It’s Election Day, which means that millions of wealthy white people across the country are out casting their votes for their wealthy white neighbors in hopes that the country will continue to be run in a way that favors the beliefs and interests of these privileged few. The candidates have based their campaigns on issues like social security, taxes and education reform. They’ve promised to create more jobs, punish criminals and provide better education for children.
Yet all the while they seem to have forgotten about me, the lowly college student with a part-time job, no kids and a good 40 years before I get to start thinking about retirement. They’ve determined that my vote isn’t worth their time, that despite the millions of eligible young voters across America, it’s more efficient to continue to fight for a slice of that small group of upper-class educated people who reliably turn out at the polls every election.
But the candidates are wrong. I’m not apathetic, lazy or uninformed I’m just bored. I’m sick of candidates who discuss the same old issues (jobs, taxes and education) and ignore the topics that are important to me. If a politician took the time to address young voters, he might find himself with an enormous new group of strong supporters.
Young people have the potential to be not only good voters, but also strong political enthusiasts. We’re loud, energetic and have lots of free time to spare. A candidate who took the time to inspire me could earn my vote, but also my time as a supporter of his campaign.
Here in Boston sits an untapped group of more than 250,000 eligible student voters. A Free Press story last Friday stated that only 13 percent of these students will vote this year and I’d imagine that most of that small percentage will cast their votes via absentee ballots in their home states, instead of in Boston (‘Coalition gets out the vote at BU,’ Nov. 1, pg. 1).
Just imagine what a political candidate could accomplish if he successfully mobilized Boston’s college students. We represent a huge portion of the city’s population, but few candidates seem interested in trying to earn our votes.
I was briefly excited when I learned that the Massachusetts gubernatorial candidates were coming to Boston University for a debate this September, but then disappointed to learn that access to the event was by invitation only and little effort was made to make tickets available to students. Apparently the candidates’ trip to BU was only for the use of our Tsai Center, not based on any real desire to address students.
Something needs to change in this cycle. Candidates don’t try to reach young people because they assume that we won’t vote; but young people don’t vote because the candidates don’t make any attempts to get us involved. The older voters whom candidates rely on to show up at the polls each Election Day will soon die off, and voter turnout will continue to decline. Political involvement seems to decrease in this country with each successive generation. Perhaps we’ll become more interested in politics as we get older, but our country’s political future cannot rely only on that possibility.
Politics must become more interesting. The candidates should look beyond their regular voters and address issues that are important to the entire population. A recent CNN/Time magazine poll found that 72 percent of Americans favor the decriminalization of marijuana, yet marijuana reform remains an issue which most candidates are too scared to touch. Clearly this is a subject that many people feel deserves attention, yet their voices are being ignored. Instead of expecting young voters to grow up and become interested in the more traditional political topics, candidates ought to make an effort to address the issues for which these voters have already voiced support.
In bridging the age gap and addressing a topic like marijuana reform, candidates might risk losing some of their older voters. But it’s a risk they should take, as there is a strong possibility of inspiring vast numbers of new supporters.
Massachusetts was on the right track in giving the ‘third party’ candidates a chance to participate in the gubernatorial debates this year. If the Democratic and Republican candidates won’t address new issues, then these other candidates ought to be allowed to do so. Despite the many interruptions and crazy babbling from Barbara Johnson, these five-candidate debates proved successful and encouraged the possibility that new voters might become interested in the election process.
While I’d rather see a more established politician address the issues I find important, I’ll take a Libertarian or Green Party candidate if that’s the best we can get. And if these third party candidates continue to earn increasing numbers of votes, then we can expect the Democrats and Republicans to soon start paying attention.
The truth is that I did vote this year, two weeks ago, via absentee ballot in my home state of Maryland. Although I briefly considered re-registering and voting in Massachusetts, none of the candidates here inspired me enough to hassle with the re-registration process. My vote was available, but it seems that none of the candidates really wanted it. They should have come to campus, spoken to students and found out what was important to us. Then they could’ve taken that information back to their headquarters and developed campaigns that addressed student concerns.
Candidates’ time is valuable, but so is mine. If they want to win my vote, they’ll have to spend a little time convincing me that they deserve it. They’ll have another chance to reach me in 2004, and I hope this time they’ll pay attention.