After the breakdown of another thread, I asked myself, what's the best way for political parties, of all stripes, to encourage more young people to vote, get involved, to get interested in the overall political process? I have a few ideas, but I know that the wider IP community would have more, and probably better, ideas. First, a couple of set-up questions...
1. What's the best definition of a "young voter"? Is it a certain age range (18-25 or maybe 18-27)? Is it educational status (high school vs community college vs university, or some combination)? Is it employment status (full-time vs part-time vs part-time while in school)? Is it some combination of everything I've listed above, or maybe something completely different, something outside the little box I just described?
2. What's the best way to get a young voter to connect with a party, a candidate, a political philosophy, whatever? What's the best way to get a young voter to connect, and then get them to act on their connection, by voting, by organizing for a party or candidate, by maybe even running for office themselves?
3. What's the best way to keep a young voter connected, to keep them involved, so that they continue that connection into "non-young voter" status? Not necessarily keep them chained to a specific party or candidate per se, but more how do we maintain their interest in the process and continue to keep it relevant for the voter?
4. What am I forgetting, or missing?
I'm not writing this to mock anyone, or to throw gasoline on the floor and wait for the trolls to come by with matches, but I want to ask this seriously, as a "non-young voter": How do we get young people to get connected and stay connected? I'm not as interested in hearing about how a specific political party or candidate can connect with young voters, so much as I'm interested in hearing how we can get young voters connected and interested in the first place.
HG
Generally speaking, there seems to be a great frustration with younger voters that appears to stem from not understanding how the system works and/or why it's set up the way that it is. I think that's why they generally trend towards more radical political figures that offer to take that bag of snakes and lay it out straight for them... and tends to go towards the extremes in the US political spectrum, as opposed to centrists, since they tend to offer a more radical reformist vision.
Getting them interested may be less of a challenge than getting them interested from a foundation of understanding the system and making an educated vote. Otherwise you just get more "jay-walking all-stars" into the electorate.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Making a big outreach on LOCAL ISSUES would probably help. Presidential elections tend to bring bigger turnout (including many young voters) but it's somewhat removed, and if we're honest about it, the candidates can promise the world but they can't really do everything on their own.
Whereas, with local races, not only can you actually get to know the people (or even run yourself without insane amounts of cash) the issues tend to include some very local very noticeable things. Particularly when it comes to students, it would be refreshing if they realized that the day to day of their lives is actually affected quite a bit by the city council, for instance, and start getting involved there. What should be funded, what should the bar policies be, all of that. Main point though is it's local and your vote CAN actually make the difference.
Going to a few meetings, either of city council or county board, and making a public comment (or just seeing other ordinary citizens do it) is maybe instructive also.
Do people take a basic class on government here? I know when I moved to IL I got a book "Illinois Local Government" or some such thing (by Nowlan?) but then I suppose I'm just interested in that sort of thing.
When Tom Berns was the Champaign/Urbana Representative for what is now the 103rd District, there was an insane amount of money pumped into the race by the parties (about $800,000) total. It is so bad now, that the Republican Party did not even field a candidate in the primary. I asked Jason Barrickman why not and he asked me why should they. The Democratic Party now totally controls Ms. Jakobsen and will not even let her sponsor a bill. His point was that if the Democrats don't even allow their own Representative to propose legislation, why should the Republican Party, throw money at the seat. I asked him what he meant by that and he told me that the Chicago Democrats controlled by Emil Jones and Mike Madigan and to some degree our beloved Governor, would throw massive amounts of money against any candidate like Tom Berns . I suggested that if the party was afraid to field someone, why not put Frank Calabrese up.
Frank is a serious candidate that was very active with the Topinka campaign when Judy, an old and good friend of mine, asked Frank and myself to help her in the last governor's race. Judy, I understand, is also a friend of the Calabrese family. Not only is his family a good friend of Msg Duncan of the St. John Chapel (Newman Foundation-Newman Hall), but Pat and Bette Camabrese, Frank's grandpa and grandma, endowed the University of Illinois Alumni Association or whatever that organization is called, with a 5 million dollar fellowship that pays for graduate student work in the College of Engineering (Mechanical). The family business is not drugs and gangsters as was suggested elsewhere on this site, but industrial ovens. Frank's father is the National Sales Manager for the company that distributes large industrial ovens world wide. Frank holds a lot of student government posts on both the Intrafraternity Council and the Student Senate. He is a quality kid that listens to people and seeks them out on the issues. I know that he has had several converstations with Dean Riley and other members of the U of I. I know that he has consulted with Tom Bruno and several other council members on Champaign issues not only involving bars, but snow removal. To label him as a Chief candidate, as it did in the NewsGazetter today, was somewhat unfair. He may now be running against Ms Jakobsen for the 103rd seat, but we have to remember that he still represents the Student view point and has to advocate for that view point and 80% of the students are pro chielf.
The attack on Frank on the other blog (Youth Vote and the Republican Party) concerning his involvement with Mr. Cochrane is also unfair. Before the City Council had the vote (which made the headlines in the NewsGazette) on the private party separation and "shot girls", Frank spoke to a lot of people on the issue, myself included. He also spoke with Steve Beckett. He also spoke with Tom Bruno. He also spoke with Cochrane. He also spoke with Dean of Students and liquor commission head, Bill Riley. He also spoke with the Associate Chancellor Romano. He also conferred with the Student Senate and the Intrafraternity Council. He spoke with Mayor Swighart on several occasions prior to that vote. By the way, Frank Calabrese was also at the Judy Maloney table (Judy is President of the Board of Prarie Center) at their 40th anniversary celebration whose speaker was the son of Bill Moyer (who just interviewed Obama). Also at that table were General Lynn (the Founder of Lincoln Challenge Programs nation wide), John May (instrumental in founding St. Thomas More H.S., and Associate Chancellor Romano for Student Affairs (Bill Riley's boss). By the way, just for the record, the City Council upheld Frank's position of that issue over the strenuous objection of the Mayor. (I would call it strenuous when the NewsGazette reports he walked out in a huff and gruffed that the City should abolish the liquor commission.)
I am not going to get into the litigation that is going on now to kick him off the ballot because I represent him in those matters. I guess I got myself into this situatin and we will just have to see what happens. I will have some comments after the May 16th hearing. I will say, however, that if Chicago Democrats have such a control over the affairs of the 103rd district that they don't even tell Ms. Jakobsen before they move to kick Frank off the ballot on a technical point that was not his fault, then we might as well put up someone that has the drive and enthusiasm to change this crazy system. Frank is not particularly partisan either and has the support of the Green Party. Even if Frank gets his butt kicked, or gets booted off the ballot by Madigan, we will have a lot of students going back to Chicago who in time will force a change in politics as we know it in Illinois.
I fully agree. I think its time we stop this attack on Frank! Wow, Mayor Schweighart threw a tantrum at that meeting? I thought Tod Satterthwaite was the main mayor who threw tantrums like that!
----
Robert Dunn
Ex-Leftist, Born-Again Conservative American
So, besides the unwelcomed campaign advertisement, the consensus seems to be getting young people involved on a local level first, as that's the level easiest to translate into how it affects the young voter directly, in the most immediate way. Also, make efforts to educate young voters on the process, the history, the structure, and so on, of the different levels of government. From my personal experience, most school instruction goes into the federal and state governments, but hardly touches the local level. I had only the faintest idea of the history and structure, for example, of township forms of local government from school, and had read up on it on my own.
As a follow-up: does the fact that the University is such a presence in our area, make reaching young voters and concurrent educational efforts harder or easier? Basically, the fact there are literally thousands of 18 to 25 year olds in a centralized area is a benefit, as you can reach a number of people for educational efforts...but the very fact we are a university area could mean that whatever works here, might be too unique a solution or plan to work effectively else where.
HG
I think that there needs to be a complete reformation of how we attempt to train our citizenry in how to participate in our republic. I mean to blame the youth for not understanding it is especially ironic, when so few adults seem to have mastered it.
We have the required government study in school, but it relies far too much on telling kids about the process and not enough on them experiencing it. Also, those who do experience it, tend to do some through political organizations that tell them what to do rather than allow them to make their own decisions.
I think that there needs to be a complete reformation of how we attempt to train our citizenry in how to participate in our republic. I mean to blame the youth for not understanding it is especially ironic, when so few adults seem to have mastered it.
When as in our republic a few adults seem to the masters of it, it is indeed ironic. Any youthful understanding of the fact makes one wonder who is to blame. There needs to be a complete reformation of how the citizenry participates in the republic.
In my schools (lower schools anyway) we had class government, so there was a bit of learning about the idea of elections, and we did get to actually choose some things that the class did. I think student government is a good thing but the body has to have some actual power for anyone to care.
If you read old papers (News Gazette, Courier, etc) you can see lots of arguing over voting age around the Con Con (consitutitonal convention) of 1970, and part of that was the lowering of the voting age to 18. Quite frankly, lots of people were against it because it would mean that UIUC students could vote here. They would overrun the reasonable townspeople.
Even now there is always the tension about if someone should be a resident here or a resident at their parents' house, and I suppose it depends on the individual - some people really do spend all of their non-school time working in their old neighborhoods and fully plan to return there after graduation. But a lot of them either no longer "live" in any real sense with their parents at all, and are on one way trips out somewhere else (or might stay here) anyway, so for them pointing out that 9 months of the year (if not 12 in a lot of cases) they live here and should register here where the local action affects them more.
And yet still, each election if some race is looking tight, you'll see hand-wringing about how it's only the "college students" disturbing the results, or whatever, as if they're not really official citizens and shouldn't have a true voice in anything.
Something else though - I've long thought it's a good idea to take kids to see the public presentation of some politicians, local radio personalities, or some celebrity, just once, so that they can see the spectacle and realize (1) just how much of it is staged, (2) it's really just a regular guy, and (3) no matter how he talks on the radio, you know (a version of) him but really he doesn't know you from Adam.
With local people not AS far away, you can go to a council meeting. There though things are smaller and so you CAN stand up for the public comment.
Still, people manage to follow the elaborate plots and characters of soap operas, I'm surprised more people don't similarly want to follow politics, those guys actually have some POWER :)
Careful now. If you dare to claim that America's democracy is anything less than the purest form of republicanism you are sure to be labeled a traitor, a "Rev. Wright" or something less than patriotic.
One of the problems with young people is that they don't understand that nuance is not allowed in politics. The young people I interact with seem understand quite clearly that one can be against terrorists and for free speech at the same time. That someone could be against the Iraq War and not want to "surrender" at the same time.
Ironically, it is often the young people who have a more nuanced view of politics, especially when it comes to assessing the brokenness of the system. "They're all the same anyway" is a word that comes from many a young person's mouth, but is considered a profound philosophical point when uttered by a doctoral student, or Noam Chomsky.
Patriotism has been co-opted for selfish political reasons. Fairness seems a thing of the past. Politicians lie repeatedly on the campaign trail and when drumming up support for bogus wars. Money rules politics and everyone seems to be for sale.
Young people see this, and they probably understand it better than the rest of us do. So they check out. What's the point, anyway? When the president can lie to this country, send thousands to their deaths for essentially nothing, and get away with it? Who wants to be a part of that game?
Better to just play the Wii and forget about it.
"Dissenters who tell their fellow citizens what is really going on are subject to smear campaigns that, like clockwork, are aimed at the political heretic. Truth is treason in the empire of lies."
There are worse things one could be called than a "heretic like Rev. Wright" --
Such as a "John McCain".
On May 4th, 2008 at 09:14 AM, xian said: "We have the required government study in school, but it relies far too much on telling kids about the process and not enough on them experiencing it."
This is exactly what I was getting at in my earlier post, the fact that throughout most primary schooling, the educational emphasis is on the state and federal level, with local level a far distant third. Given that the local level is arguably the one level that voters (of all ages) can influence the most, this seems a bit backwards.
On May 4th, 2008 at 01:48 PM, D. Boon said:
I would argue that plenty of people, not just young voters, have a nuanced view of politics. It's just that the extreme views (in nearly any topic and medium) get the ink, and drive the viewers. That being said, it takes a good deal of skill and effort to teach or illuminate the nuances in politics, and it's hard to find the resources (staff, receptive students, time, etc.) outside of a university setting; especially with how frentic high school seems to be nowadays. That's the time to teach the nuances, as young people are reaching their majority and are able to vote, and look on their franchise as an actual thing they can experience, not just something to think about or take a test on.
So...any ideas on how to move to the next step?
HG
@ Akibare, May 4th, 2008 at 11:18 AM...
Having voted in a national election (2000) while being a student here at the University, I was sensitive to the fact that I was a temporary resident of Champaign County. I was very relunctant to vote on local races, because I didn't know enough about the various ballot issues and candidates, and didn't feel that it was proper for someone who was only living in the area 9 months out of the year (and would be leaving after the end of 4 years) to vote on something that would affect local residents for a much longer time.
I still feel that way, when it comes to ballot issues or races that are in local areas that I'm not living in. I don't remember exactly, but I believe the last time around ('06) there was a ballot issue about a small town (maybe Homer?) possibly enacting a bond to increase funding for their fire department. Again, my memory is probably faulty, but the example still holds. How could I vote on that? I don't live there, I can't imagine living there in the near future, and have no family/friends there, yet I had a partial say in how that town funded their fire department. How is that right or proper?
Like you said, tension exists in this "young voter/interloper versus older voter/established resident" dynamic, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. Limit the ability to vote in a local issue or race until one proves some predetermined residency length? Say "screw it", and let the chips fall where they may? I'm not sure...
HG
I think the solution is to integrate students more into the community. I mean, not voting for issues that you know nothing about is a good start, but learning more about the issues and then voting is better.
I agree with Xian.
"On May 4th, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Dan Fielding said:
I agree with Xian."
!!!!
And peace and harmony and goodwill among men erupted all across the land, and there was much rejoicing!
Yea, oh verily!
;-)
I also agree with Xian.
But also, residency isn't only something you get after being in a place a certain length of time, either. Part of it is a mindset of how you view your future. There are people who manage to learn all about issues and get very integrated into the community in their first year, and view their residency as open-ended, while on the other extreme I've also met people who have lived in town 10 or more years and even own houses who still only view the place as a stop on the career road, with their "real" homes back home in New England or wherever they came from - often faculty.
I'm fully aware that's not something you can measure, either.
[accidentally posted in the wrong thread on the same topic - deleted by me]