One of the biggest hurdles in discussing American politics (and I'm assuming some version of something like this pops up in other countries as well and I'd welcome non-American's input on that) is the fact that most Americans are not politically active.
There are roughly 252,274,000 Americans of voting age.
In 2020 Presidential Election 158,397,726 votes were cast. So that's about 65% of potential voters actually voting in what was a very stakes, high profile, high passion national election.
Our two big parties; the Democratic and Republican Parties have ~47,000,000 and ~35,000,000 members respectfully. Add on the minor parties that are at least big enough to matter; the Green, the Libertarian, and a smattering of others and you have about 85-90 million people give or take who are a member of a political party. So only about 55-60% of Americans who are politically active are members of an organized political party.
That is sorta as far as we can take raw numbers. Now of those ~90 million people how many are, for lack of a better term, passionate about their parties? How many are protesting and marching and campaigning and volunteering and arguing on social media and voting party lines and voting in primaries and... like active and involved in all of it beyond just voting in the big elections and maybe putting up a yard sign if they are feeling particularly saucy? You can't really put an exact number on that but I feel pretty comfortable saying "not most." Or at least not most people consistently. Obviously "passion" (again for lack of a better, more precise term) ebbs and flows.
My point is of the ~252,000,000 voting age Americans... most are not political in the sense that they aren't "on the ground, fighting the fight" if that makes sense. I've used the term disparagingly before but I'll use it here in a slightly more neutral sense, most American don't belong to a political fandom.
A large percentage of Americans don't vote. A large percentage of Americans who vote aren't a member of either of the two major parties even when they vote for the candidate of said party. And a lot of members of the political parties are not super-passionate about it.
BUT the passionate members of the parties are where all the political discourse happens. And yeah I know that sort of "Duh" level obvious, that's what "interest in" means and all, but they are never above speaking for everyone in their party or, to get to the crux of this discussion, everyone who's not in the discussion at all.
I assume some version of this has always and will always be the way it is, but starting with the Republican Party in the late and really coming to force in the early 80s with Reagan the "Silent Majority" became basically a stealth 3rd person demographic in politics, this whole idea that there is this massive hidden group of Americans who don't have a voice or who are afraid to speak out or some other variation that one of the two major political parties has special insight into and declare themselves the right to speak on their behalf.
To use a crude but funny metaphor it's like watching New York and Chicago fight over whether thin crust or deep dish is the better pizza or whether the only allowed topping for a hot dog is mustard, sauerkraut, and onions or a poppy seed bun, relish, onion, tomato spears, and celery salt when there's the rest of the entire country eating both generic AND countless other variations of Pizza and Hot Dogs that have nothing to do with their argument.
Now sure this largely just political posturing, that one guy trying to win the internet discussion by claiming all the lurkers secretly agree with him and he has special insight into that writ large, but I'm more interested in this group of "Political Lurkers" so to speak itself.
It's easy, too easy, to just chock it up to general malaise or disinterest or laziness and sure those are all in there but I don't know if I buy that's THE major factor since a good chunk of people who aren't party still vote and a good chunk of non-passionate party members are still in a party and so forth and so on the trend seems to people who are not the visible way of being in politics still find a way of being in politics so I'm not buying that everyone who isn't arguing on Twitter or marching is just "not interesting in politics."
I wonder if sometimes it is like the inverse of a one issue voter? Someone who has a stance that overrides all other stances but is not compatible with either party, even they agree with one or both of the major parties on multiple other issues.
There's also the whole thing that "politics" is such a dirty concept in America with so many people just being sick of the whole thing.
I don't have a specific singular direct question here, I'm rambling and throwing something out for discussion. I'm not really looking for a bunch of hot takes as to what everyone thinks the "Silent Majority" thinks because spoiler alert it's gonna be "Well of course they agree with me and we'll win if they ever rise up!"
And yeah I know that on Poly-sci Political Game Theory 101 level the reason really is nothing more than "We have first past the post two party system and this is an inevitable outcome of same."
I'm more just interested in is there a problem to be solved here? Is there really a Silent Majority that exists beyond "Uncategorizable people who don't fit into either two parties."
Is there a combination of political issues that someone could campaign on that a good sizable chunk of American who aren't in politics now would go "Holy crap this guy really speaks for me?"
Is there a way to get meaningful political data from people who aren't party active?
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/Qs42jTF
