Slashdot Mirror


Media Got It Wrong: Young Generation Did Vote

Newsweek has a small story on MSNBC: Not Slackers After All?. It seems the media jumped to conclusions when it said, right after the election, that 18-to-29 year olds didn't turn out in record numbers. In fact, the participation of every age group was up, including young voters, but the youth vote wasn't up any more than other age groups, so the percentage was about the same from the 2000 election. I guess everyone rocked the vote.

28 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't change the fundamental fact... by Ianoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... that young people are statistically less likely to vote than middle aged and older people, even if turnout compared to last time was up. There must be ways to get the MTV generation interested in politics, after all, it's rather important - but so far, attracting them seems to have eluded most of the Western World's democracies.

    1. Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact... by lsmeg · · Score: 2
      Free Britney Spears cd with every vote for Jeb Bush in 2008?

      Wouldn't that violate the "seperation of shitty music and state" clause in the constitution?

      --
      It's OK! I'm a limo driver!
    2. Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's a combination of poor candidates ("Yeah Bush sucks, but is Kerry any better?"), general apathy ("Does it really matter which one is president?"), and pessimism ("I live in a (red|blue) state, so my vote won't matter anyway").

      Reason #1 is a current favorite among the media. The story now is that the Democrats lost because they've managed to systematically alienate pretty much every voter group in the country.

      Reason #2 is my personal favorite, meaning the one which most worries me. Kerry was utterly unable to separate himself in terms of his policies from Bush on any important issue. His main arguments were about differences of rationale rather than differences of policy. Was going to war in Iraq wrong? No, but the way we did it was wrong. Was a huge budget deficit wrong? No, but the way we spent it was wrong. And so on. A President Kerry would've done all the same stupid shit Bush has done, and will doubtless continue to do. He'd just have given different reasons for it.

      As for reason #3, well, that applies to every age group. Not really any way around it in a country this big. It may affect younger voters more because our parents, as a generation, are not fans of this country. So we have less patriotism than past generations and feel it's less of a civic duty to vote. You know, if the government's just going to do its own shit regardless of what we say, what's the point to even having an opinion?

      Personally, I think the solution is not refusing to vote, but instead voting for someone who hasn't got a chance in hell of winning. 60% or so of our country voted. If the remaining 40% came out and threw away their votes like that, would it affect the outcome? Yeah, if we all voted for the same guy, but really what it would accomplish is sending a message. Not to the politicians, who are too thick to get any message that's not wrapped around a 2x4, but to the other voters: You don't have to settle!

      It's all a pipe dream, of course. We're locked into mediocre, functionally identical candidates for the rest of time, but it's a nice dream. And so I act as if I had any effect on that dream coming to pass, even though I don't.

    3. Re:Doesn't change the fundamental fact... by BeyondHope · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But a greater percentage of young people DID vote. Not just a greater number.

      On election day this was obscured by the fact that a greater percentage of all people voted, leaving the relative percentage of young people the same as last time.

      Still, with all the effort to get out the youth vote, its dissapointing their numbers didn't rise by more than the other demographics.

  2. On the other hand by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Exit polls revealed that while the youngest age group still formed the same proportion of the voting population that it did in 2000, the next older group voted in a substantially lower proportion, and the oldest two groups voted in a somewhat higher proportion.

    Ultimately it's a matter of playing with numbers and interpreting the results in whatever way makes you feel good. In this case, the people involved in youth voter drives are spinning the numbers to say that their efforts actually did something, when really nobody can say one way or another what factors actually influenced the youth vote.

  3. The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages by Noksagt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    and they all said the same thing as this article: more people voted across the board. Even though the number of youth voters increased, it is still an embarrasment! There was a huge push to get the youth to vote & no such push for older people (conspiracy theories regarding gay marriage ammendments aside). Yet obviously that push didn't do much!

    1. Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages by Noksagt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK. First of all: I was against the ammendments & didn't vote for Bush (though I'm not gay and am an independent who has voted for republicans & did vote for some in the last election).

      I haven't heard Rove or anyone else say that the ammendments were planned in order not to outlaw gay marriage, but to elect Bush. Please provide such evidence. I grant you that it is no secret that many for Bush were in favor of the ammendments, but correlation doesn't mean causation. And I've heard none try to claim that Bush, Rove, the RNC, or the citizens who voted for these ammendments aren't genuinely in support of them.

      Also: I am skeptical that this would cause voters to come out of the woodwork in order to vote for Bush, especially in moderately liberal states such as Oregon. Why didn't the ammendment cause sympathetic liberals to show up in larger numbers too? I would have predicted this to be more likely, especially as the turnout for youth voters and other demographics who would be more inclined to be against the ammendment & against Bush & who often don't vote would showup in outrage of the ammendment.

      The sad truth is that people are just less tolerant and more close-minded abouit marriage than either you or I would like to admit. But there is a very long way to go to try to prove the theory.

    2. Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages by Noksagt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You don't see cats and dogs screwing their own sex.
      Yes, actually: there are animals other than man who are homosexual. Zealots brush off this evidence with comments such as "but they don't have souls" or say that leprosy isn't "right" or "normal," even if it is a natural occurance. Of course neither argument is able to defend intolerance to animals, lepers, or gay people.

      So continue believing what you will, as long as you strive for education and compassion.
    3. Re:The Media Outlets I Follow Reported Percentages by crazyeddie740 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >If the gays want more "fairness", push for laws that enable them to have more fairness.

      Actually, that is pretty much the game plan for gay rights activists. I saw an article somewhere on the topic (nytimes?), and gay rights activists say that there judical efforts are 10 years ahead of their legislative and cultural efforts.

      IMHO, it isn't the left that's pushing the issue. If the left just waits a few years, the demographics will shift. Younger people have a lot less trouble with gay marriage than members of the Greatest Generation. It seems to me that its the right that's forcing the issue.

      >You don't see cats and dogs screwing their own sex.

      Um, actually, I see male dogs humping each other all the time. Although they do seem to be "prison gay" than the regular kind. I don't know about cats or lesbian dogs though.

      >Also, how is any species going to survive if there is no reproduction? Considering reproduction is one of the most natural things, it obviously doesn't fit into the picture.

      First off, that's only a factor if you assume that reproduction is the only function of marriage. There are large number of "child-free" straight marriages. Also, one of the main motivations for gays to get married is to improve their chances of adoption.

      I'm a bit confused on this issue myself. I believe that homosexuality is something you're born with. I'm no scientist, and I'm probably offending someone by saying this, but: Assuming that it is genetic, then why hasn't it been selected against? Does gayness confer some advantage? As somebody else pointed out, if you really are a homophobe, then you should support gay marriage - there'll be less pressure to "closet", and they won't reproduce.

  4. Rock the vote by isorox · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rock the vote
    dont rock the vote baby
    Rock the vote
    dont tip the vote over
    rock the vote!

  5. More Young must have Voted Republican by redelm · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... in the privacy of the voting booths. Otherwise, Kerry'd've won.

    Anyone have a graph, %Kerry versus average reg.voter age by state? NY is old, yet went Kerry. TX is young, yet went Bush.

    1. Re:More Young must have Voted Republican by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

      West Virginia is the "oldest" state in the Union, even older than Florida, but went Bush, despite its long-running history of being extremely pro-labor and generally very pro-Democrat. Of course, it also has the highest military recruitment rate of any state, and those people are almost exclusively in the youngest voting demographic.

    2. Re:More Young must have Voted Republican by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful


      There have been quite a few stories in the mainstream media in the last couple of years about how young adults are growing more conservative. That might be part of what is going on.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  6. As a member of the Religious Right... by RealProgrammer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is intended to be 'interesting', nothing more.

    As a conservative Christian, I heard all the appeals from the Hollywood Left (Bruce Springsteen, Snoop Doggy Dog, MTV, et al) and thought, "Man, I'd better make sure to vote! The college kids are going to turn out and who knows what will happen!"

    Perhaps the Get Out the Vote campaign was more effective than they thought.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:As a member of the Religious Right... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a young columbus resident, I heard all the appeals from P-Diddy, Chris Rock, John Kerry, and everyone else at least once each every day ... on my phone ... at my door ... on my tv.

      I think we had 7 messages on our answering machine the day before elections and those are just the times we didn't answer the phone. We would see a canvaser a day at our door every day of the week leading up to the election. Sometimes there would be several in one a day.

      What was the effect of this? We developed a strong hatred for anyone invading the privacy of our home in order to tell us to go vote. We'd tell them everyday, yes, we're voting, we put up a frickin political sign in are yard... but still they would come back day after day after day. At the end of it all, my room mate was actually threatening not to vote if people didn't stop pestering us.

      It was harassment.

  7. Can you imagine this horror? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    If Kerry had won, P. Diddy may have gotten some credit. P. Fucking Diddy! Might have even shown up on the same stage as the President. As much as I wanted Dubya to lose, this would have been too much to stomach.

  8. Thank God by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Allow me to say "Thank god" - young people are idiots. I say this with certainty because I am one of them. Most of us have the attention span of gnats and would have been making votes based on stupid ideas - the draft? Give me a goddamn break, MTV. The whole 'Rock The Vote' charade was a thinly veiled attempt to get young people afraid they were going to be drafted if George W. Bush stayed in power. When I told people it was a democrat that introduced a draft bill into congress, it was democrats who voted for it, and that it was john kerry who called for mandatory service, they would go 'oh' and realize they'd been duped. If you want to get young people interested in the political process, telling them to 'vote or die' and filling their head with rediculous lies isn't the best way to do it.

    --

    My blog
    1. Re:Thank God by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      A few clarifications:

      There are two draft bills, not one.

      S.B. 89 has never gotten out of committee, so Democrats could never have voted for it.

      H.R 163 was defeated 402-2, so even if both "for" votes were cast by Democrats, that's about 1% of all the mules in the House. To say "it was Democrats who voted for it" is misleading.

      John Kerry's plan didn't call for mandatory military service. Instead, it provided incentives like college tuition. Republicans were quick to mischaracterize the term "national service", even though much of the plan was simply meant to increase volunteerism. Read more.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    2. Re:Thank God by goon+america · · Score: 2, Informative
      The whole Bush campaign for the last two years has been a thinly veiled attempt to get people to think that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were the same person. And, it worked: most Bush voters thought that there was proof they were working together, and also thought that WMD was found in Iraq, and that the war was popular worldwide.
      Even after the final report of Charles Duelfer to Congress saying that Iraq did not have a significant WMD program, 72% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq had actual WMD (47%) or a major program for developing them (25%). Fifty-six percent assume that most experts believe Iraq had actual WMD and 57% also assume, incorrectly, that Duelfer concluded Iraq had at least a major WMD program. Kerry supporters hold opposite beliefs on all these points.

      Similarly, 75% of Bush supporters continue to believe that Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, and 63% believe that clear evidence of this support has been found. Sixty percent of Bush supporters assume that this is also the conclusion of most experts, and 55% assume, incorrectly, that this was the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission. Here again, large majorities of Kerry supporters have exactly opposite perceptions. (...)

      Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, "One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree." Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

      link

      Most surveyed agreed that it was the Bush administration who were origin of these beliefs. It drives me up a wall that these guys were able to win an election in part because they were able to successfully misinform people.
    3. Re:Thank God by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It drives me up a wall that these guys were able to win an election in part because they were able to successfully misinform people.

      I suspect that the only thing that makes the Kerry supporters look good is that the researchers are focusing on misperceptions that would be most likely held by Bush supporters. I don't think it would take much to reveal the Kerry voters to be similarly misinformed, and for practical purposes, the Bush voters to be much closer to the truth.

      For example, ask the average Kerry supporter if Iraq supported international terrorism. I suspect that the answer is NO, since they have had drummed into them that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The fact is that Iraq was a significant sponsor of international terrorism. Iraq paid for Palestinian suicide bombers. It offered refuge to a number of the most notorious terrorists of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. It offered refuge to Zarqawi (the guy giving us fits in Falluja). The Bush voter may be wrong in that Iraq didn't have close ties to Al Qaeda, but in the more general sense they are right since Iraq was a significant sponsor of international terrorism. The Kerry voter may be right in the narrow sense that there was no known close ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda, but in the more important general sense of supporting terrorism, they are wrong.

      The same hold true for WMD. While the reports show that there was no actual manufacturing of WMDs going on, it is also clear that Saddam was nursing what was left of his programs, trying to retain expertise & equipment, and expand dual-use technologies. The was no doubt on the part of the Iraqis that Saddam wanted to restart his WMD programs as soon as he could shake off the sanctions. Iraq actually was building new missiles that were banned. In general, Saddam was not acting in good faith. And I think it is worth noting that there are a growing number of WMDs that have been recovered in Iraq since 2002, at least 30 or so that I know of. That is not a militarily significant number, and they are generally left-overs. However they are plenty good for use by terrorists. Now, the Bush voter might say Saddam had WMDs. In the narrowist possible sense, they are right. In the normal sense of looking for militarily significant stockpiles, they are wrong. In the more general sense, they are closer to the truth than the average Kerry voter. The average Kerry voter would say that Saddam didn't have them, and indeed never had them. The average Kerry voter would say this despite the fact that it is well established that Saddam manufactured enormous amounts of chemical weapons and used them against Iran and his own people. Iraq developed biological weapons, including anthrax bombs.

      The same pattern holds in international relations. The average Bush voter would be literally wrong if they believe that the US invasion of Iraq had the support of the majority of the world. The average Kerry voter would be wrong if they really believe that it was literally a unilateral action. The US went to the UN repeatedly on the matter. There were something like 60 countries that aided the invasion in some way, and about 30 that sent in troops, no matter how small the number. 60 / 30 nations is only a fraction of the world. 60 / 30 is not unilateral.

      Although the Bush and Kerry voters both tend to get some aspect of the questions wrong, the Bush voters are generally closer to a more useful general understanding of the problems than the Kerry voters.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:Thank God by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't feel bad, Swifti. Remember, you're arguing with the same kind of lackwit who thinks a 2% majority is a "mandate."

    5. Re:Thank God by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      he shoots... he misses!

      I accept that people on both sides will be wrong about certain things. That's because we're people. The main difference is, the President of the US and his team actively spread those lies to ensure their re-election. Any incorrect details believed by Kerry supporters weren't learned through Kerry or his campaign.

      Also, Saddam wasn't a massive supporter of international terrorism. Paying $1,000 to families of palestinian suicide bombers isn't a great deal compared to the $1bn given to Israel by the US. Zarqawi was protected by the Kurds in the north, not by Saddam. Anyway - those two facts are NOT enough for a UN member-state to invade and depose the regime. Sure, Iraq and Saddam did some bad things, but they don't warrant invasion.

      The ISG released its report on the state of WMDs in Iraq. They showed that Saddam not only didn't have WMDs, but that he hadn't had them for ages. It also showed the UN sanctions were working, and that Saddam couldn't re-start his programs even if he wanted to. Lots of Bush supporters think Saddam actually used WMDs on invading US troops. The Bush regime changed from saying Saddam had WMDs, to "WMD-related programs", which under their loose definition included any school science lab. That's not "closer to the truth" - that's complete nonsense.

      The invasion was unilateral. Does a dog and its fleas act multilaterally when it licks its balls? No. The fleas go and do what the dog does. They're too small to object. That's what the coalition was. Small nations looking for favor from the US administration. Most people supported the effort with non-combat troops, equipment and money. Why did you mention the UN when trying to defend Bush's unilateral position? He went to the UN, then ignored them. If I ask a policeman if I can shoot someone and he says "no", I'm not allowed to go out and shoot someone. That's ridiculous logic. The whole point of this war was because Saddam didn't obey international will and the UN, then Bush goes and defies international will and the UN to get rid of him. Mixed messages?

      The surveys are extensive. Some Kerry supporters get the wrong end of the right stick - Most Bush supporters get the wrong end of the wrong stick.

  9. How com every time I read... by tod_miller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    a msn*.* new article I deicde that a news source field in each /. story would be a good idea, and new source modding would be a great idea.

    Something like:

    if newsource contains [ MSN ] then [ -6 ] :-) in fairness, they are either reporting the truth, but selectively, or even worse, not reporting certain areas.

    This is why /. is good, many many news sources. And news.google.com of course.

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  10. Yeah, of course by philthedrill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, when they're giving the stats in relative percentages, the numbers don't tell the whole story. Yet people were quick to make a judgment call before working out all of the numbers.

    With that said, I would have liked to see an even higher turnout. I've read that the national turnout was roughly 60% according to this article.

    But part of that was because Wisconsin had high voter turnout (see here), which was 72% statewide and 80% in Dane County (where Madison is). I guess I should blame myself since the campaigns really focused on the swing states... I'm sure the youth turnout in the non-swing states wasn't nearly as high.

    This article says the same thing as this post, except it noted towards the end that most of the youth voters are in or have attended college. The non-college youth are the people that I'd like to see vote.

  11. As it turns out... the Media... by Dozix007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As it turns out... the Media did say that numbers were up, but not percentage of the vote. I clearly recall hearing that election night. What the author of this article is hearing is the constant repetitive nature of 24hr news networks. You crazy Dems. are gonna have to live up to the fact that your party base would rather Stay at Home then vote if it ment them going through rain, or waiting in line.

  12. They still don't think their vote counts by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As a college freshman at RIT, I can tell you first hand that people here still do not think their vote counts. That is, if they are not from a swing state. I didn't meet one person who was from a swing state who didn't vote, but I met numerous from the state's that were considered to be "taken" by one candidate or the other.

    Students just felt that it was a waste of time voting in these states. It's hard to convince them to take the time when the winner is essentially decided. They don't get it that they are contributing to the popular vote, making their opinion known, and helping to ensure there is no upset in that state. Unfortunately nobody is sending these messages over the media. All students hear is "Vote or Die," and "Rock the vote," which came here and perpetuated the feeling that both sides just talk and talk, but never listen by having two large sheets of paper where people could write their opinions. There was a Kerry paper and a Bush paper, and all that came out of it was how much Bush sucks, or how much Kerry flip-flops, or how there is no paper for Nader and that Rock the Vote perpetuates a two party system.

    What the young need is a new approach to get them to vote. One that emphasizes how much their vote counts, rather than how cool it is to vote, or how P-Diddy and his gang of thugs will kill you if you don't vote. The big names and celebrities should still be involved, they are great at getting a message out to people, however they need to reform their message to one that more accurately addresses the reasons young people do not vote.

  13. Media probably just repeated GOP spin by Cryofan · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are too lazy to actually do any real research, and the GOp probably wanted to dampen any bnadwagon effect, and fed the media that no-youth-vote spin, and the media reported it, like the good little lapdogs they are.....

    --
    eat shiat and bark at the moon
  14. Re:Why do we think this is an embarrasment? by dave420 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    1. Because someone they love might have property and they care for them.

    2. Because someone they love might have kids, and they care for them.

    3. Because someone they love might be retiring sometime soon, and they care for them.

    It's not all about "me, me, me!", you know. I wonder how you voted... ;)