The Public Policy Institute of California released a survey today that is making all sorts of headlines. The survey sheds light on voting trends in the most populous state in the Union. Given the coming demographic shifts within the U.S., it is fair to wonder if these results apply to the rest of the nation as well. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
The growing diversity of California’s population isn’t showing up in the voting booth, where people who are richer, older and whiter than their nonvoting neighbors are making the decisions that will shape the state’s future, a new study shows.
Further, the plans and priorities of the Californians most likely to vote and those of the nearly 50 percent of adults who don’t participate in elections are as different as their bank accounts and racial backgrounds, said Mark Baldassare, a pollster who conducted the study released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.
“About 15 percent of adult people make the decisions, and that 15 percent doesn’t look much like California overall,” he said. “And that’s even more problematic here because so much public policy is made at the ballot box via initiatives…” [Link]
<
p>What these results seem to indicate is that if a larger portion of the population simply registered to vote and showed up on election day, you could throw conventional wisdom out the window. Want an example?
Take the issue of taxes, for example. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Republican allies in the Legislature argue incessantly that Californians are adamantly opposed to new or increased taxes.
A poll last May showed that when likely voters were asked whether they would prefer higher taxes and more services or lower taxes and fewer state services, they split on the issue — 49 percent favored more services, and 44 percent called for lower taxes.
But Californians not registered to vote have far different views. More than two-thirds of those residents welcomed higher taxes and more services, while less than 30 percent called for less government.
“The size and role of government is hugely determined by the shape of the likely voter electorate today,” Baldassare said. [Link]
<
p>These results make a lot of sense when you think about it. Take India for example. On election-day the turn-out there is obscenely high as compared to here in America. The result: a more socialist government. Several countries in Latin America (Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.) seem to demonstrate the same. If the people all turn out to vote then conservative economic principles get crushed. In America this is strongly tied to race. If Latino and African American (and possibly Asian American) voters turn out, then we might be (as a nation) guided by a completely different set of economic principles, including perhaps a different healthcare system. I am sure The MAN is sitting in his office right now with a scowl on his face. The following fact however, will allow him relax a bit:
Although California has been widely trumpeted as the nation’s first large “majority minority” state — one where racial minority residents make up more than half the population — the minority voting picture is getting worse, not better, Baldassare said.
Since 1990, California’s population has increased by 25 percent, yet voter registration has climbed by only 15 percent. Only about 56 percent of the eligible population is even registered to vote today, compared with 65 percent in 1994.
The growing number of noncitizens living in California explains some of the gap. But that doesn’t account for the huge racial differences seen in the pool of likely voters, the people politicians are most likely to hear, Baldassare said. [Link]
I myself am very torn about the upcoming elections in California. I am a lifelong Democrat, and since I will soon be moving to Texas, this is the last election in a LONG time where my vote will mean anything (I keed, I keed 
). Ahnold has been doing a better job of late and has shifted to the left a great deal. Still, I owe it to California as a parting gift to help deliver it back to the blue. Then why am I so torn about this? If I vote for Schwarzenegger then it means I will be helping him to remain in office next March when I will be filing my doctoral dissertation. That means that Schwarzenegger’s signature will be on my Ph.D. diploma. The kitsch value in that is so much higher than having the name of Phil Angelides on there. Seriously, how many people can say that The Terminator signed their diploma? I know, I am going to burn in hell.
That means that SchwarzeneggerÂ’s signature will be on my Ph.D. diploma.
SSSSSSSWWWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
don’t worry, you’ll be back 🙂 vote dem another time.
“Take India for example. On election-day the turn-out there is obscenely high as compared to here in America. The result: a more socialist government.”
and
“If the people all turn out to vote then conservative economic principles get crushed.”
Thank heavens all people do not vote. We, in California, do not want free tvs to watch Nancy Grace. P.S. My degree cert has Arnie’s signature. I was at the correct/sensible part of the UC. Berkeley campus, my friend. :-)))
BTW, the voter turnout in India is about 59-60%, the socialism is a result of ballot stuffing. Look at West Bengal. : ) I sure hope your Ph.D is not in politics.
But like I said: I can’t but help feel that this is somehow the fault of BushHitlerHalliburton and his IsraeliJewishNeoConWarForOilReligiousRightRacistBigotedCapitalistBrahminsRSSModi’s fault.
Also, do note that Florida has a large % of latino voters who have voted Republican. Btw, I also lived in Oklahoma. A lot of gujju motel owners (the wealthy types) were die-hard Republicans. In fact, they would argue vehemently with me that Quayle was better than Bentsen in the debate (yes, I am that old). 🙂
I suspect that when the immigrants get assimilated and move progressively up the tax bracket, they will vote for conservative principles. Imho, most immigrants are more socially conservative that your average native born California. (I doubt if the Afghans in Fremont or the Catholic Latinos in East San Jose would for instance, vote to legalise gay marriage.)
Ergo, I am not quite certain if the correlation between race and voting pattern is so simple.
Quizman, I susepct it will turn out that you are wrong on most fronts. The young second generation demographic seems trending pretty firmly toward the left. Also, in your Afghan example you assume that the gay marriage issue is more important to an Afghan American voter than civil rights and liberties. No way I am going to believe that. Also your Florida latino example is largely irrelevant since those are anti-Castro Cuban voters. Even there the younger generation is trending to the left and want better relations with Cuba.
Also, do note that Florida has a large % of latino voters who have voted Republican.
well, the latinos there are cuban, disproportionately white middle-class emigres. so of ocurse….
Also, in your Afghan example you assume that the gay marriage issue is more important to an Afghan American voter than civil rights and liberties.
honestly, i don’t think the average immigrant gives a crap about the abstract concept of civil rights and liberties, rather, they care about their rights and liberties. since the rest of america is happy within hatin’ on gays, why should they care when they hate them even more?
Wait, you don’t think your average Afghan American cares about wiretapping, racial profiling, and Gitmo?
In California, it really is that simple.
Selfless Plug, Selfless Plug forthcoming….
I will be launching the release of two upcoming reports on September 26th here in Los Angeles. The main report is titled Asian Americans at the Ballot Box and the report I’ve been slaving over all summer is The Asian American Youth Vote. We have a great line-up of panelists, and will be discussing the various voter data for the community.
As for race and politics – Floridian latinos are very different that CA latinos. It’s not my field, but the history of both communities (including national ancestry) are very different.
The US is a racialized nation with the core of it’s politics rooted in this tension (privelege of voting, citizenship, immigration). To say there is no correlation proves lack of research – there are TONS of studies on this topic… Don’t make me make a book list… 😉
Abhi,
Firstly, I should’ve thanked you for posting on this topic. Thanks for doing it.
Now for the arguments. 🙂
“Also your Florida latino example is largely irrelevant since those are anti-Castro Cuban voters.”
I doubt if the Dems there are pro-Castro so that they are affected by the anti-Castro vote.
Abhi: The young second generation demographic seems trending pretty firmly toward the left.”
Again, I think we’ll have to segment that demographic in detail. South Asians, living in the South Bay for instance, are socially liberal, but a lot of them are fiscally conservative since they have the most to lose by an increased tax burden. [If their parents pop it and leave them million dollar estates in Los Altos, Saratoga, Cupertino, Palo Alto etc, they will not be pleased to pay the atrocious estate tax.]
I suspect that the boat people (and other exiled immigrants) from the 70s have moved up the income bracket to leave sufficient wealth to their American born offspring. The challenge to fiscal conservatives will be from the hourly-wage workers – most of whom may be from south of the border. Even there, the population will have to be segmented further for a good analysis. I had quite a few friends at Haas who were Latino and wealthy. They were not Bush-friendly, but would probably vote for a centrist like Arnie.
I think California may have what SJMN called the East-West divide – the East comprising of the major metros, i.e. the financial centres. Immigrants in places like SF and the South Bay are not badly off at all. Come a socially liberal, fiscally conservative politician (Dem or Rep), they may prefer him to a Hugo Chavez sort of chap, even though pockets like Fremont (heavy with South Asians) may not be so liberal. This is just my speculation.
I agree with Razib’s point re civil rights-gay marriage etc.
In the case of the United States then, the economy will slow down, stop, eventually march on backwards. Using countries where extremely corrupt elite politicians (that may have decided to pursue certain economic policies) as a an example of successful leftist economic policy isn’t a valid comparison IMHO. Those guys were voted out because the benefits of their policies never showed dividends on any appreciable level other than the very top. The middle class probably has the most balanced view on economics. Any country without a decent size middleclass will waver from extreme to extreme.
One needs to factor in relative education, access to employment, type of employment (urban vs rural), and plenty of more things like homogeniety of populace, etc.
Economic policy of the United States, regardless of which party has been in power, hasn’t varied all that much in recent years. Sure, taxes were higher when Clinton was around, but in terms of a true shift to lefist policies, it would mean people in the Untied States are poorer, less educated OR our population shrinks while becoming homogenous at the same time. Even rich people can become socialist: For example a bunch of rich folks who collectively decide to fund their little gated neighborhood where they all chip in to pay maintainence fees, clubhouse fees, guard duty charges, fund their own school – all of which signals a social consensus that translates into economic activities.
I broke this down before, but in countries with smaller and homogenous populations are ones that can pursue leftist policies successfuly. The larger (population wise) the country gets, the harder it gets for the social setup to gain consensus to establish centralized socialist policies. In terms of the United States, we’ve got taxes on different levels, which adjust for microeconomies, taxing higher or lower, helping said city or state out.
Real socialist policies in a federal republic would be effective ONLY on the local city/county (or state with small population) level. They are dependent on social networks that generally lack diversity (economic, religious, racial, etc.)
For India, moving to the right/center in economic policy on a central level while reducing red tape (less involvement of the license raj) will be the necessary to make larger gains, unless people are happy with the status quo. For the South American nations, corrupt leaders got tossed, replaced by other corrupt leaders who’ll play along with their populace to ‘help’ them. Economic tools vary from region to region and just because country X had done it successfully, it doesn’t mean country Y needs to follow suit. Different strokes for different folks.
taz: To say there is no correlation proves lack of research
I didn’t say it. I said “I am not quite certain if the correlation between race and voting pattern is so simple.”
i.e. non-whites will have a leftist voting pattern.
Wait, you don’t think your average Afghan American cares about wiretapping, racial profiling, and Gitmo?
those are specific concrete policies. you said earlier, “civil rights and liberties.” my only point was that yes, many immigrant groups can be motivated to vote on specific issues of relevance to them, but let’s not pretend as if they have a great commitment to abstract concepts like civil rights & liberties. those who are college educated and culturally assimilated might find some abstractions resonant, but those are not the types you want to vote since they already do.
gujudude’s point is salient. socialism in the nordic sense tends to flourish in racially & culturally homogenous societies. some can look up the regression plot, but it is pretty clear that diversity leads to less public investment. what you will likely have in the USA is a spoils system where the various racial groups “get theirs,” or jockey to “get theirs.”
i remember a few years ago when latino groups were excited about the possible transition from the SAT I to the SAT II for the UC system. you see…spanish counts as a foreign language. the black groups got pissed, because they felt like this was unfair (whites and asians have no problems getting into the UC system, they can afford this spoils).
the working class and proletariat are quite often regressive ignorants. we can say that about crackers, but when it comes to “people of color” we look the other way for the noble savage.
plots:
more blacks = less AFDC per person.
more racial diversity = less social spending.
vive le salad bowel! or whatever.
“those are specific concrete policies. you said earlier, “civil rights and liberties.” my only point was that yes, many immigrant groups can be motivated to vote on specific issues of relevance to them, but let’s not pretend as if they have a great commitment to abstract concepts like civil rights & liberties. “
I dunno about this. Maybe it’s your geographic observation. Not trying to be snide, but are there any numbers on this?
In my voting district (or riding), some of the anti-gay-marriage conservate party reps wanted to recruit some indian-immigrant groups on that very issue of homosexuality. They were surprised when the hindu group representative didn’t care if gays were married or not, did not look at it as a sin, and even more surprised that they saw right through the cons’v agenda. I don’t know what the other indian-immigrant-religious groups reaction was.
8 in 10 muslim americans oppose gay marriage cite. the survey is strongly biased toward immigrants because of their methodology (looking for “Muslim names”). here is polling data on americans in general.
perhaps hindu and sikh americans, and latinos and all those other minority groups are socially progressive and into making a broad front for “justice.”
culturally, isn’t Cali blue anyway? And the economy seems to still be science and technology-driven. I think the lop-sided voter registration numbers will change a bit as the american-born kids come of age. So Arnold is Governor….has it changed Cali all that much? He just signed a greenhouse emission bill I think, so that’s something. I also think East Asia is going to be really important for California as time goes on. La Lucha Continua 😉
I doubt if the Dems there are pro-Castro so that they are affected by the anti-Castro vote.
Dems are perceived as not Anti-Castro enough by the Cuban community in Florida. Most of the older Cubans still hold a serious grudge against Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Of course the younger Cuban Americans born and raised in the US are not so gung ho on defeating Castra so they are not as pro Republican as their parents. One thing to also consider is that the Cubans Americans are so dominant in Miami etc. that the young Cuban Americans do not feel like they are in minority. A lot of them look and consider themselves to be white and do not feel the same racial marginalization that other minority children have to go through across the country. For example, it is common in a lot of Miami public schools to have upto 70-75% Cuban American children. The white kids in most of these schools are actually referred to as ‘Americans’. The Cuban Americans are very similar to the Jewish Americans at one level. Both these groups have tremendous influence on American foreign policy towards one nation (Cuba, Israel) and as there is no other side represented at any level in the political spectrum (Pro Castro, Pro Palestinian) the policy towards Israel and Cuba is extremely lop sided. I guess one could say that the Agro-businesses are pro castro and the fringe left/muslims are pro palestinian but for the most part there is no serious opposition. Of course the Evangelicals have now adopted the Israeli cause but thats more recent.
Years ago a friend suggested something that has made more and more sense – especially given who’ve we’ve been electing. Rather than “Rock the Vote,” an attempt to increase voter participation among our youth, he was behind the counter campaign to “Block the Vote.”
That’s right, a campaign for fewer but better educated voters instead of more, brain dead, easily misled lemmings who can’t think for themselves. Do you really want higher voter turnout when pithy campaign slogans, mud slinging, and sound bytes drive voter decisions?
Frankly, I’m for more than “block the vote.” I want a certified voter program that would require a minimum education level (highschool), a few hours of public/community service, AND passing a test showing that the voter understands key differences in the positions of the parties on issues of importance.
On the surface this seems ‘ok’ but an ignorant in the American system has equal footing as an educated man. Doing the whole ‘no stupid people should vote’ thing would actually create a society of people who may not address the needs of those who can’t vote.
Such a system would undermine the very nature of this Republic. In this scenario, elites of the society, which already dicate quite a bit, would have monopoly. I don’t want intellectual types voting for farmers in Kansas. To each their own.
Only real solution? Improve education. Education. Education. Education. Reading is FUNdamental.
Do you really think what’s best for our country is to continue as we’ve been? Look at the clowns we’ve been electing to office on a system where the only qualification for voting is being a citizen and not having been convicted of a felony.
I’m for educated voters who give something back to our country. Voting requirements are the best way to move in that direction.
Wrong.
Only long term solution is educating the masses. Educating the masses is a solution/corrective action to many of societies root problems including picking leaders.
Lets take an example of a book, say, Heinlein’s Starship Troopers (not the abortion of the movie, but the book). What do you define Citizenship as? The book’s scenario played out where on earned citizenship by military service. They made the decsions of what to and what not to do. What was the result? A Spartan elite (the decision makers) supported by those who chose not to pursue the goal. Ideally, to me, it was a cool concept, but no way is it practical nor does it account for internal strife/conflict.
So, unless you want to redefine what a citizen is (making ‘education’ a benchmark), your idea would only create division, more conflict, and essentially degradation of society. What happens to all those not ‘smart’ enough to vote? A subclass whose voice is not heard anywhere, who’re at the mercy of those who qualified to vote. Will that be enough incentive for them to vote? For a minority, but for others, it only serves to disenfranchise them even more.
It is also the lazy way out. A democratic republic doesn’t mean the most qualified or best person gets to lead, it may be the most popular one. As societies mature and get educated, you’ll progress from the babus who get elected in India (Laloo Prasads) to babus who get elected here once in a while.
The point is, voting is a battleground where conflict can play itself out in a civil, non violent, and ultimately consensus building way. To cut a party out of the game means they will ultimately use alternative means (read: violence) to establish their requirements. When the voting isn’t fair or ‘rigged’ who have similar results of groups picking up arms.
Inclusive and fair elections are the only way to go. Doesn’t mean it works all the time, but it is a proven 80% solution that works.
Also, setting up criteria in itself will never be unbaised.
The real problem is that the elections are crooked. Take San Francisco for example. Anyone remember the ballpark election? The scandal that time involved pro-ballpark voters taken right out of the cememtary. Yep, they were dead and their names were “borrowed” to win the election. Take San Diego. Donna Frye was clearly the winner, but for some reason, elections had to be held and re-held until she lost and some random Republican won.
I hate to say it but rocking the vote isn’t the answer.