Romney's comments about the "47 percent" -- an imagined Democratic-voting underclass -- highlighted a problem for Obama: His 2008 voters may not show up in 2012.
"POOR PEOPLE DON'T VOTE."
An ACORN organizer named Chris Edwards scrawled the words on a white board in a dingy Las Vegas strip mall. It was the summer of 2008, and Edwards was training a roomful of $8-an-hour job seekers to go out and sign up new voters in the worst parts of town in 109-degree heat.
"We have to blow this up, break this axiom that poor people don't vote," Edwards told the room that day. "We have to destroy it." Only by participating, he said urgently, would lower-income people get elected officials who actually cared about their needs.
In 2008, ACORN and similar groups came closer than ever before to reaching their goals. Voter registration skyrocketed across the country -- also buoyed by a drawn-out, competitive Democratic primary and widespread enthusiasm about a historic election, to be sure. But ACORN was a major player. Working in tandem with an organization called Project Vote, the group recorded 1.3 million voter applications across the country; it claims to have been responsible for one in four new voter registrations of 2008.
ACORN is defunct now, the victim of both a right-wing campaign against it and the group's own internal problems. And while it was never the case that the group, as some on the right charged, conspired to steal the election, there's no denying it provided a substantial boost to President Obama four years ago.
Now, with the polls locked in a near-dead heat as the final weeks of the 2012 election tick down, the major remaining question mark is who will comprise the electorate. This is where ACORN's absence is being quietly but consequentially felt. The surge in voter registrations, mostly Democratic, that occurred four years ago has not been duplicated this year, posing an obstacle to an Obama reelection effort, which depends on continuing to expand the electorate.
"2008 was an exceptional year. For the first time, you saw African-Americans represented in the electorate at the percentage they are in the population, and that's a really big deal," Sarah Massey, a former labor organizer and ACORN consultant who now works for the national voter-participation nonprofit Project Vote, said in a recent interview. In 2012, she admitted, there's no equivalent national effort mobilizing lower-income, minority, and young voters the way ACORN and Project Vote did four years ago. "They could take it across the country," she said. "We definitely have a deficit without them."
It is an underappreciated irony of Mitt Romney's now-infamous "47 percent" theory of the election: The vast, dependent underclass of "entitled" welfare recipients that Romney envisioned as the base of the Democratic Party are actually the least likely to turn out and vote.
"It is by and large upper-class people who vote and who have a voice in our government," said Henry Brady, dean of the University of California, Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy and co-author of The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. "The upper [income] quintile participates at roughly twice the rate as the lowest quintile."
One of Brady's graduate classes spent a session last week trying to parse Romney's statements about the connections between income, government dependency and electoral participation. "In fact, the people you might think most need government involvement are the least likely to be actually involved," he said. In studies, those receiving means-tested government benefits such as welfare and Medicaid routinely record some of the lowest rates of voter participation.
The result, according to social-justice activists and academics alike, is a system where both parties routinely ignore poverty and other issues affecting the lower classes. "There is pretty good reason to believe that unequal political voice does lead to unequal political outcomes," Brady said. "For example, America's had less redistribution of income than many other countries, and the reason for that is probably a much less mobilized middle and lower class."
In other words, Romney might have been right that those most dependent on government tend to vote their economic interests when they show up. But they don't constitute the voting base of the Democratic Party or any other party, because they don't turn out to vote.
Four years ago, ACORN's massive effort to mobilize poor people represented an attempt to change that, and it succeeded as never before. In so doing, the organization also attracted a storm of partisan fury that helped seal its demise. This time around, with ACORN out of the picture and no one filling the void, the question is whether Obama can win without it.
The major problems with ACORN's voter-registration work came to light in 2008, when Nevada officials noticed that Mickey Mouse, Tony Romo, and other unlikely Nevada voters had had registration forms submitted by ACORN canvassers. The resulting firestorm made the group a major buzzword of the final weeks of the 2008 campaign.
Sarah Palin made it a cornerstone of her stump speech, saying Barack Obama's ties to the group from his community-organizing days raised questions about his character. The McCain-Palin campaign hammered the issue with videos, memos, and conference calls. In the final presidential debate, John McCain brought up Obama's ACORN connection three times, saying the group was "on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."
"There is pretty good reason to believe that unequal political voice does lead to unequal political outcomes. For example, America's had less redistribution of income than many other countries."
The truth was more banal. Because ACORN paid its canvassers, the motives of its field workers could be less about empowering the underclass and more about bringing home a check. And while ACORN claimed the workers were paid hourly, no matter how many voters they signed up, Edwards later testified that they were subject to daily per-registration quotas and bonuses, giving them an incentive to falsify the forms.