if nonvoters are registered, their nonvoting takes on a more activistrnstance than if otherwise. Although the absolute levels ofrnreported voting and reported registration are both inflated inrnsurveys, these figures themselves are misleading. One can,rnhowever, reasonably use the discrepancy between the two as arnmeasure of the “principled abstainers.” In other words, if individualsrnsay they are registered, this suggests that a key thresholdrnto voting has been reached. While a number of reasonsrnmay ultimately blunt the taking of the second step, actualrnvoting, it is unlikely to be apathy and far more likely to implyrnabstention based on “principle.” Census bureau data indicaternthat for each presidential election from 1976 throughrn1988 there is a slight but steady increase in the percentage ofrnpersons who report registering but not actually voting.rnIf one were to use formal education as an indicator ofrngreater potential for principled abstention, then increases in thernproportion of the population graduating high school and attendingrncollege might denote a different and more sophisticatedrncharacter to nonvoters than heretofore acknowledged.rnBetween 1960 and 1980, the college-educated proportion ofrnthe U. S. population increased by 11 percent, whereas presidentialrnvoting in the same period dropped by over 5 percent.rnWhile the rate of voting among those who have attended collegernis higher thair among those who have not, over one inrnfour are nonvoters. Whereas those with at least some collegerneducation comprised less than a fifth of the nonvoting electoraternin 1976, by 1988 they were more than one-quarter ofrnthis population.rnMost importantly, the revolt of the ironvoter is tied tornthe growing disjuncture between community and politics.rnThe Kettering Foundation, in its 1990 round of local citizenrnfora and focus groups, concluded that the major reason forrnthe crisis of American political life lay with the belief held byrnmillions that they could no longer affect the system, particularlyrnat a national level. Rather than apathy, what explainedrntheir attitude was a mood of political impotence. While addressingrnthe issue of voting turnout, Kettering touched on a keyrnsociological dynamic linked to political participation: attachmentrnto community.rnIt is membership in a community and a sense of belongingrn(especially to local neighborhood and family structures) that isrnnow seen as critical to who does or does not vote. Empiricalrnstudies suggest several definitive measures of individual attachment,rnrather than the hypothetical abstractions such asrn”sense of community” or “civic culture” that many politicalrntheorists cite as essential to political involvement. The emphasisrnhere is upon specific networks of community—”votingrnas a community act.” This behavior is, in turn, correlatedrnwith belonging to voluntary local associations, including suchrndiverse organizations as local crime watch groups, sports teams,rnor even organizing a bake sale. Declining neighborhood andrnfamily cohesion, coupled with high levels of geographic nomadismrnin American society, creates a very individuated,rnanomic, and essentially detached individual or nuclear familyrnunit whose internalization of civic responsibility norms may bernweak or absent.rnThus, despite a welter of theories regarding the role of institutionalrnbarriers to voting, lack of “political sophistication,”rnand the blandishments of mass media, what determines whyrnAmericans do or do not vote is unrelated to their wealth orrnpoverty per se, but is instead linked to their having an intrinsicallyrnmeaningful community bond. In turn, it is not clearrnwhich is the chicken and which the egg. For some, of course,rnthis is good news, as it may suggest that the most cynical andrnalienated in society—those least willing to submit to a ritualisticrnfealty to either the Democratic or Republican parties—oftenrnstay outside the voting booth.rnWhen the decision to vote or not to vote is an act of personalrncommitment whose rationale is not readily translated intorna soundbite or multichoice checklist of the pollster, then wernmay feel more assured about our political system, regardless ofrnthe ebb and flow of its prevalence or direction. But if voting isrnmerely the reflexive expression of a mass media-driven or ritualisticrnexercise in conformity to the rites of an “electronicrncommunity,” then its meaning is in doubt. It is when peoplerndecide to vote, even while believing the choices placed beforernthem are unsatisfactory, and when both major parties viernfor the ideological center of “swing voters,” that turnout statisticsrnbecome highly ambiguous.rnIf voting is to serve as a meaningful act of civitas, a symbolicrnexpression of community, then to abstain from it is to deny thernlegitimacy of polities. That voting and nonvoting are increasinglyrnindistinguishable as acts of public rationality offers somernglimpse at the moral crisis facing our society. That many individualsrnnow appear to perceive their decision to vote asrnfraught with uncertaiirty as to its personal and social meaningrnbespeaks the potential for overcoming the conundrum.rnVoters and nonvoters alike are just statistical, bureaucraticrncategories—administrative bookkeeping devices. As long asrnpolitics continue to be confined to behaviors such as voting orrncontributing funds or volunteering to help a candidate getrnelected, for most citizens such acts will remain outside of theirrn”real” lives. These acts are perhaps even interruptions of it,rnpossibly distractions and often intrusions.rnUnless political life is the extension of normal life by otherrnmeans, it is bound to be the act of specialized minorities.rnThis is what is implied by the fusion of voting with community.rnWithout this link, individuals are left with the classicalrnmeaning of “alienation”—separation of the self from one’srnactivities. Where community is abserrt, genuine polities cannotrnflourish. Nonvoters are more likely to lack such socialrntics, but they may also be persons who form a community ofrntheir own: one who finds normative what those outside see asrndeviant. We must then ask, who has at one time not beenrndrawn to that netherworld where politicians seem unable to offerrntrust, fail to speak in a language that is comprehendible,rnand where the act of voting seemed more irrational than rational?rnIndeed, the core of this argument is that locating the fulcrumrnof political life within civic values and sense of communityrnprovides the most powerful explanation for the declinernin voting observed in the past several decades.rnConsequently, whatever the result of this year’s election, almostrncertainly the choice made will be that of a minority ofrnthe electorate. This dynamic is a product of social forces thatrnare not created by, but only reflected in, our nation’s polity, crnNOVEMBER 1992/19rnrnrn