Non-Participation

            The United States is regularly ranked very low in percentage of voter turnout among other industrialized democracies. There are many theories as to why this is and it's effects on our government, politics and society. Pluralists see this as just another form of non-participation and feel that it is potentially positive. Pluralists read the lack of participation as the level of complacency the people feel towards the political process. I feel this theory is wrong, not only because it attempts to turn a correlation of events into a political theory, but also because it shows non-participation as a being positive.
             Pluralists have looked at times of high citizen participation and compared them to times of non-participation and have found a common thread. During times of high participation, the country is in the midst of turmoil, controversy, or economic hardships. Examples of this occurred during the Great Depression, Vietnam War, and the recession of the late 80's- early 90's(focused on the election of 1992). During these times, it is implied that participation was high due to the populace's want for radical change in government. Pluralists look to back this up by comparing it to times of high non-participation, which tend to occur during times stability. Examples of this can be found during the economic boom of the 1920's(prior to the Great Depression), post WWII era, and during the success of the 1990's. The correlation is quite evident and isn't being argued, it's the point that it's because of the level of satisfaction that people choose to participate in the political process that is arguable. .
             The first flaw in the theory is claiming the level of satisfaction is what dictates the level of participation occurs. Of course people are going to make more of an effort to participate and vote during times that would be labeled by a pluralist as "Unsatisfactory" or high-levels of participation.