The Young Voter Disaster Looms

In the battle between democracy and XBox, it's a good chance XBox will win hands down.

...and that's the Play of the Day!! That's choice, OW.

It's a pretty safe bet that young voters will not turn out in 2008. The youth vote has been a non-factor in every election since I turned 18 in 1973. I think there are two options.

Ignore voters until they reach the age of participation (I think it's older than 22), or figure out why our political culture produces young adults who don't give a shit about political matters.

I teach courses in law and justice in high school so the second option is always on my mind. I think the problem is that we are trying to engender a behavior, voting, that will not produce any desired results that are immediately apparent. We somehow have to convince young people, before they reach voting age, that the act of voting, and political participation generally, is a good in itself, without regard to outcomes. That is not going to be easy.

We would have to present it as a duty, and the American consumer capitalist culture holds that the highest duty is self-gratification.

Unless and until we find a way to convince young adults to participate, spending time and resources on the youth vote, beyond the usual lip service, is a waste.

Wow, does Oliver have this story wrong.

First off, young voters turned out in record numbers in 2004, with the highest turnout since the voting age was lowered in 1972. The trend continued in 2006, with the highest mid-term turnout in over a decade. You can learn more on the Young Democrats of America's website, http://www.yda.org/tools/19/youth-statistics. Or go to www.civicyouth.org for more statistics than you can possibly digest in one reading -- all of which prove you wrong.

Second, it's a myth that young people vote overwhelmingly for one candidate or another. Certainly Obama has garnered a wide lead among students in Iowa and across the country and he should be commended for unprecedented outreach to this constituency. But young does not equal student, and Clinton and Edwards both have good youth operations and a strong base of support among youth sub-groups. We may see young people vote for one candidate or another by a wide margine tonight -- but we may not. The bottom line is, Democratic candidates are engaging young people and Republicans (maybe with the exception of Ron Paul) are not. This bodes well for November.

One final note: the conventional wisdom assumes Howard Dean lost Iowa in 2004 because young people didn't come out to caucus. In fact, young people did turn out in big numbers -- they just didn't vote for Dean. John Kerry took 35% of the youth vote in Iowa, to Dean's 25%.

We, our generation, must help set the record straight. Why in the world would a young person come out to vote when everyone is telling them their vote and that of their entire peer group doesn't matter? Instead, we need to drive home the message that not only does one vote truly matter (see Iowa caucus model) but a collective voice can change the Democratic Party and our country for the better.

Alexandra, with all due respect, Oliver makes clear he is talking about people 22 and under. A quick glance at the statistics from your organization and it counts people between the ages of 18-29 as amongst "young" voters.

The bottom line is, Democratic candidates are engaging young people and Republicans ... are not. This bodes well for November.

Actually, it doesn't. Youth turnout is always lower than expected (even in that "bumper crop" year of 2004. Remember how the spectre of the draft was supposed to get everyone under 25 to the polls and voting for Kerry?) So if the Dems are counting on the under-25 crowd to carry them to victory, you might as well just go ahead and print Inaugural Ball tickets for all the Republicans now.