This particular age group, sometimes referred to as Generation X, has several reasons why they do not feel it is their civic duty or privilege to vote. America's youth feels the political playing field and its players are tainted. Many of these non voters do not believe they would benefit from voting and that politics is not catered towards them or their issues. More importantly, there is no major, national, idealistic issue for this age group to latch onto as a cause for political change.
There is a plethora of evidence to support that voter turnout for the 18-24 year old “X’ers” is extremely low. In a survey conducted by Jeana Bumb and myself at the University of North Carolina at Pembroke on November 21, 2000, in their University Center between 12:15pm and 12:30pm, twenty people between 18-24 years old were asked a series of questions concerning their role in politics. Of those asked, over half are interested in politics and 72 percent of them are registered to vote. Of those polled, 67 percent of them did not vote in the election of 2000 despite the fact that 50 percent of the participants believed their vote counts. Of course, this also leaves the other 50 percent believing their vote means absolutely nothing. The problem seems to be the same on a national level. In a national poll over 60 percent of young voters were registered to vote this year, but less than 50 percent said they would actually venture to the polls ("Young Americans" 9). The national exit polls also seem to suggest the same voting patterns for the same age group. According to CNN, only 17 percent of all registered 18-29 year old voters participated in this crucial election. In fact, they were the lowest turnout by age in the entire election (Election).
Young voters age 18-24 believe that politics are money and media driven. Many of these potential voters have separated themselves from politics largely because of the political influence of so called soft money. This is the unlimited money that can be contributed to candidates through political action committees. Generation X'ers want this to be eliminated and stripped from the system (Schiff). Another aspect of this problem could be attributed to the media. So many young people are infamously idealistic, and the media does not do a very good job at portraying politics in a very positive light, which pulls these young voters even further from the political process. The media and political commercials dilute politics so much that many young Americans are not aware that there are differences between the two major political parties (Feldman 2). In fact, politics seems so confusing that these young voters do not even see the difference between candidates ("Young voters"). As a result, disenfranchised youth prefer to pursue their cause outside the system so they can actually get something done (Eddings and Thornton 28). There has been some interest in all of the political legal maneuvering going on in the aftermath of Election 2000 that has some apathetic, young voters interested, but according to Sinan Toprak, a college government instructor, it will not last. Actually, this may cause their suspicion of politics to increase along with their hate of politicians (Berman 56)
Also, thousands upon thousands of unlikely, youthful voters believe that campaigns and their issues are not geared towards them, and they believe there are no benefits from voting. This is primarily because candidates do not discuss the issues that relate to young people in any great length, and the issues they do discuss seem too complicated. In fact, in an interview I conducted with Amanda Petersen, a 21 year old junior and Democrat at UNCW, said her favorite issue was education, but when asked who had the best plan in this election: "I don't know. They were both very confusing in their explanations". Also being in a country of relative peace and prosperity does not leave much for the idealistic youth to grasp onto, according to Russ Freyman, director of Third Millennium (Berman 56). Freyman said in a related article that candidates do not take any real interest in the issues of the young (Bagby). The two front running candidates in the Election of 2000 did try to entice young voters. The Bush campaign sent out George W. Bush's nephew, George P. Bush, a 24 year old law student, to rally the young vote. Gore's top dog was his very own daughter, Kareena Gore Schiff. They spent months trying to get young people out to the polls and vote, but according to Meredith Bagby, author and contributor to MSNBC, this might not have been taken the way the candidates had hoped. She believes if the candidates want the youth vote then they should take the Generation X issues to heart and speak about it themselves instead of sending their representatives. Jehmu Greene, spokeswoman for Rock the Vote, says that the apathetic youth of our generation does have issues. They are interested in education, racial profiling, abortion and the environment. She believes that if candidates want the young vote, they need to quite trying to act cool and talk to these people seriously about these issues and how they will affect young people ("Candidates"). The only candidate that did excite the political minds of apathetic young voters was the Green Party's Ralph Nader (Berman 56). The only problem was Nader was not allowed to take part in the presidential debates, which probably drove his younger supporters still further from the polls. Candidates in the two front running parties focused instead on issues like Medicare, taxes and Social Security. These issues have no immediate impact on voters age 18-24. Why then do candidates focus so heavily on these issues? They do because they must rely on the middle and senior aged citizens to vote. Since they know young people generally do not turn out on Election Day, as only 32 percent did in 1996, then they do not focus on their problems ("Young voters"). It is a cycle. Young voters do not feel like politics is meeting their needs, so they do not vote. Candidates feel like young voters are not going to take part in the political process, so they do not try very hard gaining their interest. This makes the young voters feel alienated, so they do not vote. About the most candidates do to win the non voting youth is make an occasional speech at a university, but Susan MacManus, author of Young v. Old: Generational Combat in the 21st Century, says candidates have to show the young, potential, voting public that they can get results from American politics (Eddings and Thornton 28). Many believe they do not get any benefits from politics because the issues are not important to them. Most 18-25 year olds are not plagued with taxes and health issues that send millions of regular voters to the polls every four years (Gonnerman 39).
One of the most significant problems keeping new voters from turning out is probably the absence of a major issue for them to grasp onto in order to harness their idealistic attitudes. There is also a lack of organization within their ranks. These young voters could be extremely powerful, even turn the tide of an election, but ironically they do not realize their potential strength. Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts believes that most voters 18-24 do not turn out for elections because there is no major issue like Vietnam to send them voting en masse (Gonnerman 39). In fact, 51 percent of voters age 18-24 turned out in the presidential election of 1964, but less than one third showed up in the 1996 election ("Candidates"). Perhaps if there were more organization with the youth cause, they could bring their causes to the forefront. Delli Carpini of Barnard says: “If young people had the equivalent of an AARP-if they were able to not only lobby but also to pool their money, contribute to candidates, and put their own ads on television advocating certain issues-then I think you'd see a dramatically different political environment” (qtd. in Gonnerman 39). Their current lack of organization goes hand in hand with their lack of knowledge of political parties. Two fifths of voters age 18-24 consider themselves independent. This presents a potential problem. Normally as people get older, their patronage of their chosen political party should grow stronger, but with a generation full of independents, this is not happening and may never happen with those in Generation X (Eddings and Thornton 28).
Perhaps one thing that could draw 18-24 year olds into the voting process is to change the way in which they vote. Generation X is not lazy. In fact, they give their time more freely than any other age group. Helping out in care missions and giving to the needy may only help one life at a time, but many young volunteers think that is still more than politics seems to accomplish (Gonnerman 39). Some believe that if we bring the polls to them then they will be more likely to vote. Linda Feldman of the Christian Science Monitor is one of them. She hopes that voting over the World Wide Web will generate an interest in politics among this age group (4). On the other hand, Michael Cornfield, research director for Democracy On-Line at George Washington University, does not believe this will necessarily work. He says: “You need politicians to do that, not technology” (qtd. in Feldman 4).
The seemingly apathetic attitude of this generation of 18-24 year olds may never change. It will be the job of politicians to convince them that their vote is just as important and maybe more important than those older voters already engages in politics. Maybe one day this issue or age gap will finally close, and this will be a country of democracy for all. Until then Kareena Gore Schiff offers this to Generation X: “Do not be one of those people who complain about politics but do nothing to change it”.
Link to: Works Cited