GovernmentExecutive.com

COMMENTS

• I would say that it's also fairly obvious that people at higher rungs of the socio-economic ladder have the time/energy/money to be able to pay attention to politics. E.g., "The report found that "contrary to the hopes of some advocates, the Internet is not changing the socioeconomic character of civic engagement in America. Just as in offline civic life, the well to-do and well-educated are more likely than those less well off to participate in online political activities such as e-mailing a government official, signing an online petition or making a political contribution." seems so obvious to not need to be repeated. RW Posted September 2, 2009 6:32 PM
• Two comments: (1) When the math doesn't seem to add up I get suspicious about the whole document. (2) A new definition of "wealthy" seems to be getting a tryout. (1) The article states: "Nearly a third more wealthy Americans participated in traditional political activities than those in the lowest income category. One in five of those who earned less than $20,000 a year took part in two or more offline activities, compared with 45 percent of those earning $100,000 or more per year." How is 45% one-third more than 20%? "One in five" is 20%. One-third more than 20 is about 27; 45 is 225% of 20. (2) "Wealthy," "high-income," "well to-do," and "well-off" are used in the article to describe the 100K group (Those making 20K or less and those making 100K or more are the only income categories mentioned in the article.) Hmmm...is this a strategy to inure us to the prospect that "making the wealthy pay their share" will require a deeper dip into the population? EJC in ATL Posted September 2, 2009 8:21 AM