The First of Many Thirds: the Youth Vote in 2008 and Beyond

Update: I've got this cross posted at MyDD and Daily Kos. Please give it a recommend.

We've talked a lot lately about young voters. How they turned out in near record numbers, and broke heavily democratic. Pollsters, bloggers and strategists are also busy promoting the fact that if a someone votes for a party 3 times (before they turn 30),they are likely to become a life-long voter for that party. The new conventional wisdom is this: "youth voted Democratic in 2004 and in 2006. If we get them in 2008, we've locked a generation the size of the baby boomers for life."

While technically correct, there are some assumptions in that statement that need to be challenged.

First, I think that the "2/3 shooting for 3/3" frame is the wrong mindset with which to approach the upcoming election. "Young voters" are not a solid block. The category is fluid by its very nature. I'm a cusp Millennial - 28 years old. After one more election I will no longer be a "young voter." From now on, every election will be 1/3, 2/3, or 3/3 for somebody, and we should create institutions and strategies that organize around that principle. Second, we need to recognize that, despite our recent successes, our current methods are inadequate to that task and adjust accordingly. Young voters still volunteer in their communities far more than they participate in politics. We can do better. And if we do, we'll win even bigger. In whatever strategies we adopt, our goal should be closing that "volunteer gap."

So let's talk about this. First let's examine somewhat more critically our gains among young voters in '04 and '06, which I think are more reflective of "Bush on the Ballot" than a solid democratic message

It's true that in 2006 young people broke Democratic overall by almost 2-1. That trend carried throughout almost all races - Senate, House, Governor:

However, this does not necessarily represent an affirmative vote FOR Democrats. According to CIRCLE's latest examination of the exit polling, Young voters were more likely than any other demographic to be dissatisfied or angrily dissatisfied with President Bush.

And 39% of young voters viewed their congressional vote as a direct referrendum on the Bush presidency, not the efficacy of their congressperson. Finally, young voters were a heavily undecided voting block. A full 44% of young voters said they made their voting decision within a week of election day.

So while I share most everyone's view that the trends are extremely encouraging, and we've locked up 2/3 of the necessary elections to solidify a sizable portion of Millennials as life-ling Democratic voters, I don't think that the 3rd and final election is necessarily a lock. With Bush off the ballot, the electoral conditions will be different in 2008.

So the question becomes, how do we solidify this "first" of many 3/3 elections, and how do we keep that trend going into the future? This gets to my second point. The answer, I think, lies in a long-term strategic vision that can bridge the Millennial's gap between volunteering and voting. It will require a shift in thinking that expands the political engagement of young voters beyond the current cyclical programs (which ramp up in September and disappear by December), towards a more comprehensive vision in which participation is one aspect of an overall lifestyle. Again, let's start with the data.

As Robert Putnam has recently noted (click to play audio clip), young Americans volunteer in their communities more than any other demographic. According to the October survey by the Harvard Institute of Politics, 51% of 18-24 year olds have volunteered in the last year, and 58% of those volunteered at least once a month. Those in high school, college, or grad school were even more likely to volunteer, with 73% of 18-19 year olds volunteering, and 65% of university students.

Compare that to political participation and voter turnout. According to the Harvard IOP survey, only 19% of young people said that they had participated in government, politics, or an issue-related organization in the last year (note the wording: voting is not included in this activity list). Voter turnout among this group was 47% in 2004 (18-24), and 24% in 2006 (pdf) (18-29).

So even in the best of circumstances - during a highly contested Presidential election - voter turnout still lags behind community service by as much as 22 percentage points. How do we close that gap?

Young Voter Strategies and CIRCLE would tell you that peer-to-peer organizing is the key. In in a recent study of GOTV strategies (pdf), YVS found peer-to-peer organizing was the most cost effective ways to reach young voters (~$10 per vote), and increased turnout 7-10% points. Furthermore, 50% of the effects of peer-to-peer canvassing carry over to the next election with no additional GOTV efforts.

Sounds great, right? Well it is great, and these are probably necessary programs for the foreseeable future, but here's the rub. The report defines peer-to-peer outreach as door knocks by someone of a similar age. And the studies upon which the report is based are conducted only in the weeks leading up to an election. That's great for increasing voter turnout around an election, but it is a very limited view of peer-to-peer outreach. It's a limited view of "youth participation," and I believe that it has measurable consequences for youth participation.

According to the Harvard IOP survey, Millennials view community service as a more effective avenue for affecting change - both nationally and locally - than political participation. So if we want to close that volunteer gap, our institutions must be rooted in the local community, they must be geared toward changing/improving the local community, and they can't pack up shop after 3 month spurts around major elections. If we can create programs that reflect these concerns and appeal to Millennials' natural desire to do good works, we'll not only increase the turnout rate among young voters, but the health of our political institutions, and - I think - build the structures that can make 2008 the first of many "third elections" for years to come.

What does that look like? There are some examples out there already. Democrats Work is a relatively new group that organizes local democrats to perform community service work as Democrats. They clean parks, help the homeless, and do any number of community service work while wearing a T-shirt proclaiming their status as Democrats. With each activity they are building a reputation for the Democratic Party as an organization that works in the community and produces tangible, immediate benefits to that community. John Edwards - as many of you now know - is organizing his campaign along a similar model. His volunteer service/campaign organization, OneCorps, is a social network for his supporters dedicated to much the same purpose as Democrats Work.

In terms of voter education and basic political involvement, Music for America and Drinking Liberally offer the models for sustained engagement that directly impact their communities by creating community. Music for America does this by offering young voters the opportunity to educate and register their peers at local, and intimate (read: non-stadium) live music events. Drinking Liberally does so by building a community around local political involvement. Both models are peer-to-peer, but both offer more sustained, and localized, ways to be involved.

These models are ripe for the Young Democrats and College Democrats as they struggle to make themselves relevant again. Imagine if Young and College Dem organizations focused on community involvement and social activities for their members 9 months of the year, channeled into 3 months of hardcore activism during election season. After a year or two, you'd probably see a dramatic swelling of the ranks in these organizations, as well as an uptick in the effectiveness of their "traditional" peer-to-peer programs during election season.

If we want to close the volunteer gap, and create structures that will win the ever changing constituency that is "young voters," these are the types of programs that we need to pursue. But here's the other rub - in order to get these programs up and running, we need money and we need proof of concept. Donors need to see hard evidence that these progrtams work. Which means that YVS and CIRCLE need to create metrics and study these types of organizations. Right now, that's not happening, so we are locked in a somewhat vicious cycle whereby certain programs that are measureable (door knocking, robocalling - traditional tactics that ramp up in September and disappear in November) receive all the attention, gobble up all the donor money, and lock us into a short term vision that limits our ability to grow the movement and maximize our gains among younger voters.

If we want to ensure that 2008 is only the first of many "thirds" that turn young voters into progressive voters for decades to come, we need to break this cycle.