The Public Policy Institute of California released a survey today that is making all sorts of headlines. The survey sheds light on voting trends in the most populous state in the Union. Given the coming demographic shifts within the U.S., it is fair to wonder if these results apply to the rest of the nation as well. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

The growing diversity of California’s population isn’t showing up in the voting booth, where people who are richer, older and whiter than their nonvoting neighbors are making the decisions that will shape the state’s future, a new study shows.

Further, the plans and priorities of the Californians most likely to vote and those of the nearly 50 percent of adults who don’t participate in elections are as different as their bank accounts and racial backgrounds, said Mark Baldassare, a pollster who conducted the study released Wednesday by the Public Policy Institute of California.

“About 15 percent of adult people make the decisions, and that 15 percent doesn’t look much like California overall,” he said. “And that’s even more problematic here because so much public policy is made at the ballot box via initiatives…” [Link]

What these results seem to indicate is that if a larger portion of the population simply registered to vote and showed up on election day, you could throw conventional wisdom out the window. Want an example?

Take the issue of taxes, for example. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Republican allies in the Legislature argue incessantly that Californians are adamantly opposed to new or increased taxes.

A poll last May showed that when likely voters were asked whether they would prefer higher taxes and more services or lower taxes and fewer state services, they split on the issue — 49 percent favored more services, and 44 percent called for lower taxes.

But Californians not registered to vote have far different views. More than two-thirds of those residents welcomed higher taxes and more services, while less than 30 percent called for less government.

“The size and role of government is hugely determined by the shape of the likely voter electorate today,” Baldassare said. [Link]

These results make a lot of sense when you think about it. Take India for example. On election-day the turn-out there is obscenely high as compared to here in America. The result: a more socialist government. Several countries in Latin America (Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc.) seem to demonstrate the same. If the people all turn out to vote then conservative economic principles get crushed. In America this is strongly tied to race. If Latino and African American (and possibly Asian American) voters turn out, then we might be (as a nation) guided by a completely different set of economic principles, including perhaps a different healthcare system. I am sure The MAN is sitting in his office right now with a scowl on his face. The following fact however, will allow him relax a bit:

Although California has been widely trumpeted as the nation’s first large “majority minority” state — one where racial minority residents make up more than half the population — the minority voting picture is getting worse, not better, Baldassare said.

Since 1990, California’s population has increased by 25 percent, yet voter registration has climbed by only 15 percent. Only about 56 percent of the eligible population is even registered to vote today, compared with 65 percent in 1994.

The growing number of noncitizens living in California explains some of the gap. But that doesn’t account for the huge racial differences seen in the pool of likely voters, the people politicians are most likely to hear, Baldassare said. [Link]

I myself am very torn about the upcoming elections in California. I am a lifelong Democrat, and since I will soon be moving to Texas, this is the last election in a LONG time where my vote will mean anything (I keed, I keed ). Ahnold has been doing a better job of late and has shifted to the left a great deal. Still, I owe it to California as a parting gift to help deliver it back to the blue. Then why am I so torn about this? If I vote for Schwarzenegger then it means I will be helping him to remain in office next March when I will be filing my doctoral dissertation. That means that Schwarzenegger’s signature will be on my Ph.D. diploma. The kitsch value in that is so much higher than having the name of Phil Angelides on there. Seriously, how many people can say that The Terminator signed their diploma? I know, I am going to burn in hell.