And what an election it was.
Okay, sorry for the radio silence. We're back. Sadly, without our star interns whose writing style kept this blog so enjoyable in the weeks leading up to the election. Aaron, Anna, Alex---we miss you!
So a quick catch-up. We've spent about a month now aggressively refuting the mistaken impression that young people did not show up to vote. As you should know if are on our email list or read our blog, young people turned out in force on November 2. Four million more voted in 2004 than in 2000. It was a huge, historic turnout.
But you wouldn't know it from the news. Early on election night, in a tense news vacuum, a story broke out that the under 30 set "didn't show up." A particularly damaging Associated Press story proclaiming that this was not a "breakout year" for youth voting was quickly picked up--and grossly distorted--by blogs and news outlets nationwide, and has likely rooted in the national consciousness.
Let's review with the facts: According to the University of Maryland's youth voter research institute (CIRCLE), at least 20.9 million 18 to 29-year olds voted on November 2--nearly 4.6 million more than in 2000, when only 16.3 million turned out to vote.
Another way of looking at the same data: in 2004, turnout of eligible young voters increased by 9 percentage points, to 51.6 percent, up from 42.3 percent in 2000. Again, a huge achievement. Internal goals were closer to 3-5 percent at many youth voter organizations, including Rock the Vote.
Youth turnout was particularly pronounced in the battleground states, averaging a 64 percent voter rate. Sixty-four percent! Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, where you can register to vote on Election Day, top the list.
In short, it was a banner year for young voters. They defied all expectations. They exceeded all goals.
What a disappointment, then, to watch reporters focus narrowly on how young people did not comprise a dramatically larger share of the electorate in 2004 than in 2000, interpreting that result to justify numerous "Whatever Happened to the Youth Vote?" stories.
But how could young voters increase that share hugely, when turnout was up across the board? Share of the electorate, by itself, is an unfair standard. Even worse, many reporters and pundits wrongly interpreted the result to mean that there was no increase at all in youth voting. Certainly that is what the public has heard. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Sure, one could argue that young people didn't deliver the election to Kerry, who won the group by 10 points. Needless to say, for the 44% of young people who chose President Bush, claiming that they had no impact because Bush won is a particularly meaningless argument.
And for the 54% who chose Senator Kerry? Without their votes, the election wouldn't have even been close. Young voters in Ohio favored Kerry by a 14-point margin (and increased their share of the electorate by 7 percentage points). Without the youth vote Kerry could not have contested the state. Same in Pennsylvania, where Kerry won by only 127,000 votes, but the 1.18 million young voters (comprising 21 percent of the electorate) picked Kerry by a 20-point margin, or more than 200,000 votes; and Wisconsin, where Kerry won by fewer than 10,000 votes, but the 593,000 young voters (comprising 20 percent of the electorate) supported him by a 16 point margin, or 95,000 votes. These figures are all easily derived from exit polls at CNN's website if you want to dig deeper.
While a few Democratic operatives have dumped on young voters, they are foolish to blame defeat on the only age group that they won. You have to win somebody over the age of 30, too. And what's the point'these Democrats are too smart to try to win more votes next time?
Considering the incredible surge in youth turnout for a momentous election, it would be tragic if young people come to think their generation just didn't show up.
Particularly if they perceived that their interest, energy, and votes did not translate into any real results on Election Day, and, more worrisome, that their peers were faking when they said they were going to get out and vote.
Being cynical about politicians and the media is one thing, but being cynical about your peers is something else. It could really undermine efforts to increase youth voting again next time.
The fact is that the youth vote shot through the roof, while youth participation in politics energized the campaign. This was a real movement. Indeed, youth was contagious in 2004, with everyone out knocking on doors, canvassing, phone banking, and getting out the vote, all agreeing that this was "the most important election of our lifetime."
You guys voted. Big time.
-- Hans Riemer
So a quick catch-up. We've spent about a month now aggressively refuting the mistaken impression that young people did not show up to vote. As you should know if are on our email list or read our blog, young people turned out in force on November 2. Four million more voted in 2004 than in 2000. It was a huge, historic turnout.
But you wouldn't know it from the news. Early on election night, in a tense news vacuum, a story broke out that the under 30 set "didn't show up." A particularly damaging Associated Press story proclaiming that this was not a "breakout year" for youth voting was quickly picked up--and grossly distorted--by blogs and news outlets nationwide, and has likely rooted in the national consciousness.
Let's review with the facts: According to the University of Maryland's youth voter research institute (CIRCLE), at least 20.9 million 18 to 29-year olds voted on November 2--nearly 4.6 million more than in 2000, when only 16.3 million turned out to vote.
Another way of looking at the same data: in 2004, turnout of eligible young voters increased by 9 percentage points, to 51.6 percent, up from 42.3 percent in 2000. Again, a huge achievement. Internal goals were closer to 3-5 percent at many youth voter organizations, including Rock the Vote.
Youth turnout was particularly pronounced in the battleground states, averaging a 64 percent voter rate. Sixty-four percent! Minnesota, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, where you can register to vote on Election Day, top the list.
In short, it was a banner year for young voters. They defied all expectations. They exceeded all goals.
What a disappointment, then, to watch reporters focus narrowly on how young people did not comprise a dramatically larger share of the electorate in 2004 than in 2000, interpreting that result to justify numerous "Whatever Happened to the Youth Vote?" stories.
But how could young voters increase that share hugely, when turnout was up across the board? Share of the electorate, by itself, is an unfair standard. Even worse, many reporters and pundits wrongly interpreted the result to mean that there was no increase at all in youth voting. Certainly that is what the public has heard. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Sure, one could argue that young people didn't deliver the election to Kerry, who won the group by 10 points. Needless to say, for the 44% of young people who chose President Bush, claiming that they had no impact because Bush won is a particularly meaningless argument.
And for the 54% who chose Senator Kerry? Without their votes, the election wouldn't have even been close. Young voters in Ohio favored Kerry by a 14-point margin (and increased their share of the electorate by 7 percentage points). Without the youth vote Kerry could not have contested the state. Same in Pennsylvania, where Kerry won by only 127,000 votes, but the 1.18 million young voters (comprising 21 percent of the electorate) picked Kerry by a 20-point margin, or more than 200,000 votes; and Wisconsin, where Kerry won by fewer than 10,000 votes, but the 593,000 young voters (comprising 20 percent of the electorate) supported him by a 16 point margin, or 95,000 votes. These figures are all easily derived from exit polls at CNN's website if you want to dig deeper.
While a few Democratic operatives have dumped on young voters, they are foolish to blame defeat on the only age group that they won. You have to win somebody over the age of 30, too. And what's the point'these Democrats are too smart to try to win more votes next time?
Considering the incredible surge in youth turnout for a momentous election, it would be tragic if young people come to think their generation just didn't show up.
Particularly if they perceived that their interest, energy, and votes did not translate into any real results on Election Day, and, more worrisome, that their peers were faking when they said they were going to get out and vote.
Being cynical about politicians and the media is one thing, but being cynical about your peers is something else. It could really undermine efforts to increase youth voting again next time.
The fact is that the youth vote shot through the roof, while youth participation in politics energized the campaign. This was a real movement. Indeed, youth was contagious in 2004, with everyone out knocking on doors, canvassing, phone banking, and getting out the vote, all agreeing that this was "the most important election of our lifetime."
You guys voted. Big time.
-- Hans Riemer
posted by Hans Riemer at 5:04 PM
2 Comments:
Damn skippy the youth voted!
The misinformation on this subject is amazing. If you ever doubted the pervasiveness and capability of "spin" by the media, you can't deny it now.
Post a Comment
<< Home