Thanks to the COM352 students for contributing a bunch of new pages! I'll be moving these pages into the main area of the wiki soon.

From UMassWiki

[edit] Addressed To

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500

Democratic National Committee 430 S. Capitol St. SE Washington, DC 20003

The Federal Elections Commission 999 E Street Washington, DC 20463

Republican National Committee 310 First Street, SE Washington, D.C 20003

[edit] The Failure of American Politics: Youth Participation Rates and The Need for Change

The most important issue that America faces has nothing to do with a war on terror or a search for weapons of mass destruction. The most important issue that America faces right now revolves around Americans themselves and strikes much closer to home. It is an unintentional attack on United States soil that cannot be stopped by military might or a suspension of privacy rights. It is an issue of civic involvement and social awareness. In America especially, there is an epidemic of political apathy. People seem to not care about who runs their country and who sets their tax rates and who actually represents them on a more global stage. It is distinctly American phenomenon to complain about the political landscape when no change has been attempted or affected. While political participation is not mandatory in this country and most likely never will be, the voting rates should be much higher. Everyone should vote, yet so few people do. What is even more disturbing is the fact that a large portion of today’s young people who will be running the country within thirty five years do not vote at all. Among the total American population, the rate of voting is astoundingly low, but among eighteen to twenty four year olds in the modern day and age, the rate is even lower. These young people have no concept of civic involvement and frankly, it is not their fault. It is the fault of the system itself and of their parents and mentors who distill that same sense of overall disgust and apathetic disregard for the American political system directly into the bloodstreams of their young because they themselves neglect to vote. This trend continues and worsens as time passes and unfortunately, it can only lead to an even greater lack of political participation. The young voters of America are being let down a system that does not encourage and foster political participation. This problem cannot be shaded as anything less than it is and it needs to be treated as the epidemic that it has become.

Some say that leaving the entire idea of promoting civic involvement behind is a great idea. These people suggest that civic involvement is not mandatory, nor is it necessary to sustain the democratic system. They stipulate that if these “non-voters” do not want to vote, then no one should stop them because it is their right to choose. According to the constitutional rights afforded to Americans, it is an American right to choose whether or not to vote. But why are so many people not voting when everywhere else in the world has record turnouts for all sorts of ballots? Why is it that when a presidential election is underway, candidates have to essentially beg voters to come to the polls? Why is it that young voters, the people who will be running the country of tomorrow, have little interest in the political system? The United States government is amazingly good at compiling all sorts of data about everything and anything in particular. When it comes to voting turnouts, the government assuredly has more numbers than should be legally allowed. In the year 2000, there were 26.7 million eighteen to twenty four year olds in the United States. Of that 26.7 million, only 12.1 million were registered to vote. This is a representation of only 50.1%. Of those 12.1 million registered, only 8.6 million actually voted. This is a remarkably low voter turnout of only 36.1% of the total population of the age group. This turnout was a full 14.4% lower than the next age category (twenty five to thirty four year olds) and an astounding 36.1% lower than the most participatory age bracket of sixty five to seventy four year olds (US Census Bureau). The data indicates that the youth, who are more than likely to be much more physically capable of actually voting than the most participatory age group, did not vote nearly as much and in fact, teen voting rates were exactly doubled by an age bracket highly dependent upon walking aids and heart medication. Really, the data should speak for itself. These ideas and questions need to be answered in order to solve this rising epidemic. One solution to this problem is compulsory voting. Proponents of a forced vote say that the only way to get young Americans to vote is to make sure that they somehow are penalized if they choose not to participate. This concept is called compulsory voting1 and it is practiced in several countries throughout the world.

Compulsory voting is not a new concept. Some of the first countries that introduced mandatory voting laws were Belgium in 1892, Argentina in 1914 and Australia in 1924. There are also examples of countries such as Venezuela and the Netherlands which at one time in their history practiced compulsory voting but have since abolished it (Gratschew).

Many of those who favor compulsory voting state that it is a means by which everyone can and will cast a vote. Furthermore, the end result is that the overall populace becomes much more intelligent because they are forced to learn about politics and political associations. Additionally, they state that in a land where compulsory voting is the norm, a true democracy is in place because the vote of everyone is tallied and accounted for (Gratschew). However, compulsory voting also has several apparent downsides.

The leading argument against compulsory voting is that it is not consistent with the freedom associated with democracy. Voting is not an intrinsic obligation and the enforcement of the law would be an infringement of the citizens' freedom associated with democratic elections. It may discourage the political education of the electorate because people forced to participate will react against the perceived source of oppression. Is a government really more legitimate if the high voter turnout is against the will of the voters? Many countries with limited financial capacity may not be able to justify the expenditures of maintaining and enforcing compulsory voting laws. It has been proved that forcing the population to vote results in an increased number of invalid and blank votes compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws (Gratschew).

With this being said, compulsory voting is not an effective means of making Americans vote. While it may increase overall participation, it would also increase the amount of people who simply vote to get it out of the way. Voting is both a right and privilege in this country. It is something that the country pays for with tax dollars, sweat and, unfortunately as well as occasionally, the shedding of blood and tears. Young Americans need to see voting as patriotic and something that is done because it is the right thing to do. The point of voting in the first place is to make one’s opinion and voice is heard and known. To cast a so called “blank” vote is a defeat in itself. Additionally, America is founded on many strong core beliefs, not the least of which is that Americans have a right to choose and determine their own freedom and future. By forcing Americans to vote, specifically young Americans who have a strong distrust for authority already, an undermining of American values and ideals occurs and really destroys the whole concept to begin with.

It should be in the best interest of politicians and those running for office to encourage people to vote. Politicians rest the possibility of their careers in the hands of the people and in turn, the people hopefully provide that politician with an actual career.

One of the most intriguing facts about voting is that the act itself produces no tangible benefits to the individual, yet it is of great value to those who run the government and is ultimately a precondition for democracy. From the perspective of the individual, voting is utterly trivial and rarely worth the effort if measured by policy impact. For the same reason, there is little reason for people to seek information about the candidates or about the issues that divide them. People are rationally disposed to abstain and to be ignorant. By contrast, from the perspective of politicians, of the groups that stand to benefit from public policies, voting and political knowledge are of critical importance. It decides who wins and loses the election, and…who gets what, when and how (Abrams, Iversen and Soskice 3).

The American system is failing its young people. How can a new voter be expected to care at all about what is happening in the political landscape if that new voter has never been exposed to, or ever cared enough about politics to even think about voting to begin with? Politicians are not stupid and they do realize that they need voters to cast ballots with their names on them. Every politician throws parties to try to “raise awareness” or introduce themselves to the world. This is all well and good for the white-collar, tuxedo-wearing, stiff of a human being that may fall over from all the excitement of sitting around talking politics, but to new voters that tactic simply does not work. Politics is not hip and exciting anymore and it was at a time. There was a time when presidential candidates were welcomed into major cities with ticker-tape parades and enormous fanfare.

It is known that young voters focus much more on issues and a candidate’s stance on an issue than on the candidate himself. Furthermore, it appears as though political news is most often found, and often found to the exclusion of all else, in media markets (such as National Public Radio) that are designed to attract a much older target audience (Lee Kaid, McKinney, and Tedesco 1096-97). With that in mind, it is also known that television has replaced newspaper and radio as the leading form of news-gathering and entertainment medium. Again, it is no surprise that the political candidates have tuned into this and plaster the airwaves with their messages and ideas. Yet, candidates have yet to truly utilize and conquer, or attempt to utililze and conquer the internet. People are more receptive to politics and feel a greater social belonging when they use the internet (Jasperson and Yun 1114). America currently has 211 million Internet users across the country, just under the 258 million of the next highest nineteen countries combined2. A full 82% of eighteen to twenty four year olds access the internet on a regular basis. This number is very similar to the percentage of the next age bracket (the twenty five to twenty nine year olds) which rings in at a full 85%3. One example of a successful use of the internet in politics is the CNN/YouTube Presidential Debate from July 23, 2007. A full 2,622,000 people tuned in to watch that debate live and in color. Lo and behold, this debate also had the highest number of eighteen to thirty-four year olds ever garnered by a political debate (Seelye). Coincidence? I think not. Again, the numbers speak for themselves and lead to obvious plans of action.

While political candidates of today search for answers to garnering more votes through television appearances and public speeches, maybe the answer to their quest can be solved through digital means. Think about it like this: If the youth (and the next age bracket) are using the internet with regular frequency in astounding numbers, then why would the candidates and organizations seeking to sway political opinion shift to a virtual base. This is not to say that public appearances and debates are not critical because they are; politics should merely pull a partial transition to the internet. If candidates spend millions of dollars on television advertising in only one state, why not spend millions of dollars covering the entire Internet with a political message? This idea is not exclusive to political candidates or any governmental organization. Internet canvassing can be applied to anything and everything. Additionally, the youth have shown an ever increasing willingness to stand behind a worthy cause. SaveDarfur, a political group created to raise international awareness about the genocides in the Darfur region, started as an online community and has become the grassroots movement to beat. It has found a home among the youth, arguably because it was primarily started on the internet.

Young Americans need to be instilled with a strong message of civic responsibility from as early on as possible. It is not enough that young Americans are merely told to vote and then left to fend for themselves in a political sense. This is not correct, and as demonstrated by the current system, only results in a lack of voter participation. Additionally, candidates need to focus on the issues rather than focusing on their personal image if they wish to garner the vote of the 42 million young voters in America. One proven means of attracting the youth is through the use of the internet. In an overall sense, the youth of America are politically underactive by a long shot and to tap the youth vote to a political cause would be a very large coup.

[edit] Works Cited

• Abrams, Samuel, Torben Iversen and David Soskice. Interests, Parties and Social Embededdness: Why Rational People Vote. 2005 Comparative Political Economy Workshop at the Center for European Studies, Harvard University. 2005.

• Fox, Susannah and Mary Madden. "Generations Online." Pew Internet and American Life Project Dec 2005 1. 11 Oct 2007. <http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Generations_Memo.pdf>

• "History of Voting." ActiVote: A Nonpartisan Effort Getting Americans to Vote. 23 Apr 2005. ActiVote. 11 Oct 2007 <http://www.activoteamerica.com/Home2/History_of_Voting/history_of_voting.html>.

• "The Top 20 Countries with the Highest Number of Internet Users." Internet World Stats. 11 Sept 2007. The Internet Coaching Library. 11 Oct 2007 <http://www.internetworldstats.com/top20.htm>.

• Gratschew, Maria. "Compulsory Voting." International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 11 Oct 2007. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. 11 Oct 2007 <http://www.idea.int/vt/compulsory_voting.cfm>.

• Jamieson, Amie, Hyon B. Shin and Jennifer Day. United States Government. The US Census Bureau.Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2000: Population Characteristics. Washington DC: GPO, Feb 2000.

• Jasperson, Amy E., and Hyun Jung Yun. "Political Advertising Effects and America's Racially Diverse Newest Voting Generation." American Behavioral Scientist 50(2007): 1114.

• Lee Kaid, Lynda, Mitchell S. McKinney, and John C. Tedesco. "Introduction: Political Information Efficacy and Youny Voters." American Behavior Scientist 50(2007): 1096-97

• Mount, Steve. "The United States Constitution." The US Constitution Online. 31 Jul 2007. 11 Oct 2007 <http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html>.

• Seelye, Katharine Q. "CNN/YouTube Debate Ratings." Weblog: The Caucus: Political Blogging from the New York Times 24 July 2007. The New York Times. 5 Nov 2007 <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/cnnyoutube-debate-ratings/>.