A risk they should take?

Why is it that the age group that should appeal the most to politicians, the 20-somethings, an age group that can vote now, vote when re-election comes, and vote, hopefully for the candidates party, long down the road are, to put it mildly, scarcely campaigned to? That they might be viewed as wishy-washy voters, especially in terms of party alignment might have something to do with it, or maybe it is that, as a generation, they may be viewed as disinterested, or disconnected with the political scene. It seems like politicians would rather not waste time and resources on mobilizing those same 20-somethings who might just end up not voting, or. Ultimately, this is a case of playing it safe and not taking a risk, but shouldn’t it be a risk they’re willing to take?

Surely the relative safeness that comes with mobilizing the older generations must provide a comfort to the candidates; after all, they’ve been voting, probably the same way, for years. Yes, votes for individual candidates may change, but by and large, if someone has been voting democrat for the last 25 years, its going to take more convincing to get them to vote the other way than it would to get them to vote democrat. Now, contrast that same person whose been voting democrat for 25 years, with the 25 year old who, up until this point may have never even voted. A veritable blank slate, the 25 year old appears to be a prime candidate to be molded into someone who is going to vote a certain way for the rest of their life, an undeniable boon for either party. However, it is still the person who is set in their ways that is campaigned to, not the apparently flexible one who can affect results to years to come.  

That young people appear to be disinterested should not be a cause of concern amongst politicians campaigning, in fact, the opposite should be the source of their worry.  Yes, the politically sought after older generations provide votes and support for their parties, but, frankly they provide little in the way of resistance when it comes to a candidate’s ideas. This serves as a stark contrast to the unknown that is the young voting eligible. This unknown is, what I’d imagine, is scaring politicians off from campaigning to young people. A disinterested 20 year old would actually seem to be the optimal voter: one that will show up, show support, and then be quiet for the next 2 years until election time comes again so the elect can do exactly what he wants, without having to wait for input, for him or against him. On the other hand, there is the distinct possibility that by mobilizing these young people, filled with unknown, be it new ideas, radical views, or even, God forbid, plans that differ from the elect’s own, will be creating a monster. That is to say an educated voter who cast’s their ballot based on information and ideas, rather than simply party lines. Or, even worse, a voter who stays informed during the elect’s time in office, and when presented with something that doesn’t seem reasonable or beneficial actually provides resistance and opposes the plans. Maybe the politicians should just stick to campaigning to the shoe-ins.

Wayne, Stephen J. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007.