Single women are key to the midterm election

voting-womenAt an October 9 meeting of the Chemung County LWV and the Elmira-Corning branch of the AAUW, we heard an interesting presentation on “Current Issues and Answers” by Sky Moss, Assistant Professor of History and Government at Corning Community College. Moss gave a state-by-state analysis of Senate races, discussed political demographics and campaign advertising. One startling fact: single women will make up 25% of the electorate in the near future. Their votes are crucial.

According to the “Women’s Voices Women Vote” article cited:

Unmarried women — single, separated, divorced, or widowed women — are one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the United States:

  • There are 53 million unmarried women in the U.S.
  • One out of every two women in America is unmarried.

But their electoral and policy involvement has not kept pace.

  • Unmarried women made up 25.2 % of the voting-eligible population but only 23.6% percent of the electorate in 2010.
  • 39% of unmarried women were not registered to vote in 2010.

To combat low turnout, WVWV  “develops and implements effective registration and mobilization programs and innovative approaches to help millions more unmarried women and other underrepresented groups — people of color and young people — become active participants in our democracy.”

In the NPR report cited, Mara Liasson informs us:

In a midterm election that’s expected to hinge on the demographic composition of the electorate, single women could be the key to Democratic chances to hold on to the Senate in November. While Republicans have a longstanding problem with female voters, this year it’s Democrats who have the more urgent problem: how to get their most reliable female supporters to become more reliable voters.

For those who are not registered, I believe it is still possible to register today at the Election Commission office or by mailing the registration form. My suggestion: encourage young women you may know to register and vote.

© William Hungerford – October 2014

About whungerford

* Contributor at where we discuss the politics, economics, and events of the New New York 23rd Congressional District (Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Chemung, (Eastern) Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben,Tioga, Tompkins, and Yates Counties) Please visit and comment on whatever strikes your fancy.
This entry was posted in 2014, Congress, Constituents, Media, Political and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Single women are key to the midterm election

  1. Deb Meeker says:

    This is encouraging information, thank you.


  2. josephurban says:

    In the NY 29 the choice is clear. Robertson is Pro-Choice and Reed is anti-Choice(Pro-Life) . The question is simple: Does a woman have the right to determine what decision to make regarding a pregnancy (Pro-Choice) or does the government decide a woman does not have that right (Anti-Choice). Any woman who votes GOP is basically relegating herself to second class citizenship . and voting for government control of the most personal and intimate areas of a person’s life. And any man who votes GOP is saying that his wife or daughter, once pregnant, lose the right to control their own bodies.


  3. whungerford says:

    Yes, but personal freedom isn’t the only issue riding on this election, for example:


  4. BOB McGILL says:‎CachedSimilar

    Children born to unmarried mothers are more likely to grow up in a single-parent household, experience instable living arrangements, live in poverty, and have socio-emotional problems.[1] ,[2] ,[3] ,[4] As these children reach adolescence, they are more likely to have low educational attainment, engage in sex at a younger age, and have a birth outside of marriage.[5] ,[6] ,[7] ,[8] As young adults, children born outside of marriage are more likely to be idle (neither in school nor employed), have lower occupational status and income, and have more troubled marriages and more divorces than those born to married parents.[9]

    Women who give birth outside of marriage tend to be more disadvantaged than their married counterparts, both before and after the birth. Unmarried mothers generally have lower incomes, lower education levels, and are more likely to be dependent on welfare assistance compared with married mothers.[10] ,[11] ,[12] ,[13] Women who have a nonmarital birth also tend to fare worse than childless single women; for example, they have reduced marriage prospects compared with single women without children.[14] ,[15]

    the democrat’s program of ” make babbies, stay at home and don’t work, we’ll take care of you,” is not enough to get women to vote because it’s not lucrative enough. Why don’t you offer to pay them more for their vote ?


  5. BOB McGILL says:

    .If Every Food Stamp Recipient Voted For Obama, It Would Account For 75% Of His Total
    November 14, 2012 – 3:19 PM


    By Ron Meyer
    Subscribe to Ron Meyer RSSShare on Facebook Share on Twitter More Sharing Services115Share on printShare on emailIf all 47 million food stamp recipients voted for President Obama, it would account for 75.4 percent of Obama’s 62.3 million votes.

    Harry Hopkins, FDR’s close adviser who ran the non-defunct Works Progress Administration (WPA), once described Roosevelt’s strategy as “tax & tax, spend & spend, elect & elect.” He believed that if Roosevelt put everyone on the federal payroll, either through aid or federal jobs, that Roosevelt would never lose. FDR won four presidential elections in a row before his death removed him from office.

    Did Obama use his idol’s model to win this election?

    Food stamps rolls have grown by nearly 50 percent-by more than 15 million recipients-under the Obama administration. During that same time, the unemployment rate has stayed the same. Either those outside of the workforce have been decimated by the Obama economy or this administration is making a conscious effort to get more Americans reliant on government. Or both.

    Welfare programs now cost taxpayers a record-high $750 billion. While government “charity” has grown, so has poverty-and so has the Democrats’ poll numbers.

    The candidates and their PACs spent $6 billion for the election. Should we add the $750 billion in federal welfare to Democratic campaign spending total?

    Not everyone on food stamps votes or votes Democrat (and no one polls this subset of the population), and I don’t want to overstate the effects of the growth in welfare.

    If citizens vote in their own personal, short-term interests, with 49 percent of the population receiving some sort of federal aid, Republicans will never win another election. Thankfully many of those 49 percent are elderly voters who want a bright, debt-free future for their children.

    In fact, conservatives should take heart that this election was as close as it turned out. It means that at least some of those receiving federal aid are open to conservative anti-poverty ideas.

    While liberals throw federal money at voters, conservatives must offer them something more substantial. It’s tough to beat politicians handing out free stuff, but we have to hope that careers and purposeful opportunity will appeal to American’s ethos.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.