2000 Poll (download pdf)

Me dill
Medill New s Serv ice
Northwestern U ni v ersity
America's No-Shows
Nonvoters: Who They Are, Why They Don't Vote
and What It Could Take to Bring Them To the Polls
By Associate Professor Jack Doppelt and Professor Ellen Shearer
The Medill School of Journalism
Northwestern University
Medill News Service/The Medill School of Journali sm
1325 G St. NW, Suite 730
Washington , DC 20005
202-661-01 02
Background
The 2000 election turnout, at 51 percent, showed once again that nonvoting is a
chronic problem in American society. The slight upturn in turnout from 1996's record
low 49 percent does not significantly reverse the generally steady downward trend in
turnout since 1960's 63 percent.
Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism, through its Washington
program, Medill News Service, has studied nonvoting in America since 1996, when we
first polled 1,000 nonvoters prior to the election, through funding from the John D. and
Catherine T. MacAt1hur Foundation. Medill students then wrote a series of stories based
on the poll results that was sent to more than 50 daily newspapers and produced TV
stolies sent to more than a dozen stations. Eventually, a book, "Nonvoters: America's NoShows," expanded upon that research.
After Election Day 2000, we surveyed 1,053 nonvoters and 859 voters; in both
1996 and 2000 our polling was conducted by the Campaign Study Group. In April 200 I .
we convened 24 of the nonvoters for a series of focus group meetings in Washington; we
were aided by Lake, Snell, Peny & Associates. Funding for the 2000-2001 project was
provided by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Another selies of Medill News Service stories based on the 2000 poll was
distributed in March 2001 to more than 100 daily newspapers and a dozen TV stations
nationwide.
Medill's stories and the media attention generated by the two polls, from stories
on the Associated Press and Reuters wires to appearances on CNN, has changed the way
the news media, the public and officials view nonvoters. We have provided a fuller
understanding of who nonvoters are and why they choose not to pat1icipate on Election
Day. All of our research and stolies are available at yvoteonline.org.
The types of nonvoters we originally found in our 1996 survey, and the labels we
gave them-- Doers, Unpluggeds, Irritables, Don't Knows and Alienateds -- have become
part of the nonvoting lexicon. In 2000, we added Now-And-Then Voters- a subset of
nonvoters and voters from the 2000 election who haven ' t yet found a place as either
regular voters or chronic nonvoters.
2
Key Findings
The nonvoting phenomenon has become part of the fabric of American
democracy. Here are the key findings of our November 2000 survey and April 2001 focu s
group interviews:
•
One-third of the electorate are Now-And-Then Voters , with voting patterns
that range from "most of the time" to "very occasionally."
•
Among nonvoters, there are five distinct types, ranging from educated,
politically aware nonvoters, whom we called Doers, to Alienated nonvoters
who don't listen to politicians or political news and are cynical about the
entire political system.
•
Procedural baiTiers are real, but less imp01tant to the nonvoting phenomenon
than perceptions about political leaders.
•
Civic duty is a significant motivating factor for voters, but nonvoters are more
likely to view voting as a choice, not a duty.
•
Politicians are viewed as too packaged and too controlled by advisers and
consultants.
•
Citizens want politicians to engage more directly with them in venues that are
closer to their lives; they want more contact.
•
Political news is viewed as biased, not only ideologically but in terms of
representing the political establishment.
•
Politics and voting are often viewed as games that arc too complicated for the
average citizen.
•
Nonvoters don't believe in their political efficacy and, for many, the events in
Florida reinforced their belief that their votes don ' t count.
•
Parents and schools could do more to talk with young people more about
politics, public affairs and voting.
3
Nonvoting As a Chronic Condition in American Politics
After every election, there's a brief outcry about the lack of Election Day
participation by so many Americans. The high turnout point of 1960 is cited as "the good
old days" to which we should aspire.
But much in Ametica has changed since then; there have been huge demographic,
social and cultural changes. American politics has become more sophisticated, with
increasing use of public opinion polling and political consultants. But in doing so, it drew
away from the voting public.
The political changes that have helped alienate the nonvoting half of America
often revolve around the style of politicking- the new rush to stay "on message" with
advisers who "spin" the news media and candidates kept at a distance from citizens and
from the news media. Nonvoters easily see through the spin and the message; they can
identify the spinners and mouthpieces who not long ago cou ld be counted on to remain
behind the scenes. It is interesting to note that this perception ari ses after a long period in
which advisers and spokesmen have appeared more and more often on everything from
"Lan·y King Live" to the cable shout shows.
As a result, the advisers, speech writers and consultants hired to help candidates
are, in fact, hurting their image among citizens and turning people away from the political
process.
Nonvoters are less likely than voters to have been contacted by a political
campaign- that is a deliberate calculation by the campaigns, but one that again
demonstrates to nonvoters that the candidates are not sincere. The tactic exacerbates
nonvoters' alienation from the political process.
The downward trend in voter turnout shows the chronic problem that nonvoting
has become. But Medill's research has found that there are differences among nonvoters
and that a substantial subset are not chronic nonvoters but what we cal l Now-And-Then
Voters, who comprise one-third of the electorate.
By learning about those nonvoters for whom staying home on Election Day has
not yet become a chronic condi ti on, we may find ways to interest more nonvoters in
political news and information and, eventuall y, in voting. The research gives us new
4
information on nonvoters- differences among them as well as com monalities- as wel l as
offeting some insights on the puzzles that remain.
Differences Among the Electorate: Now-And -Then Voters
The existence of the Now-and-Then Voters' cohort- and particu larly its size, at
one-third of the electorate- was among the significant findin gs of the national poll
conducted for us in 2000 by the Campaign Study Group.
While other research had found evidence of such occasional voters, they were
generally assumed to be a smaller subset of the electorate. At one-third of all eligible
voters, the Now-And-Then Voters make an appealing, and more logical, target than
nonvoters for those trying to increase interest in political information and voting.
The attitudes and behaviors of the Now-and-Then Voters give indications for the
political establishment and news media on needed changes to get these sometime voters
to more often think it's wotth their while to tune in to poli tical news and follow up by
casting a ballot more often.
For instance, Now-and-Then-Voters are surprisingl y aware of and antagonistic
toward the role of advi sers and "spin doctors" in political campaigns. They consider such
consultants and aides yet another fi Iter between honest talk from candidates and citizens.
They also say the news medi a abet the advisers by featuring them so prominently in
coverage.
Now-and-Then Voters are better news consumers and more politically aware th an
chronic nonvoters. They are more likely than chronic nonvoters to beli eve their votes
would count if they voted, but often prefer to influence their communities more directly
through volunteering or other activities. They often are impelled to vote by civic duty, but
that duty wanes when they can't see clear differences between the candidates or find no
candidate appealing. They are more likely than either regular voters or nonvoters to th in k
the country needs a thi rd political party, emphasizing their view that their Election Day
choices aren' t distinct or different enough.
5
Now-And-Then Voters were more likely, in the focus group, to cite procedural
barriers or personal situations (a sick mother, for instance) as reasons that kept them from
the polls, but would follow up by saying their Jack of interest also was too high to make
them want to overcome those baniers, even though some had done so in other elections.
They often cite civic duty as a motivatin g factor, li ke voters, but then say the lack
of differences among candidates and belief that their vote won't affect the outcome of an
election dampen their sense of responsibility to vote.
Compared with chronic nonvoters, Now-And-Then Voters are more
knowledgeable about politics. In the focus group, they said they talked with their children
about politics because they believe that it 's important to instill civic responsibility in the
next generation.
Differences Among Nonvoters
Nonvoters are not all the same. The statement appears obvious, yet neither the
news media nor the political establishment has adequately examined the differences
among nonvoters and how those differences impact on strategies to engage nonvoting
Americans in the political process.
Our survey found the same five types of nonvoters that we'd first identified in our
1996 poll. Thei r labels, created by the graduate joumalism students who are the reporters
for Medill News Service, are Doers, Unpluggeds, lrTitables, Don't Knows and Alienatcds.
The Doers, the largest group, are much like voters in their news consumption,
education levels and political attitudes. Unpluggeds are not connected to their
communiti es or to politics; they see no connection between lives and politicians or public
policy. lrTitables are more educated and affluent, avid informati on consumers and cyni ca l
about the political process. Don't Knows don ' t follow the news or public affairs and
prefer to let others make political decisions. Alienateds don't follow political or public
affairs news, are less educated and affluent and have turned away from the political
process in disgust.
6
Doers, the group of nonvoters that seems the best target for those hoping to
increase voter tumout, likely includes a subset of the Now-And-Then Voters. They talk
like voters and act like voters. They're educated, affluent and follow what's going on.
They are involved in their communities and believe their votes would count if they chose
to vote. But they'd rather participate by contacting elected officials or getting involved in
civic activities.
Jason Caldwell , a young roofer from suburban Kansas City whom we interviewed
after the 1996 election, passed out bumper stickers and yard signs for his favorite
candidates. He follows his congressman 's voting record, but made a conscious choice not
to vote in the 1992 or '96 elections. He said, "I didn't like any of the candidates, and I'm
not going to vote for someone I don't believe in."
Dr. Robert Wolkow of New York of New York is another. He's voted twice in his
life and is offended by people who vote for the lesser of two evils. He'll never settle for
the lesser.
Young Nonvoters
When we surveyed nonvoters and voters in November 2000, we oversampled
young people because their voting participation is the lowest of all.
It was clear, both in the poll results and in the focus groups, that young people are
the least likely to see any connection between politics or public policy and their lives.
They do, however, like to engage in civic activities through volunteering, at rates almost
as high as voters, and they want to see some impact from their actions. They see voting as
neither a duty nor a choice that has impact.
7
Medill student Ellen Gedalius reported on the group least likely to voteGeneration Y.
"Twenty-year-old Robert Upton didn't think candidates in the last election spoke
to hi s generation. On Election Day, he stayed home.
"Adam Hardy, also 20, passed up his first chance to vote in a presidential e lec ti on
-he didn't have time.
"Matthew Sheahan, 26, realized too late he wasn't registered to vote.
" ... In addition to representing the nonvoting preference of their generation ,
Upton, Hardy and Sheahan reflect the variety of reasons young people don't vote. A slight
majority said they chose not to vote. But much more than older voters, 18- to 29-year-olds
also said something prevented them from voting."
Despite the way young people often are portrayed in the media, young people in
both the survey and the focus groups were Jess cynical about politicians, the news media
and voting than their elders, particularly older nonvoters. They also have somewhat better
opinions of Congress and the Supreme Court and are more li kely to volunteer in religious
or charitable organizations.
As the focus group report noted, "Younger nonvoters ... were more wi llin g to
give some politicians the benefit of the doubt. ... One participant described politicians as
'hard-working' and another said they try and often come in with good intentions, but get
d1iven by money and special interests."
Young nonvoters are more likely to cite a lack of interest in or connection to
politics. Unplugged nonvoters are disproportionately young and find it hard to see
themselves in the political debate. Their political heroes are unconventi onal politiciansJesse Ventura, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, but also Ronald Reagan and Colin Powell.
They want honesty and integrity above all.
They also want the candidates to talk about their issues- college loans, not just
school vouchers or standards when the topic is education. And they want the candidates
to act genuine, participate in their world and look more like them, less like "suits and
ties."
They say political participation needs to be "more cool."
8
Voting As Choice, Not Duty
More nonvoters said they chose not to vote than said something prevented them
from getting to the polls, which indicates that lowering procedural batTiers is not the
answer in itself. After not being registered, the top reason for not voting was di sl ike of the
candidates.
When asked what elected officials could do to encourage them to vote, nearly onethird had no answer and another 12 percent said nothing could be done. When given a li st
of election ref01ms from which to choose, they cited same-day registration as the most
likely to move them to vote. But because a majority supported each of the reforms, the
supp01t didn't appear compelling; rather, nonvoters saw no reason to oppose them.
In addition, we found that civic duty is a significant motivator in getting regular
voters to the polls, while nonvoters think of voting more as a choice than a duty.
Medii! student Kari Neumeyer reported in the seties of Medii! News Service
stories based on the poll that were released in March 2001:
"Neither of the two major presidential candidates last fall appealed to Damon
Gross of Waterloo, Iowa, but rather than neglect his civic duty by not showi ng up at the
polls, he voted for Ralph Nader.
'"It's really a privilege to live in a democracy,' said Gross, 53. ' It 's my duty to
exercise that privilege.'
In the Medi II survey, 1,053 nonvoters and 859 voters were asked about their
voting behavior. The largest percentage of the voters- 35 percent - named civic duty as
their main reason for voting. That sense of civic obligation increased with age. Only 23
percent of voters between 18 and 24 cited civic duty, whereas 48 percent of respondents
over 65 did .
This suggests the need for a substi tute for civic duty.
In the focus groups we convened , non voters' comments showed that large changes
in the behavior of our political leaders, the news media and in our cu lture are needed to
lessen the skepticism, distrust and lack of interest exhibited by the nonvoters. It also was
9
clear from their discussions that the political system does not offer inspiration or
incentives to make nonvoters feel, like voters, that voting is either a civic duty or a
worthwhile choice. Now-and-Then Voters, however, were more likely to feel a sense of
civic duty in some elections. And young nonvoters, while less connected to the politi cal
system, were less skeptical of it than older nonvoters.
The Modern Definition of Civic Duty
"Voting is a civic sacrament," said the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, president
emeritus of Notre Dame University, in a Reader' s Digest article a decade and a half ago.
Indeed, as noted above, the idea of voting as civic duty resonates with many
voters. But nonvoters have a different definition of voting.
"It's not a civic duty," argued a nonvoter in the focus group. "It's an option they
give you. \Y/e still have a free choice."
Only 14 percent of respondents in the 2000 post-election survey conducted by the
Campaign Study Group for Medill said they based their decisions to vote on either the
candidates or the issues at stake. In addition to citing civic duty explici tly, another 31
percent of voters gave answers similar to civic duty such as a desire to exercise their
rights as Americans and to have their voices heard .
Among those surveyed who didn't vote in 2000, 24 percent said they weren't
registered. But another 22 percent cited lack of interest or knowledge in politics or the
candidates and another 4 percent said their vote wouldn't have made a difference.
In addition, 58 percent of nonvoters said their nonvoting behavior was a conscious
choice - they chose not to vote.
Now-And-Then Voters in our focus groups who didn't cast ballots on Nov. 7,
2000, often cited civic duty or having a voice/representation as reasons to vote. Many said
work conflicts or personal crises prevented them from going to the polls; but they also
said they were unenthusiasti c about the two major candidates, saying thei r differences
weren't significant and neither had much appeal.
lO
If they'd had more of an appetite for the Election Day choices, their belief in
voting as civic duty likely would have outweighed the extra effort to overcome logist ical
difficulties.
If more Americans are to become interested in politics and motivated enough to
vote, it 's important to find new incentives that would make Now-And-Then Voters or
such nonvoters as Doers interested in political news and voting.
Such incentives could include, according to the focus groups, allowing citizens to
register and vote on the same day, weekend voting or, as The National Commission on
Federal Election Ref01m suggested in July 2001, creating a national holiday.
They also could include making it easier to vote, finding candidates that voters
would say are "more like me," or making the voters ' stakes in the outcome more clear.
And for nonvoters who were afraid of not knowing how to use voting equipment, more
information made easily accessible could ease their trepidation.
Poll respondents cited same-day registration as the most popular from among a
list of options we offered, but what's more imp01tant is that they also said they don't
really have a good recommendation to give to government officials on a way to get them
to the polls. Procedural reforms, it's clear, are attractive more in the "couldn't hurt"
category than as "must have" motivators.
Finally, it was clear from both the survey and the focus groups that parents and
schools could play pivotal roles. Adults whose parents talked to them about voting and
those who remember strong civics education in school are more likely to vote or feel a
duty to vote.
1I
Election Reforms
When confronted with solutions to increase voter turnout, nonvoters liked sameday registration more than the other suggestions; second-place went to holding elections
over two or three days, followed by voting my mail, Internet voting and weekend voting.
But nonvoters generally favored all of the solutions, which makes the idea that any one
had deep support unlikely.
And the survey once again showed that procedural barriers are not the main
reason people stay home on Election Day. Nearly six in 10 nonvoters chose not to vote,
while only four in 10 said they were prevented from voting. And when asked directly
what the government could do to get them to vote, 31 percent had no answer and 12
percent said nothing would change their minds.
In addition, as the poll report provided by the Campaign Study Group , notes:
"Voters express a significantly higher sense of self-efficacy than do nonvoters. Put
simply, voters exercise their tight because they think they can personally make a
difference; nonvoters do not exercise their right in part because they are much less likely
to feel that their vote really matters."
This attitude combined with negative or indifferent views of politicians reinforces
the idea that procedural refotms alone aren't the answer.
And any one answer will only reach a segment of the nonvoting population
because of the quite different attitudes of the five clusters we found.
In the focus groups, participants liked the idea of voting by mail and, based on
comments participants made, few realized that absentee voting or voting by mail is an option
in many locales. Similarly, several participants mentioned that registering to vote should be
available at the Deparu11ent of l\•[otor Vehicles. Given that people
mn
register at the D MV,
election officials need to do a better job of informing people about this option. In fact, focus
group members generally believe there's not enough information widely publicized about the
rules and procedures of registering and voting.
12
Candidates
Nonvoters as well as Now-And-Then Voters see politicians as almost a separate
class, who say what they think voters want to hear in language that's not straightforward
and whose sole mission is winning.
Across groups, participants in our 2001 focus groups mentioned that candidates
spend a lot of time putting one another down. Our focus group report noted that one
nonvoter gave a particular example: "I know in St. Louis they had candidates on
television and you would have one candidate in a 30-minute period come on and he
would say as much negative stuff as he could say about hi s opposing candidate and then
the next 30 minutes this other candidate would be on talking about the issues that the
other guy did and none of it was positive. I mean it was di11-digging stuff. That to me is
like a turn-off. Who are you going to vote for?" A young nonvoter said, simply, "I think
they should spend less time bashing the other person and more time ... tel ling how it is,
what their views are, and how they are going to ... change the country."
In the focus groups, the role of candidates' advisers particularly was cri ticized as
intrusive and manipulative. Celinda Lake of Lake, Snell, Peny and Associates, which ran
the focus group sessions, said the pa11icipants' animosity toward advisers more vehement
than she'd seen before. This is a significant finding because it shows that the public,
particularly the nonvoting public, sees such political players as hurting the political
process. Candidates' reliance on them, therefore, further alienates them from the
electorate.
And more from the focu s group report:
Politicians arc "like a package," or a "super package," according to rwo female
nonvoters. "You feel like you're just hearing that script over and over and you know it's not
coming from them, it's coming from their script writer and so it turns a lot of people off."
The biggest turn-off about politics, one man said, is " homogenized candidates. They're a
selected package." \\/hen asked whether they would listen to a candidate, one woman asked,
"Could you make that conditional and say you can't ha\'e anybody like consultants with you?
It will be you and I locked in the room."
I]
One nonvoter explained in more detail why politicians' reliance on speechwriters
makes her distrust politicians:
"I think they all have an agenda. I don't have a speechwriter and I'm going
to say to you what's really on my mind. I would never trust someone to say, 'OK,
Kim, now you're going to say this and you're going to say this and that's going to
make this group of people feel good and it's going to make this group of people
feel good.' If these guys were really shooting from the hip and were really saying
what is on their mind, why would they need someone to write a speech for them?
These are people that are trying to craft words, to plant an idea, to create an image
for you. So you know that there is so much behind the scenes stuff it can't be a
hundred percent genuine."
A young nonvoter made a similar point:
"They have a staff that writes their things for them and it starts to get
carbon copied. It's all been wlitten out- this is what you are going to talk about,
this is how long you are going to talk about it. It doesn't come off naturally [and]
that kind of makes it hard to understand."
Our survey found that voters were significantly more likely than nonvoters
to have been contacted by a candidate or a campaign. Finding ways to increase
such contacts for nonvoters could increase turnout. Nonvoters also urge candidates
to "come to my house," a way of indicating they'd like to hear from candidates in
natural, more relaxed settings where citizens could see them as people rather than
"suits and ties."
Our poll and focus groups also found that nonvoters don't think politicians
listen to them.
"I want to feel as if they listened to what I have to say; they've taken my concerns
and interests into consideration and they can react upon it. It's not this guy telling me this
is how it's going to be. I want him to react to my community as well," said a male focus
group member. A Now-And-Then Voter said something similar: "It would be nice if they
could just sit down, and be themselves, and they'd be more relaxed and more open to
suggestions from the people."
14
For young nonvoters, politicians could show they were interested in listening to
young adults and could relate to young people better by dressing more casually and
appearing in forums where young adults could ask questions. Younger nonvoters, in
particular, do not like candidates who have gotten into politics because of family
connections or a rich family background- they want candidates who have worked and
lived more average lives.
News Media
At least two of the five clusters of nonvoters- the Doers and the Initables- are
news consumers. Overall, however, nonvoters are only half as likely as voters to say they
follow what's going on in government and public affairs most of the time, according to
our survey.
Nonvoters view newspapers favorably by 68 percent, about the same as voters.
However, nonvoters are more likely, the survey showed, than voters to view TV news
favorably.
In the focus groups, however, criticism of the news media was significant and, in
some ways, min·ored the complaints about elected officials, showing that the nonvoters
often considered the news media to be on the side of the political establishment rather
than on the side of citizens.
'There is such a symbiotic relationship between politicians and the media. The
media and the politicians ... feed off one another," said one Now-And-Then focus group
member. "So where does that leave us?"
Focus group members cited two types of media bias: ideological bias that slants
coverage toward a favored candidate and bias of omission in what stories are left out.
"If you're watching the debate, for instance, you can watch the whole thing, get
the fabric of what's being said and the context," said another Now-And-Then focus group
member. "But a newspaper can watch the exact same thing and give you the juicy parts
and deliver it in such a way that's favorable or unfavorable, based on the writer's
perception."
15
Several focus group members urged more straight coverage- just the facts and
less analysis or interpretation. And definitely less opinion, possibly an attitude resu lting
from the proliferation of journalists acting as pundits on TV talk shows.
Finally, the focus group members asked the news media for help: Nonvoters said
they can't easily find basic information on what to do on Election Day. They'd like the
media to show them how the voting machines operate, what steps to follow once they
enter a polling place, where the polling places are and other "how-to" information on the
rules of voting. They'd also like repeated opportunities to get concise statements on the
candidates' positions on issues.
Conclusions
From these findings, the following points emerge:
•
Nonvoters and Now-And-Then Voters see modern civic duty as making
choices, not facing obligations. New incentives are needed to give a variety of
inspirations to nonvoters because for them voting is a difficult action to take.
It's difficult because they see little difference among candidates, find
information hard to decipher and feel the issues are presented in ways that
don't make clear the connections to them.
•
The impmtance of political participation is not emphasized in ways that reach
nonvoters except in the weeks leading up to an election, leaving nonvoters to
feel that participation is valued only as a self-serving commodity to put
candidates over the top.
•
Politicians are viewed as too packaged, willing to say whatever their advisers
tell them to say and unwilling to listen to citizens in a setting that 's not staged.
Even when poli ticians are offering substantive, positive messages, nonvoters
receive the information through a prism of skepticism that wi II take repeated
efforts to penetrate.
•
Related to the above point, campaign advisers and consultants should step out
of the limelight and keep the candidates in the forefront as the voices of their
campaigns.
16
•
Politicians need to find ways to engage directly with citizens, through debates
and other venues that are closer to where Americans live and work. They need
to find ways to communicate that are closer to the way everyday conversations
sound and, especially imp011ant to young people, dress less like "suits and
ties." As part of this effort, they need to find ways to let citizens talk to them
more directly and to listen and respond to what those citizens have to say.
•
Political news is viewed as biased, not only ideologically but in terms of
simply regurgitating the spin put forth by pollsters, advisers and the candidates
themselves. Nonvoters want straight information from sources and, from the
news media, less analysis. They believe they need to get multiple sources of
news to ensure that they've got a complete picture. They also want more
political infmmation that explains the rules of the game, including operation
of voting machines so they can feel confident when they go into a polling
place. Young nonvoters also want political news presented to include their
views and their issues, which they believe are absent from most news reports.
•
Nonvoters don't believe in their political efficacy and, for many, the events in
Florida reinforced their belief that their votes don't count. They want to know
more about what to do on Election Day- how to vote, where to vote. Ref01ms
to lower ban·iers to voting- same-day registration, voting over several dayscould help offset any lack of a sense of civic duty. They also believe that
schools could better prepare voters and that parents should play a more active
role in discussing politics and government with their children.
Finally, Now-and-Then Voters and the nonvoters we call Doers act a lot like
voters; by understanding the differences between them and voters, however, we can find
motivators to get these two groups- the more likely ones-- to move into the voting
electorate. Understanding the attitudes of young nonvoters also offers clues to changing
their disconnect with political participation.
A number of organizations and individuals are working on election refmms. The
National Commission on Federal Election Reform, for instance, recommended in July
2001 creating a national Election Day on Veterans Day, holding to the belief that civic
17
duty is a major factor in voting. However, our research indicates that voters already are
voting out of civic duty; whether the nonvoters who view voting as a matter more of
choice than civic duty will choose to use a national holiday to vote when they are
otherwise disconnected from the political process is a hopeful proposition at best.
Moreover, our research also shows that procedural refotms are Jess important than
changes in the nature of our political system, the candidates and institutions, such as the
news media, that impact them.
18
Highlights of No-Show Survey Results
By
The Campaign Study Group
For months prior to Election Day it was clear that the 2000 elections were shaping
up to be among the closest in history, and they certainly exceeded all expectations in that
I
regard. The presidential contest remained undecided for 36 days after the ballots were
cast. Voters across the country produced a Senate with 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans.
While Republicans can claim control of the House, their hold on power in that chamber is
r
so tenuous as to be nearly unworkable.
Yet, despite the readily apparent closeness of the election, nearly half of all
eligible voters failed to exercise their most basic right in a democracy-the right to vote.
For 48 percent of the adult population, voting was reduced to a spectator sport.
For the second time in the past five years, the Mcdill School of Journali sm set out
to explore this phenomenon . Working with the Campaign Study Group, 859 people who
said they voted and 1,053 individuals who said they failed to vote on November 7 were
interviewed at length in the weeks following the election about their reasons for voting or
not voting, their political beliefs, their knowledge about issue positions taken by the
candidates during the campaign, their news consumption habits, and their demographi c
I
backgrounds.
We discovered that while voters and nonvoters behave differently on Election Day
they share many of the same attitudes conceming politics and social institutions. This
r
research also largely confirmed the basic findings of our initial foray into the world of
nonvoting prior to the 1996 elections, revealing five di stinct groups of nonvoters who
view government, the political parties, politicians and the news very differently.
Examined as a group, nonvoters conform in many ways to the conventional wisdom:
•
Compared with voters, nonvoters arc disproportionately young. While 17 percent
of voters have not yet celebrated their thirtieth birthday, 27 percent of all
nonvoters are between the ages of 18 and 29.
19
I
I
I
•
Nonvoters are significantly less educated than voters. Just 3 percent of voters
report having less than a high school education, while 16 percent of nonvoters do
so. Conversely, only 20 percent of nonvoters say they have graduated from
college, while the comparable figure for voters is 45 percent.
•
Compared with voters, nonvoters have significantly lower annual household
incomes. Twenty-three percent of all nonvoters report annual household incomes
of $50,000 or more. Among voters, 40 percent report incomes that high . Thirtyfive percent of nonvoters have household incomes below $30,000, while the
comparable figure among voters is just 25 percent.
•
Nonvoters are less likely than voters to identify with either the Republican or
Democratic parties. F01ty percent of nonvoters identify themse lves as political
independents, while only 27 percent of voters do so.
However, these overall group attributes obscure nearly as much as they reveal about
what motivates some people to vote and others to stay at home.
•
Perhaps most impo1tant for those seeking to boost electoral pmticipation, the
survey strongly suggests that nonvoting is not necessarily a chronic disease.
Among those who did not vote in this past presidential election, 34 percent say
they frequently vote and only 25 percent admit to never voting. Among those
who voted this time, 35 percent say they sometimes fail to vote, including 7
percent who describe themselves as voting only now and then or hardly ever.
In sh01t, the key to increasi ng voter turnout may li e more in motivating these
occasional voters-roughly one-third of all eligible voters-to become regular
voters rather than in motivating the chronic nonvoters.
•
Neither voters nor nonvoters seem overly motivated by either the candidates
or their stands on the issues. When asked to name their chief reason for
turning out on Election Day, most voters give answers such as civi c duty, a
desire to exercise their rights, the general desire to have a voice in the
outcome, and mere habit. Just 11 percent of all voters cite th eir like or dislike
of the candidates as the prime moti vation. Among nonvoters, the top reason
given for failing to vote is not being registered. While 13 percent cite their
I
20
I
I
dislike of the candidates, 8 percent blame their inability to get off work, 7
percent cite unplanned travel, and 5 percent say they have no interest in
politics.
•
Nonvoters are no more pessimistic than voters about the current direction of
the country. When asked whether they feel that "things in the country are
generally headed in the right direction" or that the country has "pretty
seiiously gotten off on the wrong track," 48 percent of nonvoters and 46
percent of voters express the more pessimistic view.
•
When voters and nonvoters are asked to name the most important problems
facing the country, their lists look vittually identical. Four of the five issues
defined by voters as "the most imp01tant problem facing the country today"
also make the top five list of concerns among nonvoters-a lack of ethics and
values in American society, infighting within the govemment, concems about
the health of the economy, and crime.
•
Voters and nonvoters proved to be equal ly optimistic about their short-term
economic futures-a driving force behind most political campaigns. Sixtyeight percent of nonvoters and 71 percent of voters feel that their family's
financia l situation will improve during the next year.
•
Nonvoters' candidate preferences closely resemble those of voters. When
nonvoters are asked whom they wou ld have voted for, 37 percent picked
George W. Bush, 37 percent opted for AI Gore, 5 percent said Ralph Nader
and 2 percent indicated Patrick Buchanan.
If nonvoters look like voters in many ways, one might think they cou ld be
attracted to the polls by various procedural changes to lower real or perceived barriers
to voting.
Nonvoters certainly claim that is the case, although they recogni ze that some
suggested soluti ons are better than others:
•
Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of all nonvoters say that all owing people to regi ster
and vote on the same day would make them more likely to vote.
21
•
Fifty-seven percent indicate th at holding elections over two or three days instead
of one day would increase the likel ihood of their vot ing.
•
I
I
Forty-two percent say that allowing everyone to vote by mail woul d make them
more likely to vote.
•
Just over four out of ten (41 percent) non voters say they would be more li ke ly to
vote if people were allowed to vote over the Internet.
•
The idea that garnered the least support was weekend voti ng, which 37 percent
say would make them more likely to vote.
However, since 58 percent of all nonvoters say they chose not to vote while 40
I
I
I
I
percent say that something prevented them from voting, procedural changes may not have
the impact suggested by these responses. That concem is amplifi ed by the fact that when
asked what they would do to help remedy their reason for not vot in g if they were in
govemment, 31 percent responded th at they did not know and another 12 percent said that
nothing could be done. Only 21 percent cited procedural changes.
Moreover, nonvoters are not a monolithic group. Using cluster analysis, a statistical
technique for classifying respondents into the most homogeneous, mutually exclusive
groups possible, we have identified five types of nonvoters-precisely the same number
of clusters we found when we interviewed "likely non voters" four months prior to the
I
I
1996 election. While the demographic make-up of the clusters is somewhat different than
in 1996, the size of the clusters and the attitudinal and beh avioral make-up of each cluster
is nearly identical.
•
Nearly three out of ten (29%) nonvoters can be described as "Doers." They are
relatively avid news consumers who follow politics and public affairs
f
regu larly. They are extremely upbeat about the state of the Union and tend to
be more positive than other nonvoters about a wide variety of governmental
and social instituti ons. Doers tend to be more in volved than members of the
other nonvoter clusters in their communities. Five percent of the Doers say
they volunteered on a politi cal campaign last year and still fai led to vote.
•
One-quarter of all nonvoters can be described as the Unplugged. Compared
with the other four clusters of nonvoters, the Unplugged are disproportionately
22
young-59 percent are under the age of 30, including 41 percent who are
between the ages of 18 and 24. These are among the most information
I
I
I
deprived of all nonvoters. While 40 percent of the Doers say they read a
newspaper six or seven days a week, only 7 percent of the Unplugged say they
read a newspaper that often. The Unplugged also watch tel evision news less
than any other group of nonvoters. Not surpri singly, the Unplugged tend not to
follow politics, rarely di scuss public policy \Vith family or friends and say they
paid little attention to the 2000 campaign.
•
I
I
Fourteen percent are what we call the "Initables." Compared with other
groups of nonvoters, liTitables are disproportionately older. They tend to
follow politics and public affairs fairly closely, with 42 percent saying that
they follow developments in this arena most of the time. One-qum1er of this
group say they read a newspaper six or seven days a week-a signi ficantly
higher level of dail y readership than either the Don't Knows or the
Unplugged. Sixty-four percent of the Irritables say they watch a tel evision
news broadcast at least six days a week. Half of the members of this cluster
say they followed campai gn stories at least fairly closely. IITitab les see little
difference between the political parties and they are much more likely than
Doers to feel that it makes no difference who is elected.
•
Twelve percent of the likely non voters can be classified as "Don' t Knows."
They have little or no interest in politics, have little interest in the news, an d
I
I
profess little knowledge about the candidates or the institutions that govern
their lives. Don't Knows are generally pessimistic about their elected officia ls
and a wide variety of social institutions. In general, they are also more likely
than members of other nonvoter blocks to express no opinion about the
vari ous institutions.
I
I
•
Twenty percent of nonvoters can be desc1ibed as "Ali enated." As the cl uster
name would imply, 63 percent of the Alienated fee l that the country has gotten
off on the wrong track-29 percentage points higher than among the Doers.
Alienated voters al so take a dim view of politicians, political instituti ons, and
23
I
a number of social institutions, as well. For instance, 39 percent of the
Alienated have an unfavorable opinion about the Supreme Court, while the
I
I
I
comparable figure among Doers is 11 percent. Among all nonvoters, the
Alienated are the most likely to express unfavorable opinions about their local
school boards, their local city councils and even religious institutions.
The fact that these five groups of nonvoters exist makes it highly unlikely that any
single outreach program can significantly impact turnout.
24
Topline Results - Nonvoters
1. Some people seem to fo l low what's going on in government and public
a f fairs most of the time, whe ther there's an elec tion or not. Others
aren't that interested. Would you say you fo l l ow what's going on in
government and public affairs most of the time, some of the ti me, on ly
now and then, or hard l y at all?
34%
33%
18%
Most of the time
Some of the time
Onl y n ow and then
14%
**
Hardly at all
Don't Know/No Answer
2 . Did you vote i n t h e presidential and congressional elections that
were held (yesterday/this week/last week/earlier this month), did
something p reve nt you from voting, or did you choose n o t to vote?
0%
Yes, Voted
58%
Chose no t t o
vote
40%
Something preven ted me from voting
2%
Do n't
Know/No Answer
IF VOTED IN Q2, ASK :
2a. Wha t wo ul d you say is the ma i n r eason you chose to vote? PROBE
FOR SPECIFICS
99 DON'T KNOW/NO ANSWER
IF VOTED IN Q2, SKIP TO Q3
IF DID NOT VOTE (OPTIONS 2 & 3) IN Q2, ASK:
2b. If you had voted , would you have voted for AI Gore, George W. Bush, Ralph
Nader or Patri ck
Buchanan ?
37% AI Gore
37 % George W Bush
5 % Ralph Nader
2 % Patrick Buchanan
20 % Don' t Know/No Answer
25
2c . What was it that kept you from voting? DO NOT READ LIST.
Reason
Not Registered
Didn't Like The Candidates
Working
Illness
No Particular Reason
Travelling, Out Of Town
Not Interested In Politics
Vote Wouldn't Have Made A
Difference
Didn't Know Enough About The
Can di dates
No Way To Get To The Polls
Didn't Have The Time/Busy
Felon/Incarcerated
Emergency
Just Chose Not To
Undecided
Religious Reasons
Other
Don't Know/No Answer
%
24
13
8
8
7
7
5
4
4
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
IF RESPONDENT ANSWERS "NOT REGISTERED IN Q2c, ASK Q2d.
ALL OTHERS
SKIP TO Q2e.
IF 'NOT REGISTERED' IN Q2c, ASK:
2d. What would you say is the main reason you're not registered to
vote? (DO NOT READ LIST)
27% Have recently moved
15% Don't care much about politics
8% Work during voter registration hours
6% Don't know how to regis t er
6% Place where have to go to register is
inconvenient/too far from home
5% Registered to vote at a previous address
5% Don't want to get my name on the list f or
jury duty
Did not h ave time
3%
4% Just never been registered
2% Registered too late to vote
2% Need better candidates
2% Laziness
1% Forgot
1% Not old enough
1% Doesn't matter, candidates do what they want
4% Other
ll% No Answer
26
ASK OF ALL NON-VOTERS
2e. If you were in government, what would you do to help remedy your reason
for not voting?
31%
9%
8%
7%
5%
3%
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
Don't Know
None/nothing
Make voting/registration easier
Have more/better candidates
Be honest
Change the system
No reason
More accessible polling places
Extend the voting hours
Keep people more informed
Have Internet voting
Pay more attention to college/high school students
Clean up the government
Hold elections over 2-3 days
ASK ONLY OF THOSE WHO SAID THEY CHOSE NOT TO VOTE IN Q2
2f. Please tell me whether you agree strongly, agree somewhat, disagree
somewh at, or disagree strongly with the followin g statement. My choice not to
vote should be interpreted to mean that I'm basically satisfied with the way the
country is going so I don ' t really need to vote-would you say you agree strongly,
agree somewhat, di sagree somewhat, or di sagree strongly with that statement.
r
I
r
38 % Disagree Strongly
4 % Don' t
11% Agree Strongly
23% Agree Somewhat
Know/No Answer
24% Disagree Somewhat
ASK OF ALL THOSE WHO DID NOT VOTE IN Q2:
2g. I'd like to get your opinion about several proposals for changing the way we
vote in this
country.
First, (READ PROPOSAL)-would that make you more likely
to vote, less likely to
vote, or wouldn't it make a dif fe rence one way or the other?
More
Less
Don't
No
Know/
Likely
Likely
Difference
No Answer
i.
holding elections on the we ekend
allowing people to vote over
the In ternet
41%
i i.
32%
37 %
8%
2%
53%
19%
8%
27
iii.
29%
iv.
allowing everyone to vote by mail
5%
42%
allowing people to register and vote
on the same day
21%
4%
64%
11%
holding the elections over two or
three days instead of 1 day
25%
3%
57%
15%
v.
24%
ASK EVERYONE
3 . Do you feel things in this country are generally going in the righ t
direction today, or do you feel things have pretty seriously gotten off
on the wrong track?
44%
48%
Right direction
Wrong track
9%
No Answer
4. What do you think is the most important problem facing this country
today? (DO NOT READ LIST)
Problem
%
Government/Congress
Economic Issues
Cri me /Vio l e nce
Ethics/Values
Home lessness/Poverty
Education
Healthcare/Health Insurance
Social Security/Other Elderly
Issues
Foreig_n Policy
Family_ Breakdown
Drugs
Race Relations
Immigration
Ab01tion
Environment
Individual Ri ghts
Other
Don't Know/No Answer
13
13
9
9
8
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
11
5.
How confident are y ou that this issue will be dealt with
successfully in the n ext few years-are you very confident, some what
confident, not too confident, or not confident at all?
5%
Very Confident
32%
Not Confident at
11%
Don't kno v; /No
a ll
22%
Somewhat Confident
30%
Not too confident
ansv;er
28
6. Thinking about the Democ rat i c and Republican parties, would you say
there is a great deal of difference in what they stand for, a fa ir
amount of differ e nce, o r hardly a ny difference a t all?
25%
Great deal of difference
28%
difference
40% Fair amount of difference
Hardly any
7% Don't know/No
Answer
7. Thinking about the stands on issue s they took during the camp ai g n ,
which candidate supported a ban on the procedure that some people call
partia l-birth abortion-George w. Bush or Al Gore?
37% George W Bush
Answer
20% Al Gore
43 %
Don't Know/No
8. And which candidate s upported a three-day waiting p e ri od for
background checks of gun buyers at gun shows-Bush or Gore?
16% George W Bush
An s wer
44% Al Gore
40%
Don't Know/No
9. Which candidate proposed giving parents a $10,000 tax credit for
co ll ege tuition-Bush or Gore?
21% George W Bush
Answer
37 % Al Gore
42%
Don ' t Know/No
10. And which candidate supported al l owing oil companies to drill in
Alaska's Arctic Natio nal Wi ldlif e Refug e- Bush or Gore?
45% George W Bush
Ans wer
9 % Al Gore
46%
Don't Know / No
11. I' m going to read you a series o f sta t ements, and for each one I'd
like you t o te ll me whether you c omp letely agr ee with it, mostly agree
with i t, mos tly disagree with it, or comp l etely disagree with it. The
first one is ... (READ EACH STATEMENT) Would you say you complet ely
agree, mos tly a gree, mostly disagree, or completely disagree wi t h that
sta t ement?
Completely Mostly Mostly
Agree
Agree Disagree
Completely
Disagree
No Answer
a . Most elected of fi cia l s don't care what people l i ke me t hink.
9%
28%
36%
24%
3%
b. The federal government often does a better job than peop le give it credit for.
13%
42 %
25%
12%
7%
c. Success in lif e i s pret ty much determined by forces outside our
contr ol .
14%
23%
29%
27%
7%
29
d. As Americans, we can always find a way to solve our problems and get
what we wan t.
22%
40%
22%
11%
4%
e. It makes no real difference who is elected - things go on just as
they did be f ore .
20%
29%
26%
21%
4%
f . The federal government should run on ly those things that can not by
run at the local level.
34%
33%
18%
7%
8%
g. I'm pretty interested in following local politics.
18%
33%
29%
17%
4%
h. Most issues discussed i n Washington don't affect me personally.
15%
23%
33%
26%
4%
i . Government shoul d play an active role in improving healthcare,
housing and education fo r middle-income families .
52%
25%
12%
6%
6%
j . I'm only one person, so my vote really doesn't make a difference.
14%
14%
24%
44%
4%
k. Voting in e l ections has little to do with the way that real decisions
are made in our country.
25%
24%
26%
18%
6%
12. Now I'd like to ask y our opinion of some groups and organizations.
Very
Favorabl
e
a . The Republican
Party
Mostly
Favorabl
e
Mostly
Unfavorab
le
Very
Unfavo rab
le
No Answer
37%
23%
12%
15%
13%
b. The Democratic
Party
16%
38%
23%
10%
14%
c. The Congress
12%
43%
19%
5%
22 %
d. Labor Union s
18%
34%
22%
9%
18%
e . The Supreme Court
20%
46%
13%
5%
f. Television news
18%
41%
2 3%
11%
g . The daily
ne\oJspaper you
are most
familiar with
21%
47%
14%
6%
11%
h. Your local school
board
1 7%
34%
14%
7%
27%
i. Your city or
coun ty council
14%
38%
17%
7%
25%
j . The religion or
relig i ou s
institution you
are most
familiar \oJi th
37%
36%
3%
15%
8%
17%
8%
:10
13. Generally speaking, how many days each week do you read a
newspaper?
28%
Six or seven t ime s a week
14%
Once a week
16%
Four or five times a week
12%
Les s than
once a week
26% Two or three times a week
3 % Don 't Know/No
Answer
1 4. Generally, how many evenings each week do you watch a TV news
program?
46%
Six or seven times a week
18%
Four or five times a week
18%
Two or three times a week
6%
10%
once a week
2%
Know/No Answer
Once a week
Less than
Don't
15. Over the past few months how close ly would you say you read or
followed stories about the presidentia l and congressional campai gns- would you say you read or fo l lowed those kinds o f stories very close ly,
f airly closely, not too closely, or not close l y at all?
17%
Very Closely
19%
35 % Fairly closely
27%
Not closely a t all
2% Don't Know/No Answer
Not too closely
16. Over the p ast few months were you persona l ly contacted by a
political candidate or by someone working on a politica l campaign who
offered you campaign information or asked you t o vote?
26%
Yes, contacted
Answer
72%
No, not contacted
2%
Don't Know/No
17. How often would you say y ou discuss polit i cs and public affai r s with
members of your family- - every day, several times a week, or less than
that?
13%
Every Day
that
24%
Several times a week
Answer
59%
Less o ft en than
Don't Know/No
4%
18. How often wou l d you say you discuss politics and public af fairs with
your friends- - every day, several times a week, o r less than that?
ll%
Eve ry Day
60%
Less often than
t hat
25%
Several times a week
3%
Don't Know / No Answer
1 9. In the past year or so have you done volunteer work for a char ity,
religious organization or other non-profit g r oup?
40%
Yes (ASK Q19a)
2% Don't Know/ No Ans\oJer
(SKIP TO Q20)
58%
No
(SKIP TO Q20)
31
19a. Do you do vo lunteer work on a regular basis, an occasional basis, or was that
volun teer work you mentioned a one-time thing?
37%
53%
Regular basis
Occasiona l basis
**
9% One-time thing
Don't Know / No Answer
20. In the pas t year or so have you voluntee red in a political campaign?
2%
Yes (ASK Q20a)
(SKIP TO Q21 )
96%
No
(SKIP TO Q21)
1%
Don't know /No Answer
20a. Did you do volunteer work for the campaign on a regular basis, an
occasional basis, or was that volunteer work you mentioned a one-ti me th ing?
38%
Regular basis
32% Occasional bas i s
27%
One-time t hing
3% Don' t Know/No
Answer
21. Wi t hin the past year or so have you b e en active in a club o r
organization that deals with government and politics?
8%
Yes (ASK Q21a)
2 % Don't know/No Answer
(SKIP TO Q22)
90%
No
(SKIP TO Q2 2)
2 l a. Do you attend meetings or work with other members of the club on a regular
basis, an occasional basis, or did that turn out to be more of a one-ti me th ing?
5 6%
Regular basis
25% Occasional basis
13%
One-time thing
6% Don't Know/No
22. Within the past year o r so h ave you been active in some other type
of community group or club?
22%
Q2 3)
77%
Yes (ASK Q22a)
No
1%
Don't Know
( SKIP TO
(SKIP TO Q2 3)
22a. Do you attend meetings or work with other members of the club on a regul ar
basis, an occasional basis, or did th at turn out to be more of a one-ti me th ing?
47%
Regular basis
41% Occasional basis
Know/No Answer
1 0%
One - time thing
2% Don't
23. Within the past year or so have you sent a letter,
or e-mail to a media outlet or government official?
1 3%
8 6%
Yes
No
1%
te legram, fax,
Don't Know/No Answer
24. Within the past year or so have you participated in a march or
demonstration as a way o f expressing you r v iews o n a pol i tical or soc i al
cause?
5%
9 4%
Yes
No
2%
Don't KnovJ/No Answer
32
25 . Some people say we should have a third major political party in this
country in addition to the Democrats a nd Republicans. Do you agree or
disagree?
53 % Agree
38%
9 % Don ' t Know/No Answer
Disagree
26 . Over the cou rse o f t h e next year, do you think the financial
situat i on of you a n d yo u r family wi l l improve a lot, improve some, get a
lit t le worse, or get a lot worse?
12% Improve a lot
56%
4 % Get a lot worse
Improve some
12%
Ans wer
Don't Know/No
17 % Get a littl e worse
Fina lly , I'd li ke to a s k you some questions for statis ti cal purposes
only.
27 . Thinking about all the various types of electi ons you have a chance to vote in- from
local school board elections, to statewide e lections for governor, to presidential and
congressional electi ons-how often would you say you vote? Wou ld you say you always
vote when you have the chance, vote most of the time, vote now and then, hardl y ever
vote, or never vote?
12%
22 %
20 %
Al ways Vote
Vote Most Of The T ime
Vote Now And Then
19% Hardly Ever Vote
25 % Never Vote
2% Don' t Know/No Answer
28. How long have y ou lived at you present address?
13%
9%
14%
63%
2%
Less than 6 mon ths
More than 6 months but less than 1 year
Mor e t han 1 year but l ess than 2 years
More than 2 years
Don't Know/ No Answer
29. How would you describe your views on most political matters?
Genera l ly, do you think of yourself as liberal, modera te, or
conservative.
20%
33%
31%
17%
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
Don't Know /No
Answer
30 . In politics, do you consider yourself as a Republican, a Democrat or
an independent?
24%
28%
Republican
Democrat
39%
Independent
1%
Other (volunteered)
9%
Don't Know/No
Answer
33
31. What was the last grade in school you completed? (DO NOT READ
RESPONSE CATEGORIES)
16%
Not a high school graduate
41%
High school graduate
21%
Some college
graduate
Answer
20%
2%
College
Don't Know/No
32. Which of the following age groups are you in--18 to 24, 25-29, 30 t o
44, 45 to 64, or 65 or older?
27% 18 to 29
30%
30 to 44
25%
45 to 64
18 % 65 o r older
Don' t Know/No
**
Answer
33. Are you of His panic or Latino background, such a s Mexican, Pu erto
Rican, Cuban or other Spanish background?
6% Yes, Hispanic
93%
1% Refused
Not Hispani c
34. What is your race? Are you white, black, Asian, Native American
Indian or some other race?
84 % White
11%
2% Mixed Race
Black
1%
Other
(Specify)
1%
1%
Asian Or Pacific Islander
American Indian Or Al askan Native
1%
Refused
35 . Was your total family income in 1999 UNDER or OVER $30,000? IF UNDER
$30,000, ASK: Wa s i t under or over $15,000? IF OVER $30 ,000 , ASK: Was it
between $30,000 a nd $50,000, or between $50,000 and $75,000, or was it
over $75,000.
14 % Under $15,000
21%
27%
14%
9%
15%
Between $15,000 And $29,999
Bet\'Jeen $30, 000 And $49,999
Between $50,000 And $75,000
Over $75,000
Refused
36 . Finally , would you mind if one of our reporters called you back to
discuss your views further?
1
2
Yes, mind
No, v10uldn' t mind
INTERVIEWER: RECORD SEX OF RESPONDENT
51 % Male
50%
Female
Note: Percentages may not add to 10 0% due t o rounding.
** Indicates response given by less than .5% o f those surveyed
34
The survey results are based on telephone interviews with a
representative sample of 1,912 adults aged 18 and above living in the
continental United States; 1,053 say they did not vote in the 2000
presiden tial election and 859 people why say they voted. Both the
nonvoter and voter pools include oversamples sufficient to bring the
number of adults between the ages of 18 and 29 to 500. The intervie1·1s
were conducted Nov. 8 through Dec. 5.
The sample of telephone exchanges called was selected by a computer
from a complete list of working exchanges in the 48 contiguous states.
The exchanges were chosen so as to insure that each reg ion would be
represented in proportion to i ts population. The last four digits in
each telephone number were randomly generated by a computer and screened
to limit calls to residences, which also provided access to both listed
and unl isted residential numbers. At least eight at tempts were made to
complete interviews at every sampled telephone number .
The results of the survey have been weighted to adjust for
variations in the sample relating to race, gender, age and education.
For results based on either the entire sample of 1,053 nonvot e rs or 859
voters, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the error
attributable to sample and other random effects is plus or minus 3
percentage points. However, for results based o n interviews with
subgroups of respondents, the margin of error is larger.
35
Highlights of No-Show Focus Groups and Town-Hall Meeting
BY
VICKI SHABO AND CELINDA LAKE
LAKE SNELL PERRY
& ASSOCIATES
On behalf of the Medill News Service and the Medill School of Journalism,
Northwestern University on April 23, 2001, Lake Snell Perry & Associates conducted
three simultaneous focus groups and a "town hall" discussion of 24 people from around
the United States who did not vote in the November 2000 presidential election. The 24
participants, selected from among 1,912 respondents from the Medii! News Service and
the Medill School of Journalism, Northwestern University's post-election survey, were
di vided into three categories:
1) "Occasional voters"- people who did not vote in 2000, but claimed in the
Medii! survey that they generally vote "always," "most of the time," or "now
and then."
2) "Nonvoters"- people who did not vote in 2000 and claimed in the Medill
survey that they "hardly ever" or "never" vote.
3) "Young nonvoters"- people under the age of 30 who did not vote in 2000.
Each focus group included eight participants, all of whom were then brought
together for the larger town hall discussion. All pa1ticipants were recruited by the Medill
News Service, which paid for their trips to Washington to attend the discussion groups.
Key Findings
For both younger and older nonvoters, the behavior of politicians and th e media
perpetuate negative views toward politics and political participation. In a cu lture that
does not emphasize political pmticipation as important, nonvoters do not see anything
positive that motivates th em to become engaged. For occasiona l voters, a more
36
developed sense of responsibility toward political pattici pation someti mes helps to
overcome any negative feelings generated by candidates and the media. For nonvoters,
however, there is no underlying sense of civic duty that compels them to vote in a
political culture that offers little in the way of inspiration. In fact, they see voting as a
choice, rather than as an obligation. Some nonvoters see non- voting as a powerful
expression of their disenchantment with politicians and the political system. Other
nonvoters merely see non-voting as an almost responsible decision, feeling th at they do
not have enough information or cannot smt through the infmmation they do have to make
informed choices about candidates and issues.
For all respondents, it is clear that the political system often does not offer enough
incenti ves to make patticipating a habit. When choices about time and energy have to be
made, voting is often a lower priority th an other commitmen ts and, for some, even a
lower priority than relaxation. Procedural reforms may help to make voting easier and
more flexible, requiring Jess of a time commitment at a certain place on a certain day and,
therefore, may boost turnout among some occasional or nonvoters. However, the root
problems of skepticism, distrust, or disinterest will req uire larger changes in our culture,
among our leaders, and among institutions like the media.
While there are certain differences among the three categories of people studied occasional voters, no-voters, and young nonvoters- that will be discussed throughout thi s
report , the three focu s group sessions and the town hall meeti ng collective ly reveal the
following key poi nts:
•
About political culture and socialization: Participants, and particularly the
occasional voters, agreed that American society does not emph asize the
importance of political participation; in the view of a younger non-voter who
spoke out during the town hall, "it 's just not a cool thing to care about politics or
to bother voting." Collectively, participants pointed out that Election Day is not a
holiday, nor are people encouraged to take time out of their li ves to vote by
getting mandatory time off of work or having electi ons held on weekends when
more people would be able to vote. In the view of some parti cipants, local, state,
and federal governments do not advert ise how or where to register to vote or let
37
people know about mail-i n ballots or alternati ve means of voting if one cannot
vote on election day. Additionally, most participants agreed th at schools do a
I
poor job of educati ng students about voting and politi cal partici pation . Finall y,
there was a noticeable divi sion between occasional voters and both non-voter
I
groups in terms of whether their parents talked about politi cs and voting when
I
they were young. As has been shown in other studies, the role of parents ' voti ng
I
I
one of the bi ggest differences between occasional voters and nonvoters. There
I
behavior is central- whether their parents tended to vote or talk about politics was
was al so a noticeable divi sion between these coh01ts in whether they considered
voting to be more of a responsibility or just a choice.
•
About politicians: Across the board, participants in all groups agreed that
politicians today are too "packaged"- too predisposed to tell people what they
think the people want to hear, too dependent on money and spec ial interest
campai gn contributi ons, too scripted in their appearances, and too di stant from the
lives and concerns of average people. Participants find it very hard to trust
politicians and have little confidence that politicians are honest or on the level
with voters. Additionally, in every group, participants talked about the undue
influence of campaign advisors and other peop le behind the scenes who influence
or even cont rol the candidates ' actions. Parti cipants agreed that they would be
more interested in politics and in voting if the candidates were honest, showed
good character, were willing to present themselves in a more "natural" way, said
what they believed rather than what they think voters want to hear, and spent time
li stenin g to voters as well as talking. As an occasional voter said, "I don' t
know ... of an y politician at any Jevel... who is coming reall y to listen to me or to
listen to the people they are speaking to. I get more of the impression they're
tryi ng to sell where they stand, more so th an to li sten to \ovhat I want and to react
to me."
38
•
About the media: Participants in all three groups expressed the sense that the
media presents candidates in a slanted way and tend to report on scanda lous or
negati ve things more often than they report positive things politicians do. They
also believe the media has a point of view and choose which candidates to
highlight. They believe that both television and newspapers report favorably on
candidates they like and unfavorably on candidates they don't like. Participants
also note that the media tends to report stories in the way that candidates spi n
them, rather than presenting a more objective view of the candidates' words or
actions. Finally, participants sense, by including or omitting infmmation from
their reporting of news, the media try to shape people's attitudes and impressions.
As one young non-voter stated, "You can only go by what they show you." The
2000 elections also exacerbated participants' cyn icism about the media and
politicians.
•
About the 2000 elections and election reform: Participants' reasons for not
voting in 2000 varied by group- occasional voters tended to cite both logisti cal
barriers and an inability to choose between the candidates; older nonvoters tended
to talk about the candidates and a habit of non-participation; younger non voters
mentioned a combination of not being registered, not seeing a stake in the
election, and not liking the candidates. In the aftermath of the election and the
controversy in Florida, few regretted not voting and several mentioned Florida
reaffirmed their existing sense that votes, literally, do not count.
Although there were differences in the degree to which participants predicted
changes in how and where people vote would actually make a difference in voter
turnout , participants across the groups readily agreed that voting cou ld be made
easier and more convenient. Among reforms most favored by participants were
voting over a 2 or 3 clay period (and some suggested combining a 2 to 3 day
voting period with holding elections on a weekend day), vot ing by mail (or over
the intemet if it cou ld be made secure), and same-day registration. Discussion of
39
the Flolida situation also yielded suggestions about making ballots uniform across
the country and updating voting equipment, better training for poll workers and
having poll workers who are more helpful, and instituting a uniform system for
counting ballots. Although participants showed enthusiasm for process-ori ented
reforms like longer voting periods, their general detachment from the political
system- particularly among nonvoters- and their disdain for politicians rai ses
questions about how successful procedural ref01ms are likely to be. As one
occasional voter said, mechanics are "something easier to fi x" than getting better
quality candidates or increasing citizens' general attachment to the political
system.
Overall, the biggest differences among the three groups studied are summarized as
follows:
Occasional voters:
Most similar to voters we have seen in other studies in te1ms of their views about
voting as a responsibility or privilege, but they also acknowledge that the candidates
in this election didn't get them excited about voting and the media fu rther
discouraged them
Most likely to have had parents who voted and talked about politi cs and to
volunteer th at they have tried to instill in their own children the sense th at voting is
impmtant
Most knowledgeable about the candidates in this election and about elections
historically and about the process of voting
Most likely to say they didn't vote in 2000 because of circumstances that
prevented them from voting, such as work or a family emergency, although some said
they just were not interested in voting thi s time because of the cand idates
40
Most likely to say outright that changing the mechanics and processes of voting
will make some difference in facilitating voting, but that the bigger problem is 'vvith
candidates and with voter apathy.
Older· nonvoters:
Most cynical about politicians and their motives
Most judgmental about the media and media bias
Least sense of efficacy about voting and most likely to say they don't vote because
voting doesn't make a difference, because the candidate's weren't appealing, or
because registering and voting is complicated and/or too much of a hassle. They also
I
say that they lack the information they need to distinguish between the candidates and
feel they can "choose" not to vote- to withhold their approval of a system and
I
I
candidates they see as flawed.
Most had parents that didn't talk about voting or about politics
Willing to ente1tain procedural reforms to make voting easier and more
convenient, but also the most willing to say that if voting were important to them or
candidates were more appealing, they would find a way to vote.
Young nonvoters:
Name as role models or heroes people who are close to them, like their parents, or
celebrities like Michael J01·dan
Most likely to express views about politics and voting that suggest they do not see
a connection between politics and elections and their own lives. They often have lillie
41
information about the candidates and want to see more candidates who share or can
relate better to the life experiences of younger and Jess privileged people.
Most had parents who voted, but did not have parents who talked about politics.
Those whose parents did talk about politics said their parents' views were influential
in their own attitudes.
Most likely to say that Florida had a mobilizing effect on their views of the
imp011ance of voting
Most likely to think of procedural reforms, such as same day registration and
voting over two or three days, as effective ways to get more people to vote, but still
acknowledged that they are not interested in politics and do not see how politics can
affect their lives. Some say that they may be more interested in voting later in life when
they will have more of a stake in the issues on which politicians focus.
42
About The Authors
Jack C. Doppelt and Ellen Shearer are the co-authors of "Nonvoters: Ameri ca's NoShows" (Sage Publications. The book has received favorable attention from nationally
syndicated columnists David Broder and Clarence Page and has generated follow-up
projects, funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, including "YVOTE 2000: Politics of a
New Generation" and the project that generated this report, "YVOTE: A Dialogue with
I
Ametica's No-Shows." The book was based on a 1996 project that was a collaboration
I
Cathetine T. MacArthur Foundation to produce innovative programming about the
I
with WTTW-TV, Chicago's public television station, under a grant from the John D. and
politically and culturally disaffected.
Doppelt is associate professor at Northwestern University's Medill School of
Journalism, editor and publisher of On the Docket (a Web site on the U.S. Supreme
Com1), director of the Medill global journalism program, and a faculty associate at
Northwestem's Institute for Policy Research .
Doppelt is also co-author of The Joumalism of Outrage: Investigative Repor1ing
and Agenda Building in America, a book on investigative reporting and its influence on
public policy. He wrote four columns during Election 2000 for lntellectuaJCapital.com,
now SpeakOut.com. He also has published numerous articles on libel, the media's
I
I
I
influence on the criminal justice system and media coverage of the legal system.
Shearer is professor in the Medill School of Journalism and co-director of the
school's Washington Program-- Medill News Service. She is co-chair of Medill 's
Newspaper Depar1ment.
Shearer has written chapters in "The Local News Handbook" (American Society
of Newspaper Editors), "Engaging the Public: How Govemment and the Media Can
Reinvigorate American Democracy" (Rowman & Littlefield), and "Changing Reader"
(Newspaper Management Center). She also is a regular contributor to "The American
Editor," monthly magazine of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. She is on the
board of the Center for Religion and The News Media.
43