Spring Break
An increase in youth voters leaves faculty scratching their heads and students itching to vote as the upcoming election draws closer and presidential hopefuls continue to visit the campus.
The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement reported that youth underwent a voting surge by 11 percent in 2004.
Between 1972 and 2000, the turnout rate for presidential elections declined by 16 percent among the youth before rebounding in 2004.
"I think that both the political issues, the war and the economy especially, and the issues around the types of candidates speak to students in powerful ways," said Anne Foster, an assistant professor of history. "Because we have a woman candidate, an African-American candidate and a Republican candidate who has long been an independent voice in his party, more of the discussion has centered on what Americans believe and value."
Richard Schneirov, professor in the history department, who teaches a course called 1960s: Counterculture and Protest, attributes some of the youth involvement to the relevant issues impacting them now.
"We have another unpopular war," Schneirov said. "There is a great concern from youth about the issues and the fear that this country is going in the wrong direction."
Another issue Schneirov said may be affecting young voters is the cost of education, something that has a dramatic impact on those that want to go to college but do not have the funds to do so.
"These are issues that are galvanizing the youth," Schneirov said.
Issac Land, assistant professor in history, said the current generation may not be reading as many magazines, newspapers or books; however, that does not necessarily mean they are not reading or gleaning information on the campaign.
"There are lots of good Web sites, and I have even seen MySpace pages devoted to important topics like Darfur," Land said. "Statistics that show young people are reading less may be counting the wrong things. A lot of what we do online is reading."
However, online reading does have its downfalls, and there may be miscommunication with that form of information, Land said.
"I do worry that someone who only goes to a particular blog or discussion board will not hear enough alternative views to come to a reasonable conclusion about an issue," Land said. "Some political Web sites resemble talk radio at its very worst. That was not as big a problem when I was in college. You couldn't retreat into a world where the only voices you heard were people who agreed with you."
However, some students would disagree with that statement, claiming that young voters are just as informed as those in the past.
"I don't see a lack of information this year in terms of the younger generation," said Michael Oellig, a senior social studies education major. "In fact, I see just the opposite-an informed, involved, passionate political youth the likes of which hasn't been since the 60s."
Oellig said many of the past voting problems can be attributed to the lack of credit given to young voters by candidates and parties.
"They are accustomed to apathy and therefore have shaped their message around this assumption, focusing more on the middle-aged and the baby boomers," Oellig said. "Now though, the candidates are learning, sometimes the hard way, that ignoring younger votes will cost them in the long run, so they're doing their best to appeal not only to seasoned voters, but new players to the game as well."
However, the question still stands: why this generation? Why are young people more vocal than in the 1990s, 1980s, or the 9/11 generation? asks Schneirov.
"I think one reason is the young people today are children of the baby boomers," Schneirov said. "Most parents, not all, but quite a few, came of age in the 60s and 70s. In a sense, this generation is like a second coming because look at where they get their values from … their background would predispose them to be more open to participatory politics."
Another major difference between this election and the election in the politically charged 1960s is that 18 to 20-year-olds can vote, Foster said.
Foster said only good can come when youth becomes "interested, involved, informed."
Land, however, said there can be a downside.
"Young people can make mistakes just like the rest of us," Land said. "Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong are two examples of ruthless dictators who got a lot of support from enthusiastic teenagers who didn't know any better. In our own time, African armies in several different civil wars have recruited children as soldiers."
Land said that youth may be more prone to committing to a candidate because they have not been lied to on such a grand scale as in those types of situations.
"At the same time, no good cause can succeed without the energy and long hours of young recruits," Land said.
However, being interested now does not necessarily translate into being interested long-term.
"It's cool to be concerned about this election right now, but the test comes five or 10 years down the road," Land said. "Will the generation of 2008 stay active?"
Be the first to comment on this story