It seems obvious to most political commentators that focusing on swing
voters in swing states makes sense. These people are going to
vote. They are looking for input to their choice In
our electoral-college-dominated process of national presidential
elections, these voters seem to hold the only key to success.
But consider this: Non-voters make up about half of the
electorate. Studies of young people who are non-voters show that they
are often quite civically engaged–they volunteer time, they join
values-and-faith-based organizations, and they even contribute
money. Perhaps this is true of many non-voters of all ages.
Perhaps non-voters care very much about the nation, and about the
future, but they find no reason to vote or participate in electoral
politics.
Swing voters are about %5 of the total potential electorate nationwide, and non-voters are about %50.
Does anyone else see an opportunity? If just %10 of the
non-voters became voters, their numbers would equal the current swing
voters. If %20 of the non-voters became voters, we would have an
electoral revolution. Hmmm.
This is a lot of people to influence, but on the other hand, the
behavior change we are asking for is not difficult. It involves
filling out a small form in advance of election day, and then filling
out another form–an absentee ballot–or spending a few minutes in a
neighborhood poling place on election day. We are not asking
folks to give up smoking, or even to use seat belts regularly.
Physically, we are asking for a small change.
The current national campaigns of Republicans and Democrates together
are on track to spend about a billion dollars this round. Most of
this expenditure has been focused on re-assuring swing voters that all
candidates share the same “center” position on issues, and then seeking
to differentiate these highly similar candidates in order that some can
defeat others.
Does any else see the contradiction here? As a marketing manager,
how would you like to have the job of simultaneously convincing people
that Bud lite is just like Miller lite except that Miller light is evil
and Bud light is good? Hmmm.
The two parties have just spent a billion dollars doing just
that. For the first time in history, Democrats have spent almost
as much as Republlicans–but it has been spent likening and then
differentiating Bud from Miller. Are we surprised that no headway
has been made? Are we surprised that many citizens are confused
by the message?
What would have happened if Democrats had gone after the non-voters
with an authentic message and with creative approaches to our most
important problems? What if Democrats had invited people in?
Howard Dean and Dean for America did engage non-voters and turned many
of them into activists. Our message was “you have the power.”
While we had our internal failings, the Democratic establishment killed
us. They killed in large measure by redesigning the primary process to
give extraordinary power to Iowans. This reward
campaigns that were focused on anything but the non-voter. In
Iowa, the caucus process puts up a very high barrier to polical
participation–one that is daunting to most Iowa voters, and much more
to non-voter. In Iowa a small group of very active
politicos–those who are willing to spend several hours on a cold
January night arguing publicly for their candidate–prevail. And these
active politicos represent members of a rural state with an
aging, declining population. Iowans are nice people–I grew up in
Cedar Rapids–but they are very different in lifestyle, age, and values
from most people in the rest of the nation.
The Democratic party took the candidate that won Iowa–that won with
hard-core Democratic activists in a rural state–and planned a program
to go after middle-of-the-road swing voters in states ranging from
Florida to Maine, to Ohio to Washinton State.
This campaign ignored by design most of the nation–including
non-voters. It ignored “red states” as unwinable, and ignored
“blue states” as unloseable.
The Democratic campaign’s strategy was to spend massively on a few
states–in order to win a large share of the small numbers of swing
voters. Unfortunately, these swing voters were also targeted by
an even more powerful Republican campaign, on behalf of a sitting
president. Democrats attacked a defended hill, and found
themselves in a war of attrition where neither side would win a
decisive victory.
I would have prefered to attack the undefended hill, particularly given
that the hill of non-voters is ten times larger than that of swing
voters. I would have preferred to spend heavily to engage a small
share of this much, much larger population of non-voters. I would
have prefered to flank the Republicans by engaging with citizens that
they too have ignored.
As a strategist, I believe such a strategy could have won the
election for Democrats. Perhaps as importantly, this strategy would have
advanced citizen empowermennt, dialogue and political participation in
the country. Win or lose, this initiative would have improved our
democracy. Win or lose, this initiative would have improved our
party. We would have created in the Democratic party the ability
to speak to new people, the ability to bring non-voters in and include
them, and the ability to learn from these people new ways to address
the challenges facing our country. All of these things, by the
way, were at the core of the capabilities being developed in the Dean
campaign.
Even if the Kerry Democratic campaign succeeds, its strategy has left
out most of the electorate. It has left out the “base” of the
Democratic party, which is to the left on the conventional
spectrum,. It has left out the larger number of non-voters–who
live on spectra the Democratic establishment has not even tried to
understand.
Leaving out people is a poor way to prepare the ground for
governing. Little relationship has been made with most citizens.
Yet political engagement is at the heart of what a democracy requires,
not only to pick leaders, but to be willing to follow them. Tough
choices always have to be made by leaders, and people must be moved to
contribute to making these choices successful. Being left out of the
electoral process does not encourage such later participation.
