Non-Voters Resemble Voters

There is a misconception that non-voters are largely young and liberal. Yes, young people register and vote at a lower rate of participation, but overall non-voters tend to be pretty much like voters.

In statistical models, if most non-voters did vote, the results would not change. That’s because the non-voters and voters are roughly same political composition and would vote in roughly the same proportions as the outcome exit polls for recent elections.

A report published in February by the Knight Foundation revealed:

The study confirms that nonvoters as a whole are fairly reflective of the broader electorate in terms of political preferences. If they were to all vote in November, 33 percent say they would support Democrats, 30 percent Republicans and 18 percent a third-party candidate. More surprisingly perhaps, and potentially more consequential for November, these numbers gently tilt in the opposite direction in many battleground states, with nonvoters choosing Trump over the as-yet-undetermined Democratic nominee 36%-28% in Pennsylvania, 34%-25% in Arizona and 30%-29% in New Hampshire. Wisconsin and Michigan mirror the national average, favoring the Democrat 33%-31% and 32%-31%, respectively, while in Georgia the margin is 34%-29%. This data challenges many long-standing assumptions of political experts.

In the Battleground States, then, there are more Republican-leaning non-voters. If they voted, it would only expand the margins by which Republicans might carry these states. That’s contrary to what Democrats (and many pundits) believe. Higher turnout would work against Democrats in the Rust Belt, for example, not for them.

Yes, Democratic margins in New York or California would increase if non-voters participated, but only by a percentage point or two. Worse, at least for Democrats, is that higher turnout in those states wouldn’t change any outcomes. That’s called “surplus” votes or “wasted” votes by some analysts. Basically, it is running up the score in states. It won’t change the Electoral College, the Senate, or the House membership.

Democrats do not have a participation problem: they have a concentration problem. Increasingly, they represent a smaller and smaller geographical area, which means no matter how you draw district maps or run Senate and state-wide races, Democrats are at a disadvantage because they concentrate in large urban areas along bodies of water (seriously, that’s where cities begin and where they have grown).

Getting out the vote? It sounds wonderful. Maybe it would help people feel involved. But, surprisingly, it isn’t likely to change results.

Here’s the background story on this new finding:

Half of Americans Don’t Vote. What Are They Thinking?

Politico | Feb 19, 2020

On Wednesday, the Knight Foundation released the results of “The 100 Million Project,” the largest survey of chronic nonvoters in history, and the most robust attempt ever to answer some of the questions that have long bedeviled political scientists. More than 13,000 people were polled across the country, with special emphasis on 10 battleground states, followed by in-depth focus-group conversations with thousands of them.

In the broadest terms, the study found the average chronic nonvoter is a married, nonreligious white woman between 56 and 73 who works full time but makes less than $50,000 a year. She is most likely to identify as a moderate, lean toward the Democratic Party, get her news from television and to have a very unfavorable impression of both political parties and President Donald Trump. She has a 77 percent chance of being registered to vote and says she doesn’t because she doesn’t like the candidates but claims to be certain she will vote in November. But the study’s real lesson is that averages are deceiving, concealing more than they reveal.

At least we know that non-voters are simply not excited by the candidates offered. That’s something useful to know.