But I wonder why he suggests in this blog post that only male voters are interesting and consequential. Surely he is aware that women vote in higher numbers than men. As I noted previously here, this site notes:
For six decades after women obtained the right to vote in 1920, they voted at lower rates than men. However, in the 1980 election women caught up with men, and according to U.S. Census data, in every subsequent election women have voted at an increasingly higher rate than men. In the 2000 elections, 56.2% of women reported voting, compared with 53.1% of men. Because women are a larger proportion of the population and vote at higher rates, about 7.8 million more women than men voted in the 2000 elections…
And this site reports: 8.8 Million More Women Than Men Voted in 2004 Elections. And, see also: (“Civic engagement among young men and young women, while similar, is not equal. In recent years, young women, particularly college educated young women, have voted and volunteered more and been more civically engaged than their young male counterparts.”)
And while I’m on the topic of Krugman’s blog, cripes, did he really need to repost an allegation that Richard Scaife’s mother was”just a gutter drunk”? That’s the conscience of a liberal dood?
–Ann Bartow
It would be good to see this trend continue. Since women have only had the right to vote in the US. for 87 years, whereas some groups of men have had the franchise for 140 and some groups of men for centuries, it would be a shame to see a voting malais permiate this triumph as it seems to have with men. The right to vote means WE THE PEOPLE control our destiny.
And the “gutter” remark was way cruel and unneccessary regardless of the source.