This article was mentioned while was listening to the O'Franken Factor. The article (registration free, but required, sorry) discusses a specific demographic (single women) that seems to have been disenfranchised at levels higher than other categories.


If you accept the assumption that most single women vote democratic, this could have made a significant impact in the 2000 election (since less than 500 votes decided the last election).

Up until now, this particular cross-section of women wasn't really focused upon. If the numbers are to be believed (no reason not to at this point), the impact could be significant for 2004.



I found this article pretty intriguing. This brought a few questions to mind:

1) Given that apathy seems to be rampant in all demographics, are women (single in particular), being singled out unfairly for apathy?
2) If you are a Democrat, how would you recommend Kerry reach out to this demographic to get them involved/vote? If you're a Republican, same question for Bush.
3) Would greater participation by this demographic represent the x-factor that could ensure a Kerry win in 2004?

edit: Changed question 2 since it sort of begged the question of not voting to begin with. Changed 3 to suit more of a follow on to #2.

Doc

What is unfair if a bloc of voters CHOOSES not to vote? Who is oppressing them?

Until they decide that voting is important to them, their viewpoints on issues will go largely unnoticed. Frankly, they have no one to blame but themselves.



Ah, an interesting notion: reaching out to voters who are unlikely to vote for you (or anyone, for that matter). The American electoral system is set up to represent the interests of the voters. Not the interests of the citizens at large, but of that portion of citizens who choose to exercise their right to vote.

This group is not monolithic. That is, there is no one issue with which to appeal to them. That makes it a problem when trying to garner their votes. The hit or miss approach of appealing to each voter individually is too much for the modern campaign approach to handle.


Sure, IF it could be done. The problem is that of limited resources: How much time and effort (and more importantly, money) do you invest in a group of voters who have shown themselves to be apathetic? It would be a great source of votes, no doubt about that, but I think the root problem is that this demographic does not have a "core issue" which can be used to recruit them.

From Amlord

The article bears that logic out, to a degree, and I agree that you aren't going to hit a home run trying to pull in 21 million votes on 1 issue. I doubt any demographic qualifies in that regard. (both quotes below from the original article)

However, there is an approach that would seem to make sense:

Kerry arguably has a tougher angle to pursue here on the health care part, as I'm sure Bush will rest his laurels on the medicare reform act. But, as some of the debate on these forums has indicated, there are certainly chinks in that armor to exploit.

Either way I think there is a legitimate area of interest with with to appeal to the disenfranchised and gain their participation. The "core issue" or issues are there, the question is how to generate sufficient excitement (anger?) to get folks active and participating.

Doc

I would focus more on social programs. Perhaps institute a job training program(and actually fund it) that would re-trainj key people, in particular, newly divorced females who are of limited economic means and who have other pressing responsibilities such as children. I'd expand the child tax credit and put a price cap on prescription drugs in order to make medicine for chidlren more available. Just some food for thought. That, or slap a vicious tax on the pharmaceutical drug industry whic halready is the most wealthy industry in the country.

I feel single women are unfairly singled out for voter apathy. Considering the US population consists of more than 50% women and that US women have a longer life span than US men, it is understandable that the pollsters will make the claim that more women are not voting. I read/heard somewhere that the largest apathetic group were 18 to 25 year olds (men and women). I (as a single woman) have voted since I turned 18, but I have had contemporaries (other single women) who do not vote (not even register to vote). They didn't vote because they felt that their vote wouldn't make a difference.

The Republicans and Democrats, both, need to address what is best for all citizens, not just those that are the loudest and/or richest. For example, the current Congress passed new social security legislation, which added more benefits, but would not raise the eligibility age to 70(or higher - closer to average lifespan age) because seniors (over 60 years old) vote and they are a large portion of the population. The biggest reason, I think, for voter apathy is that the two majorities seem identical: spend too much of the tax money(earmarks), create loopholes in the law for "friends" or "major campaign contributors", speaches/interviews are full of rhetoric, have similar campaign pitches (methods may be different, but goals the same), and will vote along party lines (whether or not the bill will help their district). I would like to hear any politician who will demand that the Congress (along with the President) make the legislature more efficient and constituent friendly, which should start to make the rest of the government more efficient. The demand has to give specific strategies/methods, not general goals.

At this point, I don't think the Democrats are "guaranteed" the single woman vote. Both Kerry and Bush have been involved in "politics as usual" throughout their political careers and have created a lot of the problems (deficients, loopholes and confusions in the laws).