Why those at the bottom rung of the economic ladder are losing class war

[prolesunited]

Interesting statistic from this month's Harper's Index:

Percentage of Americans living below the poverty level who voted in the 2000 presidential election: 38

Percentage of Americans living at twice the poverty level who voted: 68

I guess this shatters the rightwing contention that Dems use government aid to "buy" votes. Certainly doesn't seem to work anyway.


I guess I didn't realize there was such a large discrepancy in voting patterns until I saw these numbers.

Do you have any theories as to why this is the case? What can we do to encourage voter registration and turnout among this group?

[bryant69]

1. well I suppose it would help

If they believed we had a candidate who would actually help them out; instead of just doing more or less the same things that were done before.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ithacan]

2. they understand the system is stacked against them

regardless, Dem and Repub are both supporting a system that is by nature exploitative and leaves out the people at the bottom.

It would take another FDR, in particular the 1936 Democratic Party Platform, to give people the sense that things might actually change.

http://publicpolicy.pepperdine.edu/academics/faculty/lloyd/projects/newdeal/democ36.htm

[demnan]

3. From a practical perspective

Our system makes it difficult for the poor to vote. Transportation to the polls can be difficult or expensive if you don't own a car. Because the elections are held during the week and nothing is done to close businesses a person with children and a job has to juggle some time between the two to find the time to vote. This parent doesn't have the resources that a more affluent parent does, and the late charge at day care is prohibitive. They could take their children to the polls with them after work, but again without a car this is expensive. A homeless person cannot register to vote without an address.

There are many practical ways that the poor are discouraged from voting.

[pmbryant]

7. I think this is probably the real explanation

When you are constantly struggling just to provide for yourself and your family, you don't have time to follow politics, figure out how to register to vote, figure out where to vote, and wade through all the BS propaganda and figure out how you want to vote.

I suspect it becomes easy to become completely disillusioned about the political process at that point and write it off completely.

:-(

--Peter

[TahitiNut]

8. Even worse, migrant and homeless citizens ...

... may be far too temporary in any "living" situation to satisfy "residency" requirements for voting registration.

[spunky]

10. Exactly

Why participate in a system that doesn't seem to care about you or your problems? Unless of course its an election year and politicians are wooing your vote.

When you are worried about if you have enough money to put food on the table tonight, the problems facing the nation as a whole take a backseat to the reality of your own situation.

[prolesunited]

11. But clearly

who's in office impacts on whether you have enough food on the table, shelter, adequate transportation and child care, health care.

If anything, if the lower and middle classes united, we could turn the table on the fascists and corporations in control. They may have more money than us, but we outnumber them.

[pmbryant]

12. Two problems that need to be overcome

(1) Convincing people who have no time that it is worth their while to take part in the political process.

(2) Countering the GOP culture war, whereby the GOP tries to win over lower and middle class people via divisive social issues (e.g., abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, "patriotism", religion, etc).

If I were smarter, I'd have some clues how to do these things.

:crazy:

#2 is easier than #1, I think. #1 strikes me as an almost intractable problem. Only by raising these people's economic conditions can it be addressed. Unfortunately, with the GOP in charge of everything, we are in catch-22 situation here.

--Peter

[el_gato]

4. elections are a fig leaf

we don't live in a democracy

[prolesunited]

5. I think I understand your point

somewhat, but would love to have you explain it further.

Also, given your contention, do you vote? Do you think it's pointless to encourage others to vote? Are you saying that those in the lower rungs know what is going on?

[reprobate]

6. The system was biased from the start.

Remember that in order to vote, the founding fathers required that you had to be an owner of land (and slaves, most times). They believed that only the educated should vote, and at the time it was mainly the landowning gentry that were educated.

[TahitiNut]

9. Education was a perquisite of the wealthy.

Prior to WW2, a college education was regarded as a perquisite of the wealthy. (Indeed, one of the more ubiquitouos arguments against the GI Bill was that veterans didn't have the "breeding" that'd qualify them to succeed in college.) A "loophole" in the pre-WW2 era was a Teacher's College ... regarded as somewhat akin to a Barber's College at the time, not 'truly a college'. In many of the slave states, educating a slave was illegal. Immigrants and Native Americans were, by and large, not given access to public education.


Education is again becoming a perquisite of the wealthy and powerful ... and it's too bad it doesn't "take" in too many cases. :shrug:

[distortionmarshall]

13. rofl - your subject line....

.... is exactly similar to the following:

"why the team with fewer points is losing the bassketball game"

it's by DEFINITION..... lol

in any case - the phenomenon ur talking about is how losing reinforces itself - quite a large topic, on which a lotta research hass been done....

2 things come up regularly in these discussions:

(1) have-nots don't see the relevance of voting ("o woe is me","i voted 20 years ago, look where it got me", "the fix is in", and so on). In short, by having nothing, they specifically don't have a dog in the fight.

(2) haves do have a dog in the fight - they have a vested interest in the have-nots *not* voting... so they do various things to either prohibit or inhibit the have-not vote. Many of the specific tactics used are well documented. Most recent, perhaps was a week or so ago, when allegiance-to-party oaths were required in some primaries...

[prolesunited]

14. D'oh!

What can I say. I guess that's what happens when it's early and my brain isn't fully functional yet. :-)

I do clearly see your first point. Question is, how do we convince them if they stand up to be counted that they will make a difference?

Will it take a grassroots swell or do we need a charismatic leader?