# Why don't many US resident Latinos vote?



## cirrus

I was amazed by a graph showing the level of voter registration in today's New York times.  Here's the link 

Even in New Mexico where the Latino population is over 40% of the population as a whole, less than 17% are registered to vote.

Of the states where Latinos are more than 10% of the population only one has more than a third registered, a quarter is more like the average, often the level is even less than that. 

I would be interested to hear what your take is on why this and the impact it will have.


----------



## KateNicole

It seems to be a common trend in the United States that people of lower economic status are less likely to vote, perhaps because they feel like it doesn't matter who is elected to office, because no one listens to them.  I would imagine that of the 83 some percent who do not vote, many are still only beginning to climb the proverbial ladder.  This is just speculation however.  

On a side note, at voter-registration rallies in college, people would tell us that the politicians are most likely to listen and cater to senior citizens and the wealthier, older upperclass, because they have the highest voter turn out and that voter turn-out among twenty-something college students has been "pathetic" is past years.


----------



## GenJen54

I would also guess (just taking another stab here) that Latinos rarely find candidates who honestly speak to them in terms of their needs as immigrant minorities or naturalized citizens. 

Politicians only bring up Latino issues when it benefits _*them*_, not necessarily the Latinos.  They rarely reach out to Latino populations unless there is a good "photo op" in it.

There is little push among any group to encourage Latinos to vote.    

I would hope, given the current political battle over immigration, more Latino citizens will take part in the next election.


----------



## oxazol

For me it's clear. It's not difficult to see that politician treat Latin Americans as a group that they think that it can be manipulated easily in order to get lot of votes , but only this. 
A few words in spanish and no real policy for them is not enough to convince them.


----------



## KateNicole

I think that's half the problem . . . You're saying that politicians shouldn't treat Latin Americans as a group, but in the same breath you're saying there isn't any real policy for "them"--Latinos as a group!  

There shouldn't be policy for Latinos or blacks or whites.  There should be policy for Americans, whatever their ancestry may be, because honestly, our needs as human beings do not differ according to our racial or ethnic backgrounds.  Poverty vs. economic stability makes a difference, but black vs. white vs. Latino vs. Asian does not (in my opinion.)  Obviously immigration is an issue more particular to Latinos that any other group in our country right now, but I am referring to policy that affects citizens of the United States, not policy for the relatives that many of us (including non-Latinos) have in other foreign countries.   At any rate, as long as upper class whites and senior citizens dominate the vote, that is who will be catered to.  Maybe some of the marches with 100,000+ people in protest of the new "anti-immigration" bill will start to turn a few heads and make politicians brace for upcoming elections.

Anyway though, I know I'm simplifying something that is far too complex to comment on objectively.


----------



## fenixpollo

I may be wrong here... but isn't the "percentage of" data based on the Census? If so, that means that they count everybody who's living in the state, regardless of their legal status. 

Illegal aliens and legal resident aliens cannot vote. Since there are more resident aliens in the Hispanic* population than in the White (non-Hispanic)* population, then there will be a smaller percentage of voters among Hispanics than among Whites. 

_*I'm using Census Bureau terms for effeciency, not because I agree with them._


----------



## maxiogee

KateNicole said:
			
		

> There shouldn't be policy for Latinos or blacks or whites.



True, but if a whopping proportion of any ethnic grouping is not voting it devalues the democratic process and it needs to be addressed. Probably not by targetting policies directly at them but by asking them why they don't vote and seeing if there is a consistent reason.

Voter apathy is a growing trend in many countries and it leads to those who do vote having policies targetted at them - which is the other side of the coin. Should only those who vote have a say? How can you make sure that politicians include the needs of everybody in their policies if they are likely to favour those they know will vote when drawing up their policies?


----------



## cirrus

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I may be wrong here... but isn't the "percentage of" data based on the Census? If so, that means that they count everybody who's living in the state, regardless of their legal status.
> 
> Illegal aliens and legal resident aliens cannot vote. Since there are more resident aliens in the Hispanic* population than in the White (non-Hispanic)* population, then there will be a smaller percentage of voters among Hispanics than among Whites.
> 
> _*I'm using Census Bureau terms for effeciency, not because I agree with them._


 
Interesting.  I had wondered whether it might be an issue of whether or not people are citizens.  That brings up a whole string of issues. 

I make no claims to be an expert on US politics but at first sight it's not a pretty message: Latinos welcome for hard work and poor pay but please don't ask for the right to stay or be treated like equals?  

As a democrat (and I don't mean in the party political sense here) I find it disturbing that so many people are excluded or exclude themselves from voting. Was not the message: no taxation without representation one of the triggers of American independence in the first place?

Please don't get me wrong, I am not setting out to be anti American here, just raising issues.

I look forward to learning more.

All the best


----------



## maxiogee

cirrus said:
			
		

> Was not the message: no taxation without representation one of the triggers of American independence in the first place?



But these people are represented - but they choose not to vote for those who will represent them. That's a different matter than the "without representation" of the War of Independence.

What was voter turn-out like in "ethnic" areas of the UK at the last election, and are there areas where people don't bother to register to vote?


----------



## Bastoune

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> I may be wrong here... but isn't the "percentage of" data based on the Census? If so, that means that they count everybody who's living in the state, regardless of their legal status.
> 
> Illegal aliens and legal resident aliens cannot vote. Since there are more resident aliens in the Hispanic* population than in the White (non-Hispanic)* population, then there will be a smaller percentage of voters among Hispanics than among Whites.
> 
> _*I'm using Census Bureau terms for effeciency, not because I agree with them._


 
Bingo.  That's the issue at hand.  I remember reading that it is estimated that 60% of Hispanics living in the U.S. (real numbers) are illegal.


----------



## fenixpollo

Bastoune said:
			
		

> Bingo. That's the issue at hand. I remember reading that it is estimated that 60% of Hispanics living in the U.S. (real numbers) are illegal.


As of 2004, there are 41 million "Hispanics" in the U.S.  The number of illegal aliens is disputed, but may be as high as 15 million, which means that 30% (liberal estimate) are illegal aliens.  About half your figure, Bastoune, but still a sizeable chunk.


----------



## cuchuflete

To add to FPs comments, the graph is poorly labeled, so it's unclear what it means.

Example: Arizona, according to this graphic has...

-Hispanics as % of state population: 28%
-"share registered to vote in 2004..." 6.2%... This appears, from the bar graph, to be 6.2% of the state population, and not 6.2% of the Hispanics in the state or of the Hispanics in the state registered to vote.

Let's follow this muddle even farther:  If Hispanics are 28% of the state population, that doesn't tell us what Hispanics are as a % of those eligible to register.  That number could be higher or lower than 28%.  Exclude illegal residents, and the 28% goes down, as does the portion of the (28-X)% who are elibible to register.  

Let's just assume, for the sake of illustration, that 10% of the Hispanics in Arizona are not legally present, so that would leave about 25%.  
Then, assume that half the Hispanics in the state are under the age of 18, and thus not eligible to register.  That takes us to roughly 12.5% of the populace.  If the 6.2% registered is 6.2% of the state population, that would indicate about a 50% registration rate.  
I wonder what the overall registration rate is for Arizona.

I'll let you know if I can find the data in the Census records.


----------



## ElaineG

http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/voting/tabA-1.xls

According to this table, 57.9% of citizen Hispanics (nationwide) were registered to vote in 2004. That's more than the percentage of citizen Asians, although less than the White and Black columns.

Let's not forget that the issue is not only "illegal immigrants," legal but non-citizen immigrants can't vote either.  So the NYTimes way of presenting the data is _quite_ distorted.


----------



## cuchuflete

US Bureau of the census, 2004 voting,

Total 18 years and over    215,694,000, of which,
 registered:    142,070,000 or    65.9%  

voted:    125,736,000    58.3%  

Hispanics:
Total 18 years and over    27,129,000  of which,
 registered:    9,308 or   34.3%   

voted:  7,587,000    28.0%

Conclusions...

Of Hispanic citizens eligible to register and vote, the registration rate is a little more than half that of the total population, and the % of such persons eligible to register who actually voted is slightly less than half that of the total population.

In simple words, Hispanics are about half as likely to register and vote as the entire US population.

source: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting/cps2004.html


----------



## Fernando

Cuchu, you are getting your data from the "Total Pop." column. Would it not be fairer to compare the "Citizens" column. I assume the "Population" gets citizens+legal residents.


----------



## cuchuflete

Thanks Fernando...The total pop. used to calculate the %s shows ~27 million. The far right side of the sheet shows an additional 11 million "Not a citizen". 



> U.S. citizen
> Reported registered    Not registered    Not a citizen
> 
> Number
> 9,308,.....................6,780...................11,041


----------



## Fernando

Well, at least in the older population (with not many non-citizens) the percentage is over 50%, what is fair enough.

I assume as they get the nationality their politic intervention will equal the non-hispanic population.

Though the number of non-citizens is huge, I would not say that is unfair. No country allows (at least in nationalwide elections) to vote the foreigners. I assume (bt I do not know it) that nationality granting policy is not bery hard in the US (once you have the legal residence), at least in comparison with Europe.


----------



## cuchuflete

ElaineG and I have spent lots of time trying--without success--to reconcile two conflicting government census tables.

Regardless of which is correct, if either, there appear to be some preliminary findings

1. The NY Times graphic is badly misleading and alarmist.

2. Hispanics register and vote in lower proportions than other US Citizens.


----------



## cirrus

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What was voter turn-out like in "ethnic" areas of the UK at the last election, and are there areas where people don't bother to register to vote?


 
It's a tad off topic but as you ask:  I live in the constituency of West Ham. This is split more or less equally between Whites, Africans and Asians.  At the last general election turn out was just under 50%, the one before that 49%.  More details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ham_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

I am not sure where I would lay my hands rapidly on non registration stats


----------



## maxiogee

cirrus said:
			
		

> It's a tad off topic but as you ask



It wasn't really off-topic, I was broadening the spread of the topic.

I know that in Ireland the voter turn out has been falling at recent elections.
I also know that the lower turnouts tend to be worse in more demographically down-market constituencies. These tend to be the sort of areas immigrants live in.
I was just wondering if there is a correlation between the down-marketness of the areas the Latinos live in the US and the low level of registration.

Having watched the last US presidential election from a distance and having successfully predicted that Kerry would fail to win (not the wording) I would ask what appeal the candidates had for the lower-earning end of the electorate. I think that both were trying to appeal to a more comfortable, white middle class constituency. I can only imagine, as I said before, that this turns into a vicious circle, none of the candidates appeal to me, so I don't vote. Next time I'm even less likely to get a candidate who appeals to be because I didn't vote last time.


----------



## cirrus

And that's exactly my point. This why I say there isn't representation.  There may be someone there who is nominally representing them.  However if he (and let's face it, more often than not that is the case) isn't seeking their vote because they aren't registered, there is no skin off his nose if he doesn't take their needs into account.


----------



## Papalote

Hi, everyone

I do not live in the USA but I am an ex-Mexican citizen and I would put my money on the fact that most of the non-voters come from countries where voting is a joke, everyone knows the outcome (at all levels of government) and things aren`t going to change just because one votes. As a matter of fact, in some villages where I lived, if it became known that one had voted for the ``wrong candidate`` life could become quite difficult, social-wise. 

Perhaps things have changed somewhat from when I lived there, the PRI is no longer the one and only winner, but the results didn`t change much (corruption, kidnappings, etc.). I know people who will be voting there this year, but only because they are afraid the communists  might get in. But they won`t vote for the candidate they believe could change things; they`ll vote for the candidate they think will be getting the most votes, i.e., has the most chances of winning.

I don`t think that poverty alone creates this phenomena in the USA. My belief is that you have to grow in a country where voting is part of the culture. Unfortunately, it takes a few generations of voters, in a country where one`s vote counts, for things to change.

Saludos,

P


----------



## maxiogee

Papalote said:
			
		

> the non-voters come from countries where voting is a joke,



I _know_ you mean that seriously, but my point is that _even in decent democracies_ voting has become a joke. It changes little. Politics has ceased to have a real effect on people's lives. Changing the bums on the seats doesn't change the tax rates, doesn't change interest rates, doesn't generate more jobs, and really only affects very, very few people. The 'middle ground' has become the political battlefield, and the focus groups, policy units, think tanks etc. all pitch for it. And by its very nature the middle ground is uncontroversial and unthreatening to anyone.


----------



## cuchuflete

Voting does make a difference.  Imagine Al Gore invading Iraq, 
lowering the tax rates for the wealthiest citizens, and reducing government spending on social programs, while stocking his cabinet with clowns who call long-standing allies names.

Of course he would have promulgated his own, distinct, idiocy, but it would have been different in both style and substance.

Black voters in the US used to register and vote at much lower rates than today's Hispanic voters.  Then they discovered that by showing up to vote they had some leverage with one of the major parties.  I have no doubts that
Hispanic voters will make the same discovery soon.  The difference will be that, as a large voter block, they will have leverage with both parties.


----------



## ElaineG

> Hispanic voters will make the same discovery soon. The difference will be that, as a large voter block, they will have leverage with both parties


 
Hispanic voters have already made, and will continue to make, key differences in local and statewide races (the LA mayoral race and the Colarado senate race are two examples that spring to mind). 

Moreover, not all Hispanics are economically disadvantaged or politically unsophisticated. The Cuban-American lobby, with its base in South Florida that includes many wealthy families, has been so powerful over the last few decades that they have been able to prevent any softening of the U.S. government policy towards Castro even when common sense might dictate a different line. (I hear from friends in Miami that the younger generation is not as univocal on this point, so that may change).


And as you say, Cuch, Hispanics have more leverage in some ways than African-American voters because they are not seen as basically a "gimme" for one political party, but are seen as having reasons to vote for both parties (some align with Democrats on some economic issues, including immigration policy, but, as Catholics, may align with Republicans on many social issues, such as abortion) and therefore as votes that must be won.


----------



## Span_glish

Someone already said that US Residents are not allowed to vote and indeed that is a valid reason.
On the other hand, I volunteered as an interpreter during the last elections in November and the outcome was encouraging. I agree with Elaine's remarks, Hispanic voters are and will continue to make a difference.


----------



## Brioche

Fernando said:
			
		

> No country allows (at least in nationalwide elections) to vote the foreigners. I assume (bt I do not know it) that nationality granting policy is not very hard in the US (once you have the legal residence), at least in comparison with Europe.


 
Actually, resident Irish people can vote in UK elections, and resident British citizens can vote in Irish parliamentary (Dail) elections, but not in Irish presidential elections, or Irish referendum.


----------



## maxiogee

Can non-Citizens vote in any US elections?


----------



## cirrus

Brioche said:
			
		

> Actually, resident Irish people can vote in UK elections, and resident British citizens can vote in Irish parliamentary (Dail) elections, but not in Irish presidential elections, or Irish referendum.


 
In terms of the electoral roll in the UK this is the current situation:

Can foreign nationals vote? Source

Irish citizens resident here have the same voting rights as British citizens
European Union citizens resident here can vote at local government elections and European Parliamentary elections. They cannot vote in UK Parliamentary elections
Citizens of Commonwealth countries and British Dependent Territories resident here have the same voting rights as British citizens
*People who are not British, Irish, European Union, Commonwealth or British Dependent Territory citizens cannot vote in the UK*


----------



## Brioche

In Australia, it is compulsory to register to vote, and it is compulsory to vote in state and federal elections.

In effect, it is compulsory to get your name crossed off the list, and put your ballot paper in the box.  What you write on the paper is up to you.

One good thing about this is that elections are on Saturdays, there are plenty of polling booths, and you can vote at any polling booth anywhere.

We also have a system of postal votes, so you can still vote if you cannot get to a polling booth.


----------

