disenfranchising non-voting voters?

Andrew Sullivan defends something stupid:

That tells me that counting Michigan and Florida would disenfranchise a large number of voters who did not vote, because there was no campaigning and/or the voters there thought the contest would not count and so did not bother to vote.

So, voter disenfranchising now extends to voters who don’t vote? In that case, what about the 50% of the vote-able populace who don’t vote for Republican or Democrat candidates? Surely THEY are being disenfranchised as well, right?

I’ll humor this line of thinking with a counter-argument.

If voters being disenfranchised really mattered to Mr. Sullivan, I think he would examine this beyond the OMG-OBAMA-IS-TEH-WINNAR context. Clearly there is a massive percentage of people who do not find Democrat or Republican candidates to be worth the time to vote for them. Why is this, and what can be done to change the trend?

When Jesse Ventura ran for Governor of Minnesota he was a clear underdog but awakened a lot of non-voters who voted him into office. Unfortunately he was a failure of a Governor for a variety of reasons not related to his party affiliation, but the point was proven that there is a serious possibility of bringing “new” voters to the table by offering a clear and different third choice.

No 2008 Democrat or Republican candidate entertains more than roughly 25% of the voteable populace. Starry-eyed singing of “yes we can” and talk of “bringing people together” makes for a good campaign ad, in reality that 75% opposition is not going to budge.