Over on Political Arithmetik, a post from August on age and voter turn-out.
In 2004 those 18-29 were 21.8% of the population, while those 58-69 were just 13.2%. Add in the 11.5% 70 and up, and you get just 24.7% of "geezers" over 58 vs. 21.8% of "kids". But the sly old geezers know a thing or two about voting. Shift from share of the population to share of the electorate and the advantage shifts to the old: 18-29 year olds were just 16% of the electorate in 2004, while those 58-69 were an almost equal 15.9%. Add in the 70+ group at 13.4% and the geezers win hands down: 29.3% of voters vs 16% for the young. That difference is the power of high turnout. It goes a long way to explaining why Social Security is the third rail of American politics.
2 comments:
That difference is the power of high turnout. It goes a long way to explaining why Social Security is the third rail of American politics.
Two thoughts:
1. I do wish some American commentators would not discuss issues as if they were uniquely American and as if there were nothing to learn from other places. Is this a uniquely American phenomenon? I think not.
2. Correlation is not causation.
Keep up the fine blog by the way.
Tom, I don't see where the blogger implies that these problems are uniquely American or that we have nothing to learn from other places. But I would be interested to hear what we can learn from other places.
And while I completely agree with the dictum that correlation is not causation, I'm not sure how it applies here. What's the correlation and what doesn't the correlation cause? Again I'm pretty sure the blogger isn't making this assertion. He says that high turnout "goes a long way toward" explaining why Social Security is a potentially very dangerous issue for politicians--not that it completely explains why.
Post a Comment