the deeply disaffected or alienated majority found among thernranks of the nonvoters. While seeking the restoration of “middlernclass” allegiance to their party, Democrats do not wish tornexpend their resources on the recruitment of the apathetic orrndisaffected, but simply on those whose past allegiance andrnpresent discontent with the incumbent will encourage them tornjump ship. Republicans, likewise, who have relied heavily uponrnthe independent voter and the renegade Democrat, mustrnnow attempt to preserve the loyalty of these most doubtfulrnbattalions.rnClearly, despite lip service to the contrary, nonvoters are arnremarkably neglected “interest group” seen by the two majorrnpolitical parties (and even by those measuring the politicalrnpulse of the nation) as too costly to reach or even track. Withrna handful of academic exceptions, these millions remain anrnenigma refusing to be confined to the neat tabular boxes ofrnpollsters, nor even entered into the mathematical equationsrnand intuitive prognostications that fill the pages and soundbitesrnof the mass media. Far from being apathetic or indifferent,rntheir disengagement from the process and institutions ofrnAmerican politics provides both a window and a mirror byrnwhich wc can peer beyond the ritual of conformity (whichrnfor many is the essence of voting) and examine what is perhapsrna more genuine expression of the often invoked “will of thernmajority.”rnWho are these nonvoters? They are depicted in the massrnmedia with the broad brushstrokes of social rejectionismrnand ill-repute usually reserved for a despised ethnicrngroup. The readily conjured images include that of antiestablishmentrnyouth vearning for a 1960’s style rebellion (actually,rnindifference fits the realitv more accurately); urban minoritiesrnand the poor denied access to the voting booth byrnrestrictive registration rules (in fact, registration and votingrnhas risen for minorities); or the politically illiterate BoobicusrnAmericanus of a Mencken-like cultural mediocrity. In reality,rnwith each passing election, nonvoters are increasingly composedrnof white, middle-aged, and middle-income personsrnwho have an increasing likelihood of having a college education.rnhi the last three presidential elections, nonvoters age 18 torn24 have outnumbered voters by a ratio of two to one. A majorrnexplanation, certainly not a startling one, is that young adultsrnhave a remarkably low commitment to civic culture and arernparticularly unlikely to be voters when thev lack college education.rnFor this portion of the nonvoting population, however,rnit is not revolution and rebellion that is central, but theirrnown lifestvle of detachment from the polity and preoccupationrnwith consumerism that explains their membership in the nonvotingrninterest (or “disinterest”) group.rnPolitical theorists and researchers have not quite decidedrnwhether the remarkably low turnout rates in America comparedrnto those in Canada or Western Europe are reason forrncelebration or alarm. Strong advocates are to be found onrnboth sides of the question. There is even a school of thoughtrnin political science which suggests that it does not really matter,rnas voters and nonvoters tend to have quite similar ideologicalrnand candidate preferences. And, more intriguingly,rnsome in the groves of the academy are debating which is morernrational: voting or nonvoting.rnIt would appear to be a virtual truism of common sense, ifrnnot of political theory, that the quality of voters determines thernstrength of a democratic society. But, in fact, this issue is alsorna controversial one among political scientists. It turns outrnthat measuring a person’s knowledge of politics and issues isrnfar from a simple task. Merely asking people the names ofrnofficeholders from the President to the Secretary of State doesrnnot indicate how well a person can evaluate policy issues.rnFlawed as it might be, the simplest measure of “political sophistication”rnis the level of formal education.rnThose who are disturbed by the lack of a clear social superiorityrnamong voters versus nonvoters ascribe such developmentsrnto the decline in the quality of candidates and thernnumbing triviality of current political debate. Lest such arnview be deemed “elitist,” one should bear in mind that fromrnone-quarter to one-third of all voters in primaries and presidentialrnelections make up their minds within the last few daysrnof any campaign.rnThere are two interest groups that are quite delighted withrnthe findings that voters and nonvoters are looking increasinglyrnalike: political operatives and pollsters. As to the first group,rntheir professional instincts do not dictate the conversion ofrnnew voters—either first time youth or those who are habitualrnnonvoters—yet both types of individuals are unlikely to bernrecruited in even the most intense and exciting political campaigns.rnInstead, the efforts of the political pros are directed atrnthe “swing vote”—what one commentator called the “intensernbattle for the middle.” Simply put, it is far more efficient torngain a supporter who simultaneously is lost to the oppositionrnthan it is for either side to swell their ranks.rnPollsters view the growing similarity between voters andrnnonvoters as a self-serving rationalization based on professionalrnaggrandizement. Over the past several decades both therncost and efficiency of survey research regarding all topics, butrncertainly political preferences and attitudes in particular, havernsuffered from “methodological” problems. The very saturationrnof the public by commercial and “scientific” surveys has led torna kind of “revolt of the respondent”: in larger numbers peoplernarc refusing to be interviewed or are King to pollsters.rnIt is membership in a community and a sensernof belonging (especially to local neighborhoodrnand family structures) that is now seenrnas critical to who does or does not vote.rnEmpirical studies suggest several definitivernmeasures of individual attachment, ratherrnthan the hypothetical abstractions such asrn”sense of community” or “civic culture”rnthat many political theorists citernas essential to political involvement.rnIn the 1950’s and I960’s, academic surveys could be readilyrnassured of 65 to 85 percent cooperation in any samplingrneffort. Now, with the declining trust Americans manifest in allrnbureaucratic structures, response rates of 45 to 55 percent arernNOVEMBER 1992/17rnrnrn