| By N.Raider - Nov 20th, 2007 at 12:13 am EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
I came across an interesting CNN article today talking about how a majority of NYU students surveyed would give up their right to vote if they received free tuition.
Equally as important was the finding that young people are very involved in the campaigning process but fail to show up when and where it matters the most, aka. Election Day at the polls.
In our defense, our generation has only been of voting age for two presidential elections, so you can hardly call that a trend that our generation has perpetuated.
The first question I thought of was could the cause of young voters not bothering to vote be due to the fact that despite our tireless efforts to engage candidates, they refuse to substantially discuss issues that affect young people (especially after the primaries)? I am willing to bet that the two candidates that have the most young supporters from both parties will not end up receiving their party's nomination and the candidates who do will remain silent on issues like the costs of higher education and access to higher education.
Other questions to consider are: Could it be due to the negative campaigning that occurs from both sides in the several days running up to the elections that basically discourage voters from voting? Could it be because both candidates that end up running in the November elections are really two sides of the same coin?
What do you think? (This is a good question for candidates to be asking us)
!
Comments are closed for this post.
In other words, all the people who really care about politics have found ways to get involved where they can do more to have an impact than by voting.
And the people who don't really care? Well, they've got other things they'd rather do with their time.
All in all, this strikes me as 'the system works'. There's no stake in the system a young person can hold that compares to an annual tax return and a mortgage - those who care will vote or get involved in some other way, those who don't care won't. The last thing I'd want is mandatory voting, a la Australia.
In terms of affecting public policy, clearly it isn't.
""all the people who really care about politics have found ways to get involved where they can do more to have an impact than by voting.
And the people who don't really care? Well, they've got other things they'd rather do with their time.""
Yeah, but just because you and I have found a mechanism for increasing our impact on policy doesn't mean that the protection of active liberty is unimportant. In fact, if your goal for public policy isn't to help advance active liberty in some way, that's somewhat hypocritical, since the idea that a short kid from Cali and an overweight schmuck from Atlanta can put themselves in a position to impact policy is in and of itself a pretty damn impressive affirmation of the virtue of active liberty.
There always has to be a minimum ability to participate, because even the guy with the mortgage and an annual tax return can suddenly care about a local bond referrendum, and the average college student can get impassioned about international policy, even while earning a lowly humanities degree. I don't feel particularly strongly about mandatory voting, but as it stands now, you should be able to decline to participate in the process, but nobody should be able to remove your right to do so (short of perhaps a felony conviction for which you are currently incarcerated), even if it's voluntary and amenable to you.