h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Recent statistics show an alarming decrease in voter turnouts in all the western democracies.

Now before you yawn and say 'yeah so what else is new' let me tell you about a frightening new wrinkle in this decades old decline.

It seems if you divide the population into 5 year groups (let's call them generations for want of better word) 18-24, 25-29, 30-35, etc., the percentage of voters gets smaller and smaller with each new generation.

My generation of 50+ burnt out potheads and draft dodgers, combined with all the older groups, manages only a pathetic 60% and yet we top the list. We got the power, but only by default.

Of those who reached voting age in the past 5 years, 4 out of 5 have never voted. That's a mere 20%. And there-in lies the problem.

Once a national average falls below 50% overall, that country effectively ceases to be a democracy. It will be ruled by an elite group who do nothing more than mark their x on a ballot to succesfully stay in power. Worse, it might be that the old people are the only ones having a say.

So why is each succeeding generation getting more and more apathetic?

Perhaps apathy has nothing to do with it anymore.
Maybe it's cowardice.

Maybe they're just chicken.
Maybe young people today are so afraid of the dark and horrid possibilties in an unknown future that they refuse to be responsible for it any way. The old ostrich approach.

But if it gets any darker or more horrid, us old folks will know who to blame won't we.
Ya wimps!

~jwf~

Being in the just-before-50 grouping, I agree that it is a sad commentary. In Canada, kids are certainly getting what-ever political indoctrination the teachers and their unions see fit to expound. And still, less than a quarter could name 3 out of the last 5 Prime Ministers. Why the apathy? I don't know. But hopefully your not-so-subtle egging on will stir up a younger response or two.

friend.

PS: Interesting pic in Azahar's album.

Maybe it's not apathy, but complacency. If people are generally happy, they may not see the importance of participating in the democratic process. I'm not saying that this is right, or that I agree with it, but it might be an explanation. I work in the lowest tier of local government, which rarely manages sufficient candidates for an election (so we don't get as far as actually voting anyway). The council does what it does for years and nobody even notices, until it does something unpopular - and then, suddenly, the electorate is jumping up and down, not realising it's missed its chance to influence events. But it's all forgotten about by the time of the next election.

Maybe people don't make the connection between taxes and elections. Maybe those living in "safe" parliamentary constituencies don't see the point of voting in our current first-past-the-post system.

It's probably the fault of parents and the education system. As usual .

Mol

Some of us do vote, in point of fact. Some of us even take an interest in politcs all year round. I have amended the subject line accordingly.

The received political 'wisdom' seems to be that parliamentary practices are somehow a 'turn off' that disturbs youthful senses of aesthetics; hence, while it is of course expected that we shall have the basic understanding of political decision-making, economics, law, ethics, evaluation of scientific and statistical evidence, etc. that would enable us as electors to make decisions informedly and insightfully, it is seemingly also doubted in some quarters that many 'young people' can straddle the intellectual hurdle that is the term 'Right Honourable Member'. Some people apparently think they understand this strange abstraction, the 'young person' -- and, having (or so it appears to me) interpreted what evdence they have in terms of their aesthetic preconceptions (I'm thinking especially of 'new' Labour here), are pleased to add this mysterious, Platonic entity, the Young Person, to their political armoury.

I caution you against taking it for granted that there's a single, simple answer (except possibly _that_ one) to the question; whatever the answers are, I expect them to be more compliated than that. People are complicated -- far more complicated than the stories that get told about them.

It's apathy. The view that all parties are as bad as each other. The belief that whatever we say won't make any difference anyway. The relatively new term of "People Power" holds little actual weight. If the government disagree with the people - they introduce a law; i.e. regarding the petrol blockages - there are plans to give powers so that any vehicle blocking petrol will simply be taken away. The Act introduced years ago (can't remember the name) supposedly to stop illegal raves, but rather handily gives police the power to disband any 'large gathering of people'. Ordinary folk are fearful of demonstrating because of the element of viciousness that can arise - some people coming to demonstrate purely to cause trouble, not through any actual belief of the cause. The big Stop The War rally in London was a wonderful exception to that, but I don't recall any politicians saying "ah yes, we see you, we understand your concerns... We hear you".

A young colleague just walked into my office, I asked him if he votes:
"not really"
"why not?"
"no point".

School children need to be more educated about the importance of politics - specifically, the importance of their role, and their power to make a difference.

I've always been a voter - I've not missed one, local or national, since I was eighteen. My peers (late twenties/ early thirties) tend not to vote because (these are actual quotes I remember from years of haranguing pals and colleagues about voting):

I'm too busy to go to the polls
I don't trust online/ postal voting
I don't like any of the candidates
What election?
No one votes in local elections.
I don't vote, it only encourages them.
I've got better things to do with my time.
I'm not one of those feminist types.
I'd vote if any of them took the trouble to visit my area.
I'd vote if my wife did.
I dunno, I never got around to it.
It doesn't make any difference if you do vote.
They never listen to you any way.
All the parties are exactly the same, aren't they? So what's the point?

I get rather cross with anyone who can vote and doesn't, regardless of age and regardless of what sort of election it is.

* If you want things to change and/or have a strong political viewpoint which leads you to support the ideology of one party or another, then vote for goodness sake!

* If you want things to stay the same, then vote for the party/person in charge.

* If you think they're all as bad as each other, then go along and deliberately spoil your ballot paper as a general statement/protest. At least your feelings on the matter will then be counted.

However, I wouldn't want to make voting compulsory, as that seems a little OTT.

David

If you spoil the ballot paper though, it doesn't make any difference. They simply get binned, don't they? There is no process in place to count how many people vote "none of the above". Obviously if a huge amount of people spoiled their ballot paper, it may be noted... or would it? Would the news of such an event be brushed over somehow? Such is the mistrust in the government - any government. So why bother at all?

Just for the record, I fully believe in voting, if only to keep the NF out.

I don't think it's apathy or complacency. It's more to do with the rapidly decreasing relevance of nation-state governments to the lives of most people. The figures can be explained by the fact that the older you are the more likely you are to remember when governments were relevant. The decreasing pecentage of the electorate voting since the Atlee election is too well-established a trend to be dismissed as "voter apathy" or "young people can't be bothered".

>>Just for the record, I fully believe in voting, if only to keep the NF out.<<

That's a flaming good reason to vote, though, isn't it? The whole point of voting and democracy seems (like feminism) to be lost on a lot of the young because, and here's the point I think, they take it all for granted.

Even a relatively young woman like me (I'll admit to 39) has had a struggle to be taken seriously in the workplace and I know that I still have to fight hard to get the same pay for the same job. But the young women I work with, don't seem to realise this and take the hard won "equality" for granted.

The same with other people who have lived in a stable democracy for all their lives. If they had been living under a different regime (a Kurd in Iraq to give a topical example) they would most likely be a little more politically attuned and take every opportunity to vote.

I agree that the ballot papers should include an "I have voted, and I choose none of the above" option. And unlike (sorry I can't remember who) someone above, I think voting should be compulsory with a fine or something - generally people do take notice if it hits them in their pockets.

MPs are generally easier to "reach" these days - most countries list their e-mail addresses and you can find out who your representative is pretty easily.

(By choice) I live in a country where I pay (a lot of) tax but don't get to vote in national elections. I hate that. Currently I'm lobbying as many parties as I can (European elections coming up, so there are a lot of them about at the moment - and I am allowed to vote in that) to get this changed. Not sure how much of an effect it will have though.

But it's worth a try.

Er... to get back on topic: maybe we need to sex-up politics?

There is a difference in the attitude to voting in the different generations. People who are old enough to remember the 2nd World War often take the view that they fought to keep their country free from dictatorship so to not vote would be a betrayal of the freedom they won. And likewise people who were brought up by this generation are instilled with their values.

One big problem today is the fact that even people who are politically aware are constantly told that to vote for anyone other than Labour or Conservative is to waste a vote. This leaves people with a choice between the right wing reactionaries and the corporate lapdogs, which can seem like a frying-pan-versus-fire type choice. The only way democracy can ever work is for people to vote with their heart/beliefs rather than to tactically aim for the least-worst of the big candidates. I hope the next election will see a big turn out for the Lib Dems, Greens, Socialist Workers, and all the parties that are traditionally a "wasted vote"

Surely spoling ballot papers gets counted? Because they know how many people have cast a vote, and they know how many votes were cast for each candidate/party, so even if the spoiled ones get binned, it should be pretty obvious how many of them there were...

I think a 'none of the above' option would be a lot better, though. They have them in student elections (or did, back when I was a studenty person) as the option RON: Re-Open Nominations.

And yes, as someone above said, anyone living in an area with an even mildly strong NF presence should most definitely vote!

David

>>..far more complicated than the stories that get told about them. <<

Indeed.
Brilliant answer altogether causing much rolling on the floor.

To be clear about my use of the term 'young people', I meant it to include all of those 5 year groups younger than mine, the 50+ group, which is somewhat open-ended at the top to include any other survivors otherwise known as septennials, octagonals, neufties and centurions.

The next youngest group, the 45-49ers, are young people to me and their failure to vote rating is worse than the 50+s. There is a clear decline as you progress down the groups, each one getting worse until it reaches the youngest eligible voters where 80% have never voted.

There used to be a rite of passage factor that saw younger groups improve their score as they achieved more civic awareness in life and aged into a differnt grouping. But this not happening anymore. Every group is as bad now as it was when it was the youngest.

This means the overall average perecentile is falling. Below a 50% turnout a country is, by definition, no longer a democracy. This is somewhat frightening.

I suppose I ought to take solace in your example of an apparently informed and intelligent citizen who keeps abreast of current events, has an interest in social conditions and displays some knowledge of Parliamentary affairs.

But to be completely honest the fact that you are the 1 in 5 who does vote and the fact that you have a fine grasp on the politics of life is exactly what scares me. You already have an edge on 80% of the younger population. They'll never know what hit them when you and your party take over.


~jwf~

Yes, spoilt ballot papers do get counted. They don't get analysed, but they get counted.

Mol
(occasional elections counting assistant)

>> I asked him if he votes:
"not really"
"why not?"
"no point". <<

I hope in future you will explain the point. As stated above the definition of a democracy is a government of, for and by the people which means ALL the people and if that's not convenient then we'll settle for a majority of the people. But once it's fewer than half the people, it isn't a democracy any more.


~jwf~

>> They have them in student elections (or did, back when I was a studenty person) as the option RON: Re-Open Nominations. <<

I see a ray of hope here. It seems that young people have taken it upon themselves to modify the electoral system so that their opting out of the given choices is seen as a postive action of protest rather than a negative apathetic failure.

The hope is that as these students enter the real world they will insist that similar changes be made. Damned good idea. Do it.

For the record: spoiled ballots are counted and saved in case of a recount. So we know how many, but not why. It is assumed that spoiled ballots are the result of carelessness, stupidity or anti-scoial behavior.

Changing the ballot to include the RON option would significantly transform the purpose and meaning of the protest vote. All those who now say 'whats the point' would have the chance to say it publicly. It might even attract 'young people'. Do it.

~jwf~

* It has just occurred to me that there is a current ban on political discussions at h2g2 for the duration of some electoral process now happening over there somewhere. This thread was never to be about 'politics' and was simply my reaction to recent news that most of the western democracies aren't democracies anymore.

So the subject being about 'young people' and why they don't vote I hope we can avoid any partisan political references that might attract the attention of the moderators. If anyone asks, we are talking about the mechanics of the democratic electoral process as witnessed in descending age groups and NOT about politics. I thank you. *


~jwf~

jwf:

"Below a 50% turnout a country is, by definition, no longer a democracy."

According to whose definition? Most modern democracies were introduced to curb the worst excesses of government, to provide a way for a population to reject an outrageously bad government. Democracies are usually not very representative, but they are succeeding in their mission to some extent. Low turnout is just a feature of the fact that there are no big questions which might get people interested that the big parties disagree on. Elections are decided on marginal issues as mainstream political parties share an overwhelming consensus.

For example: why would I vote against the Tories apart from my instinctive bias against them having been brought up in a Labour voting household? Well, I thought about saying that they're xenophobic and have awful immigration and asylum policies, but then so does New Labour, so not that. Then I thought about their policies on education funding, but then Labour's policies aren't too hot either. Finally I thought about tax and public spending, but the differences again seem reasonably marginal. Ultimately, if I voted Labour instead of Conservative it would be because in general I think they're slightly less awful people. With an outlook like that, you can hardly blame people for not bothering to vote. Older people tend to vote because they see it as their duty, because they've voted all their lives, etc. Younger people have no such reasons.

As far as I can see, the only reason to vote which isn't habit or a sense of duty, is if you're in a very marginal seat and your voting could make a difference, or if you're voting for a third party not because you'll think they'll get in but as part of a long term political strategy. The former is unlikely, the latter is something I'd only expect people quite involved in political issues (or a single issue) to do. For example, people on the anti-war demos might conceivably vote for the Respect coalition as an anti-war statement, people interested in the environment might vote Green as a single issue statement, etc.

Hmm. That was a bit depressing. Can someone please come up with an argument as to why I'm completely wrong?

Here are some of my comments on these reasons/excuses,that you ahve heard, Agapanthus.
<>


I am in the 50+ band (gulp) and I have sons, who vote. (Bless them). This is because they are aware of the importance of government to them.