How much does voting affect public policies?

Part 2 of 2

The flow of big money into elections allowed by Citizens United has raised new questions about the power of the ordinary voter. Yet both Hillary Clinton’s policy-rich progressive platform and Donald Trump’s generalized promises to make everything “great again” for white Rust Belt workers appear to ignore financial and electoral realities. There is a paradox in such different candidates pitching their appeals toward those who don’t contribute financially to election campaigns and may be unlikely to vote. This disjuncture makes me suspicious about how the candidates may pivot over the next months, as well as how they may be forced to make decisions contrary to their promises once in office. 

 The following are a few truths about voting behavior and public policy gleaned from research. First, voting decreases with economic insecurity. According to the Census Bureau, only 47 percent of eligible adults with family incomes of less than $20,000 a year voted in the 2012 presidential election. By contrast, 80 percent of eligible adults with annual incomes exceeding $100,000 voted in 2012. That is, voters are far less likely than nonvoters to be financially hurting. 

In advance of the 2014 midterm elections, the Pew Research Center compared those adults who were expected to show up at the polls with the great majority (60 percent) who were unlikely vote. Nonvoters were about twice as likely as voters to be Hispanics and African Americans (43 percent vs. 22 percent), and nonvoters had lower family incomes (46 percent earned less than $30,000, compared with only 19 percent of voters). While over half of nonvoters had a high school education or less, 72 percent of voters had completed some college. 

Pew’s research gives texture to the economic hardships of nonvoters. For example, 45 percent of nonvoters (compared to only a third of voters) reported trouble paying bills in the previous year. Nonvoters were also twice as likely as voters to have borrowed money from family or friends (41 percent vs. 21 percent). Only 52 percent of the nonvoters had credit cards, only 55 percent had savings accounts and only 37 percent had 401(k)s or other retirement accounts — all financial tools that the more economically secure voters held at far higher rates. 

These differences in life experiences between voters and nonvoters raise two questions: First, do the opinions of nonvoters differ from voters? Second, would government policies change if current nonvoters went to the trouble to cast their ballots?

According to Pew, nonvoters differ only minimally from voters in their opinions on a range of controversial issues, from Obamacare, abortion and gun control, to undocumented immigrants. Since Obamacare was designed for low-income voters who didn’t have insurance, I suspect partisan media coverage as having worked against their self-interest.  

However, Pew found significantly more nonvoters than voters showing a favorable view of government aid to the poor. Similarly, according to the American National Elections Studies, nonvoters are far more supportive than voters of increasing government services and spending to reduce inequality, including offering free community college, one of Bernie Sanders’ and now Hillary Clinton’s promises. 

Not surprisingly, higher turnout among the wealthy leads legislators to spend less time on bills related to housing, welfare and healthcare.  Conversely, when there is higher turnout among the poor, it does lead to higher spending on welfare programs and more attention to anti-predatory lending statutes, expanding children’s health insurance and increasing the minimum wage.  

Nevertheless, low-income voters are right to be suspicious that, even if they voted, they would not be political equals. Electoral politics traditionally favor the affluent. The disproportionate influence of affluent voters has historically had two causes. First, members of Congress themselves come from white-collar occupations and are much more comfortable than the average citizen. Second, affluent Americans are more likely to contact members of Congress, to work on or donate funds to their campaigns, and simply to have access to elected officials.

Finally, the imbalance created by money has increased dramatically with the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which “exacerbates the domination of the donor class over public policy outcomes.”  Indeed, by allowing unlimited political contributions, Citizens United has marginalized not just the poor, but any and all of us without vast wealth. 

According to www.Demos.org, in 2012, President Obama and Mitt Romney raised $313 million from over 4 million small donors, who gave less than $200 each. This was easily matched by 32 donors who each gave an average of $9.9 million to Super PACs, for a total of almost $320 million. Sheldon Adelson, who spent approximately $150 million in the 2012 election, was the highest individual contributor. 

Bernie Sanders drew support during the primary months by hammering at Hillary Clinton for her well-paid speeches to Wall Street. In return, she has become vocal about making the rich pay their “fair share.” Although Donald Trump boasted about being his own man as a result of self-funding his primary campaign, he has already had to accept some reining in from the Republican donor class.

Bernie Sanders was right in his assessment that Wall Street is unlikely to profit from the policies that benefit most Americans. To take just one example, over three-fourths of the public supports “a minimum wage high enough that no family with a full time worker falls below the poverty line”—a position taken by this year’s democratic platform. But only two in five of the wealthiest 10 percent agree that the minimum wage should prevent full-time workers from falling into poverty. Though Donald Trump wants to fix things for white workers, in his arguments against the $15-an-hour minimum wage, he speaks as a member of his class.  

Over the next three months of the presidential campaign, we should be alert not only to how the candidates may shift in their stance on controversial policies directed to those who struggle economically — many of whom may not vote. But we also need to ask whether the candidates plan to bring back the power of ordinary voters through undoing the harm of Citizens United. 

Carol Ascher, who lives in Sharon, has published six books of fiction and nonfiction, as well as many essays and stories. What interests her these days are the complications of civil society in America.