Disinterest in the midterm elections was evident among American youth this year comprising only 9% of the voter turnout. The Obama election is famous for wrangling in youth interest in politics, even those too young to vote. After all, there was an increase of 2 million young voters from 2004 to 2008. But in 2008, social media didn’t have the half a billion users as it does today; it was Obama himself and other media outlets that made it happen. The 2010 midterm election attempted campaigning devices on youth-heavy websites such as Twitter and Facebook which were perfectly effective, yet the turnout was still disappointing in more ways than numbers.
Youth are interested in circumstances that they are involved in. During the 2008 presidential election, change felt real. If Obama were to win, a new president would not be the only historic change on our platter. When kids were leaving school to vote for him on election day, it goes without saying that they wanted to be included in this change that reflected their generation.
“They young always receive more political attention than the old, though the old generally shape elections more than the young. That trend is exaggerated in midterm elections.” said David Paul Kuhn of RealClearPolitics.
To understand the importance of the youth vote we can look at the 2006 midterm elections. The seniors turnout rate was 63 percent, which was more than twice the youth rate.
Polls show that older voters lean more toward Republican candidates, so that could be bad news for Democrats. And this year, it was.
In this election, Obama lost the majority that he gained during his very successful campaign that utilized all the unconventional public relation methods that were very familiar to the youth. He owes his victory to a large degree to the youth. Why did they not renew that campaign that during the midterm and reach out to the youth again? If Obama’s team decided to amp up the midterm campaigns to capture the attention of the youth and show them the importance of the vote, perhaps the turnout would have been different.
“36% of young people said it wouldn’t make a difference who they voted for,” said political analyst William John Cox. “Young people are carrying the burden. The government has to change for the youth to change.”
Seniors and baby boomers are more engaged in the election and more enthusiastic about voting than pre-election polling has found since at least 1994, according to Pew Research Center data. In comparison, young voters and adults between the ages of 30 and 49 poll like previous midterm cycles.
President Obama rallied on college campuses and gave an interview at Rolling Stone last week, hopeful to receive political attention from the young. But this time he was low key, and almost soundless with the seniors—who are about one in five voters in recent midterms.
The Republicans are now the majority seats of congress, making it difficult for Obama to utilize any of his plans for the remainer or his presidency.
There has been a lot of talk about the enthusiasm gap between the young and old when it comes to politics, but what this leaves us is a generation gap. In the same way that political decisions would differ by generation, what attracts the attention of adults will not necessarily have the same effect on our nation’s young adults.
“Because voting rates of young people tend to be relatively low, efforts to get them to vote almost by definition have to special and not purely conventional,” said the Newschool’s Professor Plotke.
97% of youth ages 18-24 use social media websites. Reuters Institute for the study of Journalism reports that these users also receive most of their political information online as well. Newspapers and Radio are nearly obsolete to the nation’s youth. This is justification enough to gear towards those sites to create political opinion amongst them, digitally and socially. The midterm elections this year was the first election to properly and effectively use the social media device as a campaign tool. Virtually every major website was linked to the election in some way. Facebook had an “I Voted” button on its main page (reflecting the outdated sticker idea), The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal created applications on iPhones and iPads allowing users to monitor the elections live, and Twitter wins the award for social network place for Politics, allowing their users to
MTV, an outlet famed for its attention on youth, decided to ignore the idea that they could in fact influence and educate their viewers and followers to make political decisions. MTV created their own version of a race. Their 2010 midterm election candidates included Lady Gaga, Britney Spears and Justin Bieber. No real candidates were included, it was about the public opinion about which pop stars should be president, (the most popular) and vice president (Katy Perry won in this world).
While we’re on the topic of celebrities, where the hell were they? Were we dreaming in 2008 when I saw every A, B, C, and even D list celebrities out there telling every one on the planet exactly how they felt about the election? It’s understandable that presidency is the top layer of the cake and Americans are interested in the powerhouse, but the middle layers are just as important. I think someone should let Oprah Winfrey know that her and P. Diddy have a job to do.
Young Americans won’t turn out to the polls unless someone reaches out to them first. When Madonna draped herself in an American Flag two decades ago in order to send the message that “Censorship is Un-American” to the nations youth, the youth heard it. When Obama addressed young voters at events such as concerts telling them, “Yes We CAN,” the youth heard it. Nine-in-ten local party leaders say youth political engagement is a serious problem. The outcome of the 2010 midterm elections would likely be poles apart from what it is now if the youth were more involved. It is time for a change.
No comments:
Post a Comment