On Nov 6, 2004, at 8:30 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
Warren - the reason I tend to rely on my memory for postings on list is because I do this for a living. I get paid exceedingly tiny sums of money to think about politics, and that involves an awful lot of time spent burrowing through historical archives and back-issues of International Security.
Very well; as this is not part of a publicly available profile (TTBOMK), I'm unsure how I was supposed to be aware of this fact.
I come from a slightly different background, apparently; when challenged for data I either supply it or state I'm dealing with opinion (mine). I certainly am not sanguine, generally, about being challenged by someone who then goes on to say he's relying on memory alone. That's such a fallible mechanism that I can't be convinced it's a valid enough argument.
Oh. So if I prefer vanilla over chocolate, it's invalid. Got it. (Never mind that I was not the one trying to insert feeling and conjecture into the discussion to begin with.)
No, but that's not a persuadable point. If you were trying to convince me that vanilla was somehow better than chocolate - you couldn't, because that's a matter of preference, not evidence. If you wanted to convince me that (somehow) chocolate ice cream was better for my _health_ than vanilla ice cream (that's a rationally provable argument) then to do so you'd need something more than I think so.
Agreed on both points; however *my* point is that reasons for low voter turnout are probably not as empirically definable as you seem to think they are. (Or, to put it somewhat differently, not as definable as would probably be desirable, since if we knew why turnouts were low when they are, we might be able to do something about it.) Again, those who don't vote also don't tend to be around to explain why they don't.
In the mid 70s, my take on things was apparently fairly valid:
<http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ii761125.html>
Here's an excerpt; note the Watergate reference!
'Half of those interviewed said, "I just don't bother with politics." Their reasons? "Candidates say one thing and do another" (68 per cent). "It doesn't make much difference who is elected" (55 per cent). "Watergate proved that elected officials are only out for themselves" (52 per cent). Only a small minority mentioned such practical reasons as not being able to get to the polls (18 per cent) or the difficulty of registering to vote (12 per cent).'
This all harks back to the statement I made, for which you demanded empirical data:
"I mean that of the people who didn't vote this time, I would bet a vast preponderance chose not to because they didn't like the choices and figured voting for one bad apple wasn't any different from voting for another."
Of course it's an ongoing problem discussed in gloss here:
<http://www.crf-usa.org/bria/bria8_4.htm#vote>
Interestingly enough the League of Women Voters did a study in '96 that seems to contravene *some of* my ideas:
<http://www.lwv.org/elibrary/pub/mellman.htm>
"Among the explanations the survey suggests are valid is that voters and nonvoters differ in their perceptions of the importance of elections."
...but
"Voters were much more likely than nonvoters to perceive major differences between the parties on issues such as jobs and economic security, Social Security, Medicare, taxes and the deficit."
...and yet
"The survey also found that nonvoters are less likely than voters to believe they have access to accurate information about the candidates and their positions on issues--information that would help them understand the importance of an election and compel them to vote."
It doesn't appear to be apathy, at least from their study; but it still seems that nonvoters don't see clear differences between one candidate or the other, see both as equally bad, etc.
(Of course these might also be superficial reasons given for a deeper problem, but the survey cited above indicates that a general sense of cynicism or mistrust of government is *not* a reason people don't vote, because it's apparently equal in voters and nonvoters.)
I find it interesting that when you have an opportunity to show yourself as superior by holding solid facts, you don't. I think you're an ideologue and you really don't have anything at all to back you up apart from your own delusions.
I'm not trying to show myself as superior.
You know, the above was really unfair. It was more barbed than necessary and I apologize for the needlessly nasty tone.
I do, however, continue to hold that it is unfair of you to demand statistics of me when not supplying any of your own. I can understand that you don't necessarily want to find links to support every piece of data you put out there; but if you're going to demand evidence of others you really do owe it to the discussion to hold yourself to the same standards.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
