The solution to our national crisis of polarization may be getting off X, formally known as Twitter, and casting a ballot in a local election.
Too many young voters are not voting in elections where their vote matters most – local elections. And without a robust stake in the fate of their locality, American youth may be giving up more than a spot in line at the polling station.
Though data is scarce, a study of 46 cities from 2011-2015 found that the average turnout rate for mayoral elections was 20% – compare that to the presidential election, where turnout regularly exceeds 50%. And the worst part is that voter apathy is concentrated among the youngest voters.
According to a University of Chicago study, voters over the age of 65 cast ballots at 2-5 times the rate of voters aged 18 to 34, meaning that the average ballot-caster in a local election is 15 years older than the average eligible voter.
Jakob Miller, associate professor of American politics, says voter apathy among young people has a lot to do with the changing role of in-person community. He referenced Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, which chronicles the decline of voluntary associations in American society. From youth groups to soup kitchens, Americans are choosing to spend more of their spare time in solitude or on a screen (or, in most cases, both).
“That robs you of the social networks you need to get information about local politics,” he said.
Rusty Annis, a high school history teacher at Pioneer Valley Christian Academy, agrees. Having come of age during the Vietnam War, a time of youthful activism for many, he thinks the current apathy is a result of changing incentives.
“I grew up in a time of activism and an overabundance of manpower due to the baby boom,” he said. “There was also no digital world. None. Social interaction was limited to your geographic situation. This limitation motivated your involvement in what affected you personally. There was no online escape from reality.”
Miller noted that ignoring local politics comes at a steep price: division and dissatisfaction.
Division occurs when state and local solutions are replaced with federal, one-size-fits-all solutions, which half the country may hate but must endure. A poignant example is Roe v. Wade, a controversial decision where the Supreme Court codified abortion into federal law instead of letting states legislatures decide whether or not to legalize the practice.
Finally, dissatisfaction is the inevitable result of placing one’s hope in a president whose power is diffuse and who may not fulfill all of his or her campaign promises. The truth is that the average voter’s influence on national policy is fairly indirect; local politics, however, offers opportunity for real-world impact.
The obstacles to youth voting are by no means insurmountable. One of the biggest reasons that turnout at local elections is so poor is that around 80% of such elections are held on different days than state or federal elections. The University of Chicago study found that having all elections on the same day roughly doubled turnout for local elections.
The study also found that, in synced elections, the age gap between ballot-casters and registered voters almost disappears, racial gaps are “significantly reduced” and Democrats and Republicans vote in proportion to the partisan makeup of their town or city. As a result, winning candidates in synced elections are more likely to promote policies that their constituents actually like.
In the long term, individuals, towns and states will have to grapple with how to return youngsters to embodied community, where they’re more likely to rub shoulders with older voters and catch up on local election gossip.
“Local elections are very important,” high school history teacher David Gaines said. “If (the youth are) not involved here how will they become involved later?”
