I'm more politically knowledgeable than anyone my age I've ever met who votes, but I don't vote in any election above the (very) local level. Cost/benefit. Takes me an hour or so, gains me absolutely nothing.
Gotta incentivize it somehow. I wouldn't spend my time at work if they didn't pay me, and I'm pretty sure both of my current jobs are about as pointless as voting.
I'm a young person in the US and I dislike politics. I do vote every two years but I would never vote for a Democrat or Republican. That leaves me voting Libertarian or Green which I'm fine with. Most say I'm "wasting my vote." Fuck that, you're wasting your vote by voting for the same guys every time. Nothing is ever going to change under a (D) or (R), and I feel like more and more young people are realizing that. The things I care about go virtually unacknowledged by the mainstream parties. - I want to dismantle the military machine. Defense spending sucks in so much of the taxpayer's money while education and other spending that would create a better world in the future gets cut. Reduce the military's role to defending our borders ONLY. - I want to end the war on drugs. It has imprisoned and ruined the lives of millions of people over victimless crimes. - I want to replace welfare with work programs like the ones FDR created with the New Deal. That means less people getting paid to sit around, more people with jobs, and the creation of much needed infrastructure. - I think the healthcare system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. There is far too much waste and inefficiency. It seems like too many people trying to get their piece of the action. I think public health care is the way to go. - None of these things could even be remotely possible without campaign finance reform. This is the Achilles heel of the corporatist regime. If we could just get one law passed to disallow big money sponsoring our politicians, it would allow all the other important changes to happen. Right now we're stuck, and it is because big money likes things just the way they are.
I see this as resulting from the way we get are information now in days. The internet has a much more global view than the local news and newspapers of just a few decades ago.
Younger people just don't have an attachment to their communities as generations passed. People are perfectly comfortable moving to cities that already share their political mindset rather than voting to change the politics at home. So yeah part of it is just being discouraged, but local politicians also need to learn how to make their positions seem relevant on global or nationwide scale to get any kind of support from young people.
Part of my problem is that a lot of justification for voting Democratis that they are the lesser of two evils. that should not make voting Democrat the right thing to do. if two options are unethical, as I believe voting for either party is, it does not make the lesser of these two somehow ok. if your options are kill an infant or kill an adult, you are still a murderer, and a convincing argument could be made for either option.
It's true, and I also know a lot of old-school conservatives who believe every living Republican is basically a libertarian and that the last real conservatives died in the 19th century. I don't know if they vote, but if they do they're inverting the paradigm and making the best of a bad situation by voting Republican. Goes both ways. However, that's not a full justification for abstention -- the more powerful argument, in my opinion, is that past a very localized point, an individual's vote simply doesn't matter. Mathematically, systemically, etc. In the situation you outline, if my vote mattered I could still express my value scale (assuming one candidate was even slightly less bad than the other). Unfortunately, under the current system that won't help my vote count.
I've voted three times (UK) since I am but a wee bairn and I've only actually had the chance to go to three elections. The media is just a load of fucking tripe here. Rupert Murdoch basically has the power to choose who gets into power because he owns so many newspapers. For some reason, the BBC gives an overwhelming amount of coverage to UKIP despite the fact that up until recently they didn't have any members of Parliament. They give so much coverage that they could only ever help UKIP's cause. Which they have. The supposedly political neutral broadcaster has given a far right party a leg up. It's a complete fucking joke.
Don't fight fire with fire. This is exaggerated well beyond the truth. I've heard this being said increasingly as of late. Do you remember The British National Party controversy on Question Time? The BBC has to give a certain amount of representation to certain parties. Ignoring the dubious link that you've made — between BBC UKIP exposure, the inevitability of increased UKIP votes, and the increase in votes for UKIP — this feels hyperbolic. Whether or not you agree with Farage, his political input on a wide range of matters has demanded his party's representation in the media and it's only fair that it's received. Out of interest, are these three elections all general elections? Or do you mean other types, such as the European? To address the article: I'd be reluctant to apply too much of its theory to our own political situation. There are large distinctions between the United Kingdom's and America's political culture. However, I think a sense of political ennui is common to both countries. Ergo: "Like half her generation... identifies with neither the Republicans nor the Democrats". I remember Noam Chomsky referring to this situation as 'narrow spectrum politics', where party differences are rather specious. In Britain, the three Big Parties have congregated around the centre for most of this century. People no longer have a place to find themselves represented. This creates more issues in the US than it does in the UK. As an anecdote: I'm 17. My peers — my age and politically active — tend to be of extreme opinions. There's a good chance I'm more like them than I'd like to admit. UKIP in the UK has appealed to the 'youth conservative' movement and the increasing culture of tolerance and social justice has led to a fair amount of people who would consider themselves of a socialist inclination. I think there is an important question here, and it's one of many that must be answered to reach this article's conclusion (which seems thoroughly unsupported here): "wooing young voters is of paramount importance". Ennui is indeed an issue, but the article places the onus of unilateral appeal on politicians. Not to discourage freedom of belief or idealism, but one must have realistic expectations of our system and recognise the virtues of its simplicity. You've implied concern over UKIP getting into power; I'd have similar doubts about any far-left party gaining actual power. And as a whole, I'd express doubts about the integrity of youth voting, the worth they have in terms of political issues, or that public debasement ("She has also danced the “Wobble” at a tailgate party and has helped a 28-year-old perform a “keg stand”"; "Obama told students that voting might improve their sex lives") is, in any form, an imperative responsibility of politicians.Rupert Murdoch basically has the power to choose who gets into power because he owns so many newspapers.
For some reason, the BBC gives an overwhelming amount of coverage to UKIP despite the fact that up until recently they didn't have any members of Parliament. They give so much coverage that they could only ever help UKIP's cause. Which they have.
I've voted three times (UK) since I am but a wee bairn and I've only actually had the chance to go to three elections.
Do you think that a smaller government would be helpful?
I don't know, but maybe if local politics became more important people would feel it had more bearing on their every day life.