Voting rate by family income level

[All Along The Watchtower]

Here's the percentage of the VAP who voted, by family income.

All income levels (total): 58.0

Under $10k:39.1
$10k-$15k: 36.6
$15k-$20k: 40.9
$20k-$30k: 46.4
$30k-$40K:50.8
$40k-$50k:57.2
$50k-$75k: 63.7
$75k-$100k:70.0
$100k-$150k:73.1
$150k or more:76.9

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html (Table 7)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Then you wonder why politicians only care about the rich...

[they don't love you like i love you]

So I'm finally in an income bracket more likely to vote than not. Though on the lower end, so probably just below 50% for around me if you broke it down further...

[Tender Branson]

Which means, if the "silent minority" (those 90 Mio. or so poorer, Democratic-leaning folks) would also vote, Republicans would get fu**ed in Presidential elections.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Which means, if the "silent minority" (those 90 Mio. or so poorer, Democratic-leaning folks) would also vote, Republicans would get fu**ed in Presidential elections.

The issue is that they don't vote, and given their income level probably have good reason to be mad at the Democratic Party too. Perhaps if they formed a leftist alternative...(a man can dream, can't he? )

[Person Man]

I used to think it was because poor people are socially conservative and economically liberal. But according to Gallup, not many people are like that.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162746/fewer-americans-identify-economic-conservatives-2013.aspx

However, a lot of people are poor because they are convicted of serious crime. Many of them cannot vote but I think this would only explain about 5% of the total population. (or about 10% of the population where the laws target these people)

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

In an ideal world, this would be the opposite.  So unfortunate. 

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Perhaps if they formed a leftist alternative...

Maybe I should start one.

[greenforest32]

Automatic voter registration and a week or two of early voting would greatly improve these numbers: http://www.brennancenter.org/legislation/voter-empowerment-act-2013

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172385/election-reform-should-be-top-priority-new-congress

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Tender Branson]

Automatic voter registration and a week or two of early voting would greatly improve these numbers: http://www.brennancenter.org/legislation/voter-empowerment-act-2013

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172385/election-reform-should-be-top-priority-new-congress

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, this will go nowhere because of the Republican morons in Congress.

[greenforest32]

Automatic voter registration and a week or two of early voting would greatly improve these numbers: http://www.brennancenter.org/legislation/voter-empowerment-act-2013

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/172385/election-reform-should-be-top-priority-new-congress

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, this will go nowhere because of the Republican morons in Congress.

Yup and even if Democrats somehow won the House in 2014 in addition to holding the Senate, a Republican filibuster would ensure the bill never passes.

[Knives]

#Compulsory voting.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

In an ideal world, this would be the opposite.  So unfortunate. 

No, in an ideal world all people undependant of their income bracket would take an equal intrest in the country's governing.


Also don't be so sure that 99% turn-out would mean an automatic advantage for the left. The left in Australia doesn't have an advantage over the right, even though they have cumpulsary voting.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

No, in an ideal world all people undependant of their income bracket would take an equal intrest in the country's governing.

In an ideal world, people would be in an income bracket based on merit, not based on luck.

[greenforest32]

Also don't be so sure that 99% turn-out would mean an automatic advantage for the left. The left in Australia doesn't have an advantage over the right, even though they have cumpulsary voting.

It affects the policy in addition to elections. Republican rhetoric and policy proposals would be different if they had to contend with no gerrymandering, no filibuster, and voter turn-out of 65-70%+ (vs 52-58% with Democratic-leaning groups being effectively blocked with red-tape or even disenfranchised).

[Tender Branson]

In an ideal world, this would be the opposite.  So unfortunate.  

No, in an ideal world all people undependant of their income bracket would take an equal intrest in the country's governing.


Also don't be so sure that 99% turn-out would mean an automatic advantage for the left. The left in Australia doesn't have an advantage over the right, even though they have cumpulsary voting.

Maybe not in Australia, but very likely in the US.

Previous polls have shown that the "unregistered" adult population in the US would have voted by a 60-20 or so margin for Obama, almost doubling his lead if those people were coming out and voting. Which means Obama would have not won by 4 nationally, but more likely by 8 points. I think the poll was from Suffolk, who did the first poll of unregistered voters ever.

Also, all "adult" polls consistantly show the margin of a generic Democratic candidate higher than it is among Registered Voters or Likely Voters, which in turn also means there's a hidden silent voter pool that tends to lean strongly to the Democratic side.

[Tender Branson]

In an ideal world, this would be the opposite.  So unfortunate.  

No, in an ideal world all people undependant of their income bracket would take an equal intrest in the country's governing.


Also don't be so sure that 99% turn-out would mean an automatic advantage for the left. The left in Australia doesn't have an advantage over the right, even though they have cumpulsary voting.

Maybe not in Australia, but very likely in the US.

Previous polls have shown that the "unregistered" adult population in the US would have voted by a 60-20 or so margin for Obama, almost doubling his lead if those people were coming out and voting. Which means Obama would have not won by 4 nationally, but more likely by 8 points. I think the poll was from Suffolk, who did the first poll of unregistered voters ever.

Also, all "adult" polls consistantly show the margin of a generic Democratic candidate higher than it is among Registered Voters or Likely Voters, which in turn also means there's a hidden silent voter pool that tends to lean strongly to the Democratic side.

I have found the link to it:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=157410.msg3386381#msg3386381

Obama's margin actually would have increased by 10 points from 4 to 14 points, if all those "unlikely" voters actually voted by the margins found in the poll.

[Tender Branson]

Here's their full release:

Press Release: Obama Would Cruise to Victory if Non-Voters Participate

Nearly 40 percent of adult U.S. citizens will stay away from the polls this coming November, but if these Americans were to vote, President Barack Obama would coast to a second term in office, according to a Suffolk University-USA TODAY nationwide survey of unregistered and unlikely voters.

Obama was the choice of 43 percent of unregistered Americans, while 23 percent said they would choose a third-party candidate over Republican Mitt Romney (14 percent). The Democratic president also pulled 43 percent of registered voters who said they are less likely to cast a ballot, while 20 percent chose Romney, and 18 percent would prefer a third-party candidate, according to the poll.

Unique survey model

The survey is an unusual sampling of people whose voices otherwise would not be heard during the 2012 election cycle.

“This is a poll of the ‘Other America,’” said David Paleologos, director of the Suffolk University Political Research Center in Boston. “There is a huge block of Americans who are never asked their opinions because they are immediately screened out once they’ve indicated that they are not registered or unlikely to vote. It is the first poll taken this year that exclusively looks at this segment of the population.”

In 2008, the Democratic ticket of Obama and Joe Biden won about 70 million votes, while Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin secured about 60 million votes. Yet 80 million, or 38 percent, of eligible adults -- all of them U.S. citizens -- did not vote because they were either unregistered or were registered and chose not to go to the polls that day. It is estimated that the non-voter total will be even higher this November.

Why they don’t vote

Survey respondents acknowledged that politics does make a difference in their lives (58 percent), and a majority (64 percent) said they keep abreast of what’s going on in government most or some of the time – whether or not it’s an election season. However, 61 percent could not correctly name the current vice president, and 59 percent said the reason they don’t pay attention is that nothing ever gets done – that it’s a bunch of empty promises.

The reasons given for choosing not to vote varied, topped by “no time/busy” (26 percent) and “vote doesn’t count/matter” (12 percent) for those who aren’t registered. For registered voters who began the survey not intending to vote, 14 percent said they were “now thinking about it,” and 13 percent pointed out that they have the “right to vote or not to vote.”

On the whole, the respondents described themselves as moderate (34 percent), with liberals and conservatives falling fairly evenly on either side of the scale.

Less than a third (32 percent) said that the Democratic and Republican parties do a good job of representing Americans’ political views, while 53 percent said a third party or multiple parties are necessary.

Untapped votes for Obama

“This poll is a good-news bad news story for Barack Obama,” said Paleologos. “The good news is that there is a treasure chest of voters he doesn’t even have to persuade – they already like him and dislike Mitt Romney. He just needs to unlock the chest and get them out to vote. The bad news is that these people won’t vote because they feel beaten down by empty promises, a bad economy and the negativity of both parties. Obama has lost time – and the key – to open that treasure chest.”

While 52 percent saw the country as being on the wrong track, Obama was viewed favorably by 55 percent of those polled. Twenty-five percent viewed Romney favorably, compared to 51 percent who had an unfavorable opinion of him. The U.S. Congress had a 51 percent unfavorable rating.

Given a scenario where the respondent’s vote would swing a close national election, 85 percent of those who favor Obama said they would register and/or vote to clinch an election for him, while 70 percent of those who prefer Romney would do the same for the Republican candidate.

“Ironically, both the Obama and Romney campaigns want to tout likely-voter polls showing their respective candidates leading by wide margins,” said Paleologos. “But for these non-voters, this assertion has the opposite effect from what the campaigns want. If these people think you’re going to win anyway, that’s one more reason in a long list of reasons why they’ll stay home in November.”

Methodology

The nationwide survey of 800 U.S. adults was conducted July 30-Aug. 8, 2012, using live telephone interviews of landline and cell phone users. The margin of error is +/- 3.47 percent. Marginals and full cross-tabulation data will be posted on Wednesday, Aug. 15, on the Suffolk University Political Research Center website.

http://www2.suffolk.edu/offices/52955.html

[Person Man]

Maybe a more well funded version of Gary Johnson or a Left-Wing Religious Right alternative (a modern W J Bryan) would get some of these votes.