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.<\/p>\n
In statistical models,\u00a0if most non-voters did vote, the results would not change<\/strong>. That\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n A report published in February by the Knight Foundation revealed:<\/p>\n The study confirms that nonvoters as a whole are fairly reflective of the broader electorate<\/strong> 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<\/strong>. More surprisingly perhaps, and potentially more consequential for November, these numbers gently tilt in the opposite direction in many battleground states<\/strong>, 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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\u2019s contrary to what Democrats (and many pundits) believe. Higher turnout would work against Democrats in the Rust Belt, for example, not for them.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t change any outcomes. That\u2019s called \u201csurplus\u201d votes or \u201cwasted\u201d votes by some analysts. Basically, it is running up the score in states. It won\u2019t change the Electoral College, the Senate, or the House membership.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s where cities begin and where they have grown).<\/p>\n Getting out the vote? It sounds wonderful. Maybe it would help people feel involved. But, surprisingly, it isn\u2019t likely to change results.<\/p>\n Here\u2019s the background story on this new finding:<\/p>\n