whole human species may well be irreparably damaged. Carrol --- A non-voter who voted would no longer be a non-voter; she would be the person who had undergone certain experiences that as a non-voter she would not have undergone. Hence her opinion in the present, in which she is a non-voter, throws no light on her opinion in a world in which she is a voter. Consider, similarly, the idiotic question often asked, "What would a revolutionary regime in the U.S. do about X?" -- X being a condition that exists now. All one need do to see the idiocy involved is to imagine the unimaginable changes which would have to have occurred in present conditions before a revolutionary regime could be even a remote possibility. It would be as though someone in 1787 had asked, "How can we get the votes in Oregon reported in time for the electors to vote in December when it takes a whole year to travel from Oregon to Philadepphia?" Try it another way. A world in which 20% of current non-voters voted would be a world radically different from the world in which public-opinion pundits arrive at their current conclusions. We simply can't even make rough guesses at how _anyone_ would vote in such a world without first making an accurate assessment (impossible I think) of what public events could bring about such a change in voting habits. Those events would of course have a profound effect also on those who are presently voting, so _their_ present voting habits give us no clue as to how they would vote under the (now unknowable) changed conditions. Predictions on how non-voters would vote if they did vote are grounded in the assumption that there has been history but no longer is any. Carrol
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
In my much more humble opinion, I agree with Michael: it doesn't make sense to me that
non-voters and voters would vote in a similar way, since the former are poorer, more
minority, and less educated than the latter, and many votes correlate highly with
income, ethnicity, and education.
Jim D.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Hoover [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tue 6/1/2004 10:54 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] the new number one reason to vote Nader
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/1/2004 1:46:00 PM >>>
Michael Hoover wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
>poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
>and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed
it
>for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters & nonvoters. One
"deconstruction" isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
<
yeah, yeah, yeah, i know what literature on this stuff says, i read it
all time as it is part and parcel of mainstream pol sci
'voting behavior' studies...
don't think you're reference to 'public opinion pundits' (always found
use of that term interesting given that it means self-
professed authority) weakens point of my previous post, in fact, it may
strengthen it... michael hoover (in his own not so humble opinion)
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 6/1/2004 1:46:00 PM >>>
Michael Hoover wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM
>poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
>and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed
it
>for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters & nonvoters. One
"deconstruction" isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
<
yeah, yeah, yeah, i know what literature on this stuff says, i read it
all time as it is part and parcel of mainstream pol sci
'voting behavior' studies...
don't think you're reference to 'public opinion pundits' (always found
use of that term interesting given that it means self-
professed authority) weakens point of my previous post, in fact, it may
strengthen it... michael hoover (in his own not so humble opinion)
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
Michael Hoover wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM >>>
Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this
passage is, sadly, true:
But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed it
for canard it actually is...
That's not what a bunch of public opinion pundits told me recently.
Most surveys found little difference between voters & nonvoters. One
"deconstruction" isn't necessarily the last word.
Doug
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5/31/2004 2:06:42 PM >>>
Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this
passage is, sadly, true:
>But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any
>ideological way.
poli sci guy stephen earl bennett's 1990 'deconstruction' ('the uses
and abuses of registration and turnout data', _ps_) of above exposed it
for canard it actually is...
'truism' gained prominence with couple of 1988 post-election surveys
indicating that non-voters would have cast ballots for bush (54%) in
roughly same percentage as voters did, bennett
disclosed extent to which after an election even folks who didn't vote
say they prefer winner...
2000 national election study (nes) included question about what to do
with ostensible 'budget surplus' available at that time, there was
significant difference between voter and non-voter responses with former
favoring tax cut and latter favoring spending for education, health
care, etc...
actual turnout among lower-income folks increases in rare instances
where candidates (dems in most places) are perceived as concerned with
their needs, even when chances for victory are only modest (not,
however, when hopeless as in too many minor
party/independent/alternative campaigns)...
upper income voters three times more likely to vote for reps than lower
income voters, helps explain why effort is put into attempts to
discourage latter from voting, no need to 'purge' voter rolls as florida
does under rep. governor bush if larger low-income electorate wouldn't
make difference...
in any event, asking certain questions of separate and distinct
individuals and then aggregating responses creates opinion that wouldn't
otherwise exist, polling organizes 'publics' in ways that they wouldn't
on their own...
in sum, example of what c. wright mills called 'crackpot realism'...
michael
Re: The new number one reason to vote Nader
This opening by Gitlin could (and should) be the opening to stop voting Democrat. Louis Proyect wrote: Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin A classic book of social psychology analyzes a flying saucer cult of the 1950s. This small band of Americans believed that on a particular date soon to come, the world would be engulfed by a flood of biblical proportions-but also that, on the very same day, flying saucers would arrive and rescue the true believers. Researchers infiltrated the group and waited to see what would happen. Came the designated day, the landscape remained dry, no saucers landed, and how did the believers respond? A number of them fell away. But as in similar cases of millenarian prophecy over previous centuries, there remained a core of fanatics who, having already turned their lives upside down to conform to the prophecy, took courage from the support they found in their group. They stuck to their guns, reinterpreted the data in such a way as to justify the commitments they had already undertaken, and intensified their proselytizing efforts. If reality was going to be in such poor form as to disconfirm their belief, they would find a way to make belief and reality match. If they could win converts in a second round of proselytizing, they would confirm the wisdom they had demonstrated in the first. full: http://www.dissentmagazine.org/ -- Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
michael a. lebowitz wrote: Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin Yes, I love it! The new slogan: 'A Vote for Nader is a vote against Todd Gitlin' is sure to mobilise old SDS'ers. Gitlin is a repulsive character, but everything he says in this passage is, sadly, true: But there is no evidence that nonvoters differ from voters in any ideological way. They are not bashful saints or hidden leftists biding their time until a candidate appears with the precisely correct political position. They are disproportionately low-income and younger people who, if they want anything from politics, want practical results. Their cynicism about politics is self-interested; they have real needs. What they are not looking for is a prophet or a new party. If those who suffer most from corporate domination were susceptible to Nader's appeal, why was his black vote in 2000 so puny-only 1 percent in Washington, D. C., for example, where Nader won 5 percent overall? He certainly didn't increase turnout among blacks or any other minority. A Green vote was a luxury that could only be afforded by those who didn't need politics to defend their material interests. In fact, Nader's base is a sliver of upper-middle-class whites-"the liberal intelligentsia," you might say-disproportionately located in such states as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and New Hampshire with the smallest black populations.
Re: the new number one reason to vote Nader
To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PEN-L list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [Marxism] The new number one reason to vote Nader From: Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 13:09:41 -0400 Reply-To: Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) Dissent Magazine, Spring 2004 Ralph Nader and the Will to Marginality by Todd Gitlin Yes, I love it! The new slogan: 'A Vote for Nader is a vote against Todd Gitlin' is sure to mobilise old SDS'ers. cheers, michael Michael A. Lebowitz Professor Emeritus Economics Department Simon Fraser University Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at Residencias Anauco Suites Departamento 601 (58-212) 573-4111 fax: (58-212) 573-7724
