Apathy: The Only Barrier to Student Turnout
Written by Brandon Henak on October 10, 2007 – 3:34 pm - Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
Scott, one of my fellow recent grads, pointed me towards an article posted on the Politico yesterday titled, “Campus voting access not making the grade“. Why am I even posting on this? Many media outlets, Democrats and even the odd conservative is convinced that the true reason for low college voter turnout is due to Voter ID, registration issues, long lines and having their “vote challenged”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. It may be their excuse but, it is blatantly false.
College voter turnout is always low across the country, no matter what the laws. What it comes down to is pure apathy. Students don’t care! They care more about their Facebook page, their music, their sports teams, even their grades. It’s just not a priority. To borrow some lyrics from the Reliant K song “Apathetic Way to Be” that I believe aptly describe the sentiment,
“Yeah, I’m not angry
and no, I’m not upset
it’s taken me awhile
but this is what I’ve learned
emotional attachment is really not a threat
when I’m simply not concernedThe things that I take on
I soon shrug off
’cause I know no one
will ever be content
with the way things are
or with what they’ve got
so I’ve given up and now I’m just indifferent”
One of liberal Wisconsin’s favorite excuses is that Voter ID would be too hard for students. The Politico cites a UWM study that states “In Milwaukee County, 74 percent of African-Americans and 66 percent of Hispanics aged 18-24 did not have a valid driver’s license — the most common form of voter ID “. So what? Get an ID! The next 2 paragraphs reiterate exactly what I am saying:
He[David Muhlhausen] argues that young people who do not get an ID in order to vote presumably would not have voted anyway. “People respond to incentives,†Muhlhausen said. “They’re going to get an ID because they want to buy a case of beer. It’s a question of priorities.â€
Whats worse, the people who keep perpetuating one of America’s newest pastimes, blaming others, are completely ignoring what the actual students are saying.
This is from the California Aggie:
Attempting to shift the blame away from those who did not vote on Oct. 7 — whether they wanted to participate or not — accomplishes little in the way of changing or explaining the pattern of low participation among younger voters. In addition, to set out with the intent to find only those who were “disenfranchised†is myopic.
Perhaps a better aim would be to use the information collected for a larger purpose: to explain this apathy. That may require CalPIRG to modify its target audience. Nevertheless, when a decreasing percentage of eligible younger voters participates in state and national elections, it is a trend in need of explanation.
Here is another one from the Penn State Daily Collegian:
The lack of student interest did not come as a surprise to many, but others were upset by the minimal student participation.
“The level of student apathy nauseates me,” said College Democrats President Andrew Kreider (sophomore-international politics). “If issues arise in the coming years that students are angry with, I hope they realize that if things aren’t going their way, this year was an excellent chance to have made a difference.”
Oh, another favorite scapegoat is transportation, that students just can’t get to polling places. Again, completely false. Check out some of these Get Out the Vote transportation methods by Young Voter Strategies.
At Arizona State University, students will be driving
their classmates to the polls with golf carts decorated
with red , white and blue bunting.At the University of Connecticut, students will
don costumes of Thomas Jefferson and George
Washington and use megaphones to exhort fellow
students to board round the clock polling place
shuttles.At the University of New Mexico, students have
constructed a giant map of the different polling
locations in the area, and using the map to direct
students to their proper balloting location.
Wow, sounds like fun to me, pretty hard to miss! Apathy, plain and simple, is the chief cause of low voter turnout. The media and special interest groups need to stop scouring the polls for “disenfranchised” voters, it’s a waste of time and money. Finding a way to get college students to care and to discover that their vote actually makes a difference is a much more noble cause.
Sidenote: Welcome, Gop3.com readers from the Harvard College Democrats.
Last 5 posts by Brandon Henak- Sarah Palin "Bump" Dominates Google Trends - September 4th, 2008
- 360 Degree Coverage: Tearing the Palin Family Apart - September 3rd, 2008
- 2008 GOP Convention Day 3 - September 3rd, 2008
- 2008 GOP Convention Day 2 - September 2nd, 2008
- Why vote for Obama? A Debate - September 2nd, 2008
Posted in 2008 Election Coverage, Beyond the Facade, Marquette Golden Chickens, US News and Liberal Debacles |
October 10th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
Hey McFly…..there is a residency issue with any student, in fact with every student.
Some have to declare their parents address! Woo, how about that?
And some are from out of state, which the UW requires them to use their home address….Holy cow Batman!
If you want to play the VoterID card, which is a lost cause..why not promote absentee ballots, as most studnets can use those…without any problem, regardless of where they live or how they have to declare their residency.
Talk about off topic….you GOpee’rs are getting real wack, these days.
Support absentee balloting! FOr very voter, and every election….you might get a turnout then.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I was talking to the Dean of Students at Beloit College on Friday and he told me that in 2004 the GOP “poll watchers” challenged every single student who tried to vote. Not some, but every single one.
October 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Are you serious? Did you see the caravans of Illinois residents driving around in Milwaukee in the 2004 election? And you expect that it wouldn’t be prudent to find out if non-resident (as 95% of students from Beloit are not from Beloit) individuals are actually from Wisconsin, rather than a five minute walk across from IL? God forbid we actually verify whether people are eligible to vote.
October 11th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
If they attend Beloit, then they are Wisconsin residents for voting purposes.
October 12th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
Please excuse Brian, John. He rides the short bus to school. Clearly, only a “special” person would overlook this fact.
October 12th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
John, Dave,
I’m sorry you have such trouble with reading difficulty … for the second time … most students who attend Beloit are NOT from Beloit, so it makes sense to verify whether they are first students and second students living in Wisconsin. I know how much your Democrat Party cherishes voting laws, so I would think you would acknowledge the prudence of making sure that every legitimate vote mattered.
October 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Brian-
Students who attend Beloit live there at least 9 months of the year. So why, in your world, are they not eligible to vote in Beloit? And why is it ok to challenge every single student, and they were challenging every one, even if they recently registered?
October 13th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
So maybe a couple of students wanted to vote someplace other than where they are registered and just maybe in some places in addition to where they are registered, but who can blame them? How else are people going to get their voices heard if they don’t vote places they are not registered?
There are probably a bunch of people who would vote for the same candidate as them that were not going to vote anyway so it all evens out. The question is what is fair; and it’s defiantly not fair to ask someone to show they are legally voting at every voting site they go to for a particular election. Ask yourself how many places can someone be asked to prove eligibility in one day before it just gets old? It’s not like gas is cheap or it’s easy to keep driving to all those different voting sites on the same day.
Can anyone suggest a good lawyer for when someone at these voting sites wants to keep me from voting as many times and places as I want?
October 14th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Nathan-
They were challenging every single student voter who attempted to vote whether they were registered prior to election day or not. No explanation was given, just that they were a student. The sole purpose was to backlog the line as much as possible so people would leave. It was not about fairness nor about protecting someone’s vote. It was about preventing a ward that votes 85% Dem from having a high turnout.
Did I mention that it was every single student voter?
October 14th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Every voter should substantiate their eligibility, not just students. Whether you believe voter fraud is wide spread or not there are undeniable examples of it occurring with frightening ease. Those students were not put through an unfair process but, if you are right, others were exempt from it. That is what should be upsetting you. Your explanation about motive is unsubstantiated insulting speculation.
If the process to determine someone’s eligibility is too cumbersome in your opinion than volunteer an idea of how to conduct an election that would protect against fraud.
An Australian lawyer I know told be about their system. It seems simple enough. Your name is on a list (one) and when you go to vote they check your name off that you voted.
October 14th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
John,
I don’t know how you construe concerns about verifying whether indviduals claiming to be students are students with disenfranchising them. It is perfectly normal to verify whether people getting in line to vote are actually students who live on campus.
October 14th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
You guys are missing the point. According to what the Dean of Students told me, there were two people from the local republican party challenging ever person who looked under 30. The ward the college is in is mostly students and people from a retirement home. Very few houses. There are few, if any students, who live outside the ward. Almost all students live on campus all 4 years they live there.
So please explain to me why two people would challenge every voter who comes to vote, whether they are registering at the polls, were registered a month before, or had voted in previous elections.
So to get back to the point of this whole post. Here is an example of students from a college in Wisconsin that attempted to vote at rates higher than normal for that age group, and there was an organized attempt to limit their vote.
October 14th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
“So to get back to the point of this whole post. Here is an example of students from a college in Wisconsin that attempted to vote at rates higher than normal for that age group, and there was an organized attempt to limit their vote.”
Wrong it was an attempt to verify that they were not voting twice. For example I vote at home via absentee ballot which frankly is what every college kid should do since it is easier for them and avoids the hassle of voting the day of the election so that you are free to campaign. Because most college students can get an absentee ballot back home there needs to be some way to keep them from voting in MKE as well.
October 14th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Luke- so how does challenging their residency in Beloit when they are standing in line do that? If the challengers had contacted each clerk where the student’s parents live and identified the students who sent in absentee ballots then that would be a legitimate challenge. That, however, that was not the case here. The two republican activists challenged every student who attempted to vote, which was just about every voter in that ward.
October 15th, 2007 at 3:36 am
John has been told the reason for the challenges as well as afforded the opportunity to suggest a better method to work against voter fraud. An opportunity he has forgone.
Everything that can be done for him has been done.
October 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Nathan-
Fine, but the challenges were not done for that reason. They challenged on the basis of residency. Like I said before if the activists had gone and put together a list of students who voted absentee then they could have legitimately challenged voters. They did not, however, and were not interested in stopping fraudulent votes in that ward, since there were none, and just wanted to make it as difficult as possible for a student at Beloit College to vote.
Besides, challenging a voter to “provide” ID, will not stop a fraudulent vote, so your argument is moot.
I did provide a better method in my previous post as well as this one.
October 16th, 2007 at 2:31 am
“If the challengers had contacted each clerk where the student’s parents live and identified the students who sent in absentee ballots then that would be a legitimate challenge.â€
Good idea….because clerks have so much spare time around elections to find them all.
That is not a suggestion; that is a diversion.
Considering Australia’s system of having a list everyone is on and checking voters off as they vote (with ID) would simplify and ensure fair elections, or at least be a good stating point for discussions on the mater. There are other ideas too but unlike your “suggestion†it does not rely on a few people performing a monumental task with almost no chance of being effective.
I understand not wanting a fair election if one prefers the outcome that results of fraudulent voting but if we in America can’t share the ideal of an election that reflects the will of the people then any chance for leadership that serves the people is ruined.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Once again, the challenges were not done to prevent fraudulent voting but to delay voting in that ward as much as possible so students would no longer wait 3 hours in the rain.
Please tell me how challenging every single student, without any evidence the voter is not eligable, prevents fraudulent votes from being cast.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
This is kinda long but worth the read…..
I don’t think many people are still reading this thread but just in case. John thinks that people should be allowed to vote without substantiating their eligibility at any given place and thinks it’s someone else’s responsibility to go substantiate eligibility before challenging someone.
(Cue Twilight Zone intro music)
Picture, if you will… a young man named John waiting in line with an 18 pack of Miller. He finally gets to the front of the line ready to participate in an event with which he may or may not be legally eligible to do…..
Liquor store guy: “I need you to prove your legal eligibility to buy this beer”
John: “You don’t have any evidence that I am not legally eligible to buy this beer, therefore you should sell it to me without asking me to prove my eligibility.”
Liquor store guy: I can’t let you buy alcohol unless I know you are legally allowed to do so.â€
John: “If you think I am not legally eligible you should have gone and checked and then only ask for my ID if you have found that I am not. You are not trying to substantiate my legal eligibility but trying to suppress myself and others from buying beer by making people wait while you ask us to prove that we’re legally allowed to do so hoping we will just go away. People don’t have to prove they are legally allowed to do this in other places so why are you?â€â€¦â€¦â€¦.
In the end, do you think John got the beer? Did the man at the liquor store see his point and quit asking people to substantiate legal status altogether? Tune in next time to see what will happen next in….The Crazy Liberal Zone….
October 17th, 2007 at 9:19 am
False analogy.
You could possibly claim the reason was to check eligibility if selected students were selected. The two activists, however, only challenged students and challenged every single one. The challenged students who had just registered (yes, even though they had just proved eligibility). They challenged students who had registered a month earlier. They challenged students that had voted in previous elections. Not a single non-student in that ward, nor in the other 3 wards at that polling location was challenged.
The only reason for the challenge, which every time it is made has to be addressed, was to slow down the vote and increase the wait time. It got so bad that that ward had wait times over 3 hours.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Nothing you have said negates the analogy but I expect others to be able to see that even if you can’t/won’t. It’s probably a moot point anyway since you and I are the only ones still looking at this thread.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
It seems kinda ironic that I was just talking to a colleague about volunteering in Presidential elections and decided to look at some of the articles on the situation in Beloit. And came across this site. I was the republican attorney poll watcher in question that day in Beloit The challenges that day were only to students attempting to to register and vote using a Student ID as the only identitfication. Not to those already registered.or registering with appropriate forms of ID. The WI law was very clear that in order the register you had to have both a name and an address on the same piece of identitfication (in that voting precint) in order to register and vote there. Since the student IDs did not have street addresses where the students physically lived, (so that the precint could be verified) they could not be used alone. A representative from the WI Secretary of State’s office bascially came to the polling site and acknowledged that this was accurate. Eventually we (me, school, secretary of state) all worked it out with the School when they brought a notarized list of all students and street addresses. Its really a shame. if accurate that a College Dean would make inaccurate accusations (everyone was challenged) about what happened, when in fact, when in fact we were only trying to get poll officials to follow the laws of the state.