Posted on 09/17/2006 7:53:50 PM PDT by churchillbuff
If California’s nonvoting adult population made their voices heard at the ballot box, much of the political status quo could change—dramatically. A report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), with funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, looks at the state’s electorate from 1990 through May 2006 and paints a provocative picture of the gulf in political preferences between the state’s voters and the majority of its adult population.
On issues ranging from Proposition 13, to raising taxes, to imposing limits on government, the eight million Californians expected to vote in this November’s election have a much different view of the political world than their twelve million nonvoting counterparts (seven million of whom are eligible to vote). There could be some radically different outcomes if these nonvoters participated in state elections:
California could have bigger government and higher taxes: A large majority of nonvoters prefer higher taxes with more services to lower taxes with fewer services (66% to 26%). In contrast, voters are split, with only slightly more preferring the option of higher taxes with more services (49% to 44%). Proposition 13 could be overhauled. By a large margin, nonvoters think Proposition 13 has been a bad thing rather than a good thing (47% to 29%)—but by an even larger margin (56% to 33%), likely voters think Proposition 13 has been a good thing. Odds on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reelection could change considerably. In May 2006, he received much lower marks from nonvoters (61% disapprove, 21% approve) than from likely voters (48% disapprove, 42% approve). It could be a lot easier to meet the two-thirds requirement for passing local special taxes. For example, 76 percent of nonvoters would support a bond for local school construction, compared to barely two-thirds of likely voters.
“Certain political views and issues that are considered immutable today are that way largely because of who is not voting,” says the report’s author, PPIC research director Mark Baldassare. “But how much the status quo might change depends critically on whether new voters’ attitudes and preferences would change if they became voters — in other words, does participating in the democratic process change attitudes, or is there simply a difference in kind between voters and nonvoters?”
The study, California’s Exclusive Electorate, suggests that the wide divergence in opinion among the state’s residents may be partly explained by the large racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic differences between voters and nonvoters. Based on thousands of interviews, the study finds:
The majority of likely voters are age 45 and older (62%), have household incomes of $60,000 or more (56%), and have college degrees (53%). In contrast, a vast majority of nonvoters are younger than age 45 (76%), and far fewer have household incomes of $60,000 or more (18%) or have college degrees (17%). Although no racial or ethnic group constitutes a majority in California, whites comprise 70 percent of likely voters, Latinos 14 percent, blacks 6 percent, and Asians 5 percent. Although one in three adults in California today is foreign born, 90 percent of likely voters are native born. A vast majority of likely voters (77%) are homeowners; on the other hand, 66 percent of nonvoters are renters. “If the trends in voting continue, we face the prospect of an electorate making policy choices that neglect the realities and problems facing large segments of California society,” says Baldassare.
The Public Policy Institute of California is a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research on major economic, social, and political issues. The institute was established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett.
hmmmmmm...
a late night posting from Chamberlaintroll....
5...4....3...2...1.....
Title says it all, they would enact socialism worse than now.
These are the people Bush wants to invite to America. Why? I can understand why Teddy Kennedy wants to open the door to tens of millions of new Democrat voters. But why does Bush support the same thing?
If the USA’s nonvoting adult population made their voices heard at the ballot box, and VOTED FOR BALDING EAGLE FOR PRESIDENT, much of the political status quo could change—dramatically.
There, THAT made just as much sense.
What If California's Nonvoters ... Voted?
Yahoo News ^ | Sept. 13, 2006 | Public Policy Institute of CA
Posted on 09/14/2006 3:40:26 PM PDT by FairOpinion
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
oops. I checked, but didn't see that this had been posted.
You've had quite a number of vacations this summer.
Yes, my opinions aren't always welcome. Even though I signed up back in '98 - years before most of my detractors - and I've been voting Republican since Goldwater, I'm not a "conservative" because I don't like Bush's big spending, open borders and mistaken war. And because I voice my views, "freepers" who don't want truly free discussion rejoice when I get suspended. Oh, well, that's the price of not agreeing with supporters of "freedom" who demand that you agree with them - or else.
I think you take a lot of heat for the articles you post. Your views don't bother me --- you're predictably against President Bush and his administration.
Anyway, I hope you've had a nice summer and that you can find a way to stick around this time.
This is why I have mixed feelings about GENERALLY encouraging people at large to "Vote!" When we do that, we're inviting heck of a lot of people who either flat don't care or are unbelievably ignorant to choose the directions our country will go.
Quite a few non-voters don't do a lot else, either, except look for government handouts, which explains why they want socialism. Fortunately our system is at least a little bit self-selecting: decisions are made by people who care enough to vote. Encouraging everybody at large to "Vote!" seems possibly dangerous to me.
So they would have their precious socialism if only more people would vote. Wonderful. Sounds like wishful/magical thinking.
"5...4....3...2...1....."
Did you explode?
This is a stupid poll. There is a reason that people have to reach certain standards in order to vote. You have to be a citizen and you have to be of adult age capable of at least some reason.
"You have to be a citizen and you have to be of adult age capable of at least some reason."
Nope. You don't have to be capable of any reason at all to vote. Many of our politicians are proof of this.
"These are the people Bush wants to invite to America. "
Er, They are ALREADY HERE. This study was about the people already in California.
Of course the liberal group who did this unhelpfully didn't break down the voters into illegals, legal immigrants, and citizens. Had they done so, the implications wrt our immigration policy's impact on voting would be obvious.
a late night posting from Chamberlaintroll....
5...4....3...2...1.....
I don't understand your point, if there is one. Is there one?
I really think only property OWNERS should vote on bonds and tax hikes.
That will never happen so we just have to hope the REALLY ignorant parts of the population stay home and watch the Cartoon Channel on Election Day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.