Elections

Erica Williams is a social and political commentator and serves as the Senior Strategist at the Citizen Engagement Lab, a non-profit, non-partisan organization that uses digital media and technology to amplify the voices of underrepresented constituencies. This piece was crossposted with permission from Erica and was originally published at the Huffington Post.

Watching the debt insanity these past few weeks, I've had one question ringing over and over again in my head: What do we do? Not what kind of short-term lobbying and marches and calls will save our economy. The question for me has been about the longer term: What do you do when your government can't govern?

As a Gen Y-er, a product of hip hop culture and a young person in this economy, I've been conditioned to determine my own destiny, and, for all intents and purposes, hustle. So the answer is simple: When your government can't govern, you govern yourselves.

I'm no longer electing representatives to create a vision and run the country on my behalf, since it appears that on average, they can't. No, instead I'm dreaming my own vision and electing people to work for me, doing what I tell them to do. That shift in outlook and on our role as master not servant in the political process, is a change both in the theory and in practice of our engagement. Fundamentally, it shifts how we view the election and what we do after.

It makes me confident that if I have a vision for a country -- maybe one in which education is affordable, people earn a living wage, health care is free, people pays their fair share of taxes, the economy works for everyone, etc. -- I have effectively written a job description that I now have the power, with my friends, family, community, and generation to hire for. And it is then our responsibility to be the boss and ensure that the job gets done.

That is the admirable confidence of the tea party. They shouted loudly and proudly "We want our country back!" And as frightening and divisive as their rhetoric has been, their belief that they have a stake in the future of this country and therefore a right to help determine its direction is dead on. 

Unfortunately their swag is unmatched on our side. Most progressive leaders don't effectively represent the constituents that will soon make up the majority of this country: young and/or of color. And conservatives know that when we do rise up and take our place as leaders, our sheer numbers, if put behind a bold progressive vision, can cause a true revolution.

That's why over the past year as Democratic pundits, operatives, intellectuals and organizations ran around fretting about Obama's approval ratings and whether or not they had been invited to the White House, Republicans were plotting out a 2012 strategy that has nothing to do with the issues. Instead of trying to win the young, black, and brown votes they focused on making it harder for us to vote at all. A "war on voting" is well underway, with Voter ID laws that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, disenfranchise huge numbers of people of color, the young and the elderly, popping up in states across the country. Republicans unleashed a targeted and deliberate strategy to chip away at a person's ability to vote, bit by bit. Why?

Because they understand that a vote is more than a show of support for someone or something. They get that a vote is more than a moment to claim your identity, raise your voice, make yourself heard, or any of the other corny, clichéd slogans that we hear around election time. They understand that a vote can be an indication that we're hiring who we need... to do the job that we want... for the country that we deserve.

Knowing that what's at stake in this election isn't the possibility of another year with a black president but instead the opportunity to make government work for the rest of us, should be enough to get us to push past all of the hurdles, help folks get their IDs, mobilize, turn out and do what we should have been doing all along: governing our nation. 



The past two years, especially the debt ceiling debate, should have taught us a valuable lesson: Doing the work to hire someone -- knocking on doors, going to concerts, wearing t-shirts, making viral videos, and checking a box -- is a complete waste of time if you don't stick around long enough to train them, give them their marching orders, and monitor them.

So for me, Election 2012 -- and every single day afterwards -- is about taking back my power to move my country and my community in the right direction. "Hope" comes from my faith, not my politics, and I'm exhausted with the idea of "change." No more slogans, no more buzzwords. I'm tired of looking for "leaders" -- new crowned princes and princesses who are able to bundle Democratic dollars, make rich people love them, talk about young people and black folks and poor folks, and then do the same old same old. We ARE the leaders. And it's pretty simple: our vote is a powerful statement that from now on, we run this, in spite of every effort that's been made to prevent us from doing so. So let's gear up to do just that.

Follow Erica Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ericawilliamsdc

With several states trying to shrink democracy in the United States, our partners at Rock the Vote have developed a tool that will hold states accountable to providing young voters access to the political process.

The tool--the Voting System Scorecard--analyzes the laws and policies of all 50 states that have an impact on young voters' participation in the process. Amid Republican-led efforts to restrict political participation among youth, the scorecard will provide observers with a baseline measurement against which they can monitor further efforts to deny youth their right to participate. Unfortunately, this scorecard already reveals that young Americans are being left out of the democratic process because of outdated voter registration practices, barriers encountered when trying to cast a ballot, and our country's failure to adequately prepare them for active citizenship.

You can view the scorecard, key findings, and a link to send the full report to your elected officials here:

http://www.rockthevote.com/research/2011-voting-system-scorecard.html.

The scorecard measures state laws and policies in three key areas: (1) voter registration, (2) casting a ballot, and (3) young voter preparation. The 21 point scale evaluates each state's implementation of policies that increase access to the political process, including: automatic registration, permanent and portable registration, Same Day Registration, online registration, early voting periods, identification requirements, residency requirements, absentee voting, military and overseas voting, and high school civics curricula and evaluation.

As you will see, a vast majority of states are failing to meet the needs of young voters. With an average score of 41%--and the top score being only 68%--too many states are not implementing new technologies and policies to get people registered, limiting opportunities to cast a ballot, and failing to teach young people about voting and elections in high school.

Heather Smith, President of Rock the Vote, appeared on MSNBC yesterday to highlight the scorecard. Here she is:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We have discussed the short shrift Millennials get in traditional polling operations due to their cell phone-only tendencies, but here is a CDC report that underscores it:

In a first for any age group, more than half of Americans age 25-29 live in households with cell phones but no traditional landline telephones.

A report on phone use by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also found that the younger children are, the likelier they are to live in homes that only have wireless phones. That suggests that younger parents are showing increasing comfort relying only on cell phones even as they adjust from being single to a more settled family lifestyle, according to one of the report's authors.

Of course, given Millennials' Democratic tendencies, failing to take them into account in campaign polling operations leads to an increasing GOP bias, as this Daily Kos diary discussed in October.

Some other data from the study, conducted by CDC's National
Center for Health Statistics:

• The households likeliest to rely only on wireless phones consist of adults who are poor, renters, Hispanics or who live with unrelated housemates.
• Only 13 percent of households have landlines and no cell phones — down from 24 percent in early 2007.
• Though people age 18-29 are the heaviest cell phone users, they comprise only 40 percent of all wireless-only adults. That's because young adults make up only about one-fifth of the total adult population.
• Only 16 percent of Northeasterners live in cell phone-only homes, the lowest of any region. The highest frequency of wireless-only households is in the South, where 29 percent live that way.
• About 2 percent of households have no phone service at all, a figure that has changed little in recent years.

As we move forward toward the 2012 race, I suspect we'll be seeing even larger numbers of Millennial cell phone-only households.

Well, here we go again.

The New York Times published a story today out of Colorado looking at whether or not young voters could be turning away from the Democratic ranks -- two years after serving as one of the bedrock groups in Obama's voting coalition. The story seems to be fairly balanced in its views, as there are some younger voters proclaiming their continued allegiance to the President and the Democratic Party, but there are also young voters souring on the Democratic leadership.

One young voter was particularly descriptive in explaining her conflicted views.

Kristin Johnson, 23, like many other students interviewed here in recent days, said that a vote for Democrats in 2008, however passionate it was, did not a Democrat make. But she bristles just as much at the idea of being called a Republican.

“It’s like picking a team when you really don’t want to root for either team,” said Ms. Johnson, a communication studies major, who said she was undecided about parties and politics going into the general election campaign.

If Democrats are letting voters like Ms. Johnson get away from them across the country, the ramifications of this blunder will be felt for a long, long time. But that's another topic for another day.

I wanted to focus on another passage from the article, one that reflects exactly what we have been facing throughout the last few special elections and what we will be fighting back through November and beyond.

How and whether millions of college students vote will help determine if Republicans win enough seats to retake the House or Senate, overturning the balance of power on Capitol Hill, and with it, Mr. Obama’s agenda. If students tune out and stay home it will also carry a profound message for American society about a generation that seemed so ready, so recently, to grab national politics by the lapels and shake.

While Kirk Johnson, the writer of this piece, does not go into specifics as far as what he means by a "profound message," I think the odds are good that these few lines illuminate the common misunderstanding that Johnson and other journalists run with when writing these stories. They go with the surface level content, mindlessly reporting that youth did not show up at the polls and, thus, are not interested in voting. Apparently, we're just not prepared.

But what about the other possibility: perhaps youth, suckered into this idea that politicians - maybe just once - might care about our issues, might be willing to talk big, think big, dream big, and for once exercise some pragmatic idealism, are let down. After being counted on to move this Democratic administration and congressional leadership into power, perhaps we are pissed off and making a political statement by refusing to be taken for granted.

That's where this article falls short. There are other possibilities for why youth might not be voting. Not because we are apathetic, or turned off to politics. It's because politicians gave us their word, we gave them our vote, and aside from a watered down health care bill, a stimulus that was too small, and maybe a few other bills, the work hasn't been done, and the to-do list is getting longer. Furthermore, we are left hanging in the breeze, waiting for an honest explanation... still.. waiting.. for that honest explanation.

So don't get us wrong: we're still ready to shake some lapels. But in order to be most effective, we need candidates who are uncompromising in their tenacity on confronting big issues, but flexible in crafting solutions to our problems. And we need them to engage us.

Thomas Goldstein and Thomas Bates, Executive Director of the Washington Bus and Vice President for Civic Engagement at Rock the Vote respectively, penned an op-ed published in today's Seattle Times. Goldstein and Bates took aim at the idea that youth's "low" turnout in midterm elections relative to older age groups ultimately means a smaller impact on the results.

It isn't exactly news that young people tend to vote at lower rates than older voters. The more interesting story is that even if young people turn out at lower rates, they can dramatically affect the election landscape and outcomes. That happened most visibly in the 2008 presidential election, but also in certain nonpresidential elections closer to home.

The approval of Referendum 71, the election of a young mayor in Tacoma, and two victorious young City Council candidates in Spokane are all evidence of the efficacy of targeting young voters. Moreover, the highest turnout in the state in 2009 was in the 43rd Legislative District, which has the greatest concentration of young voters.

Even with mounting evidence, too many campaigns write off young voters, and this tired habit has made the prophecy of low turnout a self-fulfilling one. It almost reads as a new definition of madness: Time and time again, campaigns don't invest time and resources into young people, and then are surprised when they don't mail in their ballots.

[...]

Luckily, we're doing something about it. Forward-looking organizations and campaigns have tested methods to engage young people and have committed resources to make them reliable voters. And we're seeing results: For the past three major election cycles — yes, even pre-Obama — the turnout of young people has steadily increased.

We know what works: Make sure young people are registered to vote, give them relevant information in an engaging way, and run campaigns that connect with their values.

The point both are making is that, blessed with size, the effect of even a subtle increase in the Millennial voting rate can be worth a few points in various midterm elections -- enough to tip those races in different directions.

As we move forward into the meat of the 21st Century, these younger people, increasingly becoming adults, are going to need to be pursued in a different way than past voters. This calls for aggressive engagement, complete with the "relevant information" Goldstein and Gates mention above, as well as managing campaigns that reflect youth's values.

You've read about this movement before here.

And now, it's taken another step forward.

After a failed student campaign a year ago, William and Mary students put together an organization called Students for a Better Williamsburg (SBW), an organization engaging local government in order to provide the best outcomes for students. This effort led to the amendment of a housing ordinance, making it more student friendly and eliminating an issue that divided the town and gown factions in the community for years.

This past spring, a student ran for a Williamsburg city council seat once more. Last Tuesday night, Scott Foster, a graduating senior, dominated the contest.

Foster was elected to the Williamsburg City Council on Tuesday night, becoming the first William & Mary student ever to do so. The 22-year-old said his win was a victory for town and gown relationships.

"Today, the people of Williamsburg demonstrated that our city is truly unified," Foster said Tuesday night. "When I decided to run for City Council, I hoped to receive the student vote. Now, I have been additionally honored and humbled to have received such strong support from across our City."

Foster received 1559 votes in the election, 741 more votes than the next finisher, Planning Commission Chairman Doug Pons, who also earned a seat on the council Tuesday night. Five candidates, including one incumbent, ran for the two open positions. According to Foster's campaign, approximately 67 percent of his votes came from students and the remaining votes came from residents.

Over 1000 William and Mary students voted for their fellow student in the election, ensuring that college students will have a strong voice in the city's government. Between this victory and the aforementioned organization of Students for a Better Williamsburg, William and Mary students have provided students across the country with a model for organizing within the system to produce positive outcomes.

How did Foster do it? Well, in textbook Millennial fashion. Foster used online social networking to spread the news, and then benefited from a student-coordinated voter registration and GOTV effort on William and Mary's campus.

Foster benefited from a coordinated get-out-the-vote campaign by William & Mary students. Earlier this year, student organizations, including the Student Assembly, worked to encourage students to vote in the election through a series of registration efforts. Approximately 300 students registered this year as a result of the drive. More than 2,100 students are registered to vote in the City of Williamsburg and early estimates indicate that roughly 50 percent of registered students voted in Tuesday's election.

On election day, the Student Assembly provided transportation for students between the Sadler Center and the Stryker Building voting location. Sarah Rojas ‘10, outgoing president of the assembly, also sent an e-mail to the College's students, encouraging them to vote in the election.

[...]

Much of Foster's campaign was run by students who utilized a website and social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, Flickr and YouTube. Foster also spent a good deal of time meeting city residents.

After his upcoming graduation, Foster plans to continue his studies at William and Mary in 2011, attending the William and Mary Law School.

Peter Daou's piece on the Huffington Post today argues that Democrats have hurt themselves by creating the convergence of the extreme right wing and progressive activists and bloggers. Governing from a lack of grounded principles, writes Daou, makes the president, and thus Democrats, look weak regardless of the legislation passed.

The half of Peter's argument positing that Democrats whiffed on the decision to legitimize Rush Limbaugh by repeatedly taking him on from the Press Room of the White House is on point. Robert Gibbs ridiculed any little comment Limbaugh (or Beck or Michael Savage or other conservative hacks) made. Daou actually wrote the following back in March.

There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents. There was a moment, a brief moment, after Barack Obama was elected president, a moment long gone, where the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity could have become marginalized, bit players rather than media movers and shakers, the detritus of a sorry era. But instead, they have been granted more power -- out of some contrived political calculus. This, at a time when we don't need political calculus, we need single-minded determination to get us out of this economic calamity and to restore sanity to our government.

I agree with Daou, with some additional perspective offered. The Obama campaign came into DC following one of the best campaigns ever run. They were disciplined, they knew their message, and nearly every risk they took played well in the end. Part of their "change" message entailed changing Washington, refusing to get into the trenches against the "vast right wing conspiracy." Reviewing where we were then and where we are now, something obviously pushed the Obama administration off track.

I think Daou makes a strong argument that part of it lies within the Obama administration's decision to attempt to use Limbaugh et al. as their punching bags. But I think we have to zoom out one more level and ask: if Obama and Co. wanted to change the way elections are run, why would they violate their principles on right wing crazies? Attacking a group with such little credibility does little for the change message. The message of unconventional, but actual change transformed into the slimy politics of old.

Furthermore, the Obama administration looks even weaker when we juxtapose their toughness against the extreme right-wing commentators with their mealy-mouthed approach to health care, the agenda item forming the heart of Obama's domestic policy.

There's quite a bit of advice entering the public forum today, so I'll offer my two cents as well. The Democrats need to get back to what works, and that's offering a politics that solves America's problems from a coherent, ideological set of principles. In addition, they need to communicate with their base, especially those young voters who put him over the top in 2008 (and the millions more who will be voting in 2012), to keep them posted on exactly what is going on and how they can help support the Obama agenda moving forward.

The reality is that the Democrats still have 59 seats in the Senate. As Jon Stewart explained the other night, the Democrats still have more seats in the Senate than Republicans had when Bush was able to do whatever the hell he wanted.

A fantastic paragraph written by Alejandro Ribó from Personal Democracy Forum:

Young Europeans do not want political parties in their lives. Only 4% of young people (15-29 year olds) participate in a political party or trade union (on Euronews (2:02 mark) from Eurostat statistics). This is a clear figure of what young people want or do no want. Political party politicians and their acolytes would quickly blame the education system, capitalism, the television or even the Playstation for the lack of interest in politics of young people. They are blinded by their group thinking and narrow perspective of what politics is. Politics is not only, and not even mainly, about what political parties and their representatives (the so-called "politicians") do. This fact, many people, including young people, know very well. I recommend the party people to go one night around bars in any city or town in Europe, to listen to what people are talking about. They talk about politics beyond political parties and their captive public institutions. They will be surprised to hear that there is political life outside the party. For politics is mainly about people and what they do, and not about organisations of any kind. That is why we need to reform the system to give chances to those who want to talk and participate in politics, but do not want to be captive of an organisation that has its own interests, often different than the interests of the rest of us.

Yes, it's Europe, but it's applicable. This is a reminder Washington needs. Because our political arena is so intensely focused on parties, we lose focus on myriad facets of politics: the people, their needs, the dialogue itself.

We saw the ramifications of this approach in New Jersey and Virginia, as both Democratic gubernatorial campaigns forgot that each political campaign is different with different candidates and different constituencies. Obama didn't win because he made young voters think Democrats were cool; he won because he engaged young voters through his campaign's bridge-building. Youth issues were identified, specific elements of the youth culture - like texting - were embraced, and he informed them he expected them to work not for him, but for their country. When a sitting governor and a gubernatorial candidate fail to do most of this yet expect results because they are Democrats too, they might as well retire. It won't (and it didn't) work.

Underneath all the pithy statements to the press regarding inconsequential events or subjects, the American people converse. Some can't afford health insurance. Some youth, led into college thinking it would lead to success, have graduated and discovered employment is little more than a pipe dream. Many have lost their retirement thanks to the greed of those on Wall Street and their enablers in Washington. Yet who among those "important" people in our system hears this? Judging by their actions, I'd suppose no one.

This restoration of "politics" is one of the main tasks our generation will need to complete. As the excerpt above suggests, the emphasis of politics is people, not organizations. Once we begin associating politics with everyday conversations among everyday people, we'll have a chance to actually improve America.

An interesting possibility came out of the Great American Hackathon, a gathering of computer software developers "to develop open source applications for open government."

In order to vote in United States elections from their residence abroad, military members face a complex and frustrating process. In order to have their vote counted, they count on bureaucracy to properly deliver their ballot and do so promptly. Meanwhile, the soldier must stay informed of changes in local election law that could threaten their vote.

In a fabulous use of the Voting Information Project, developers are planning the release of a widget that would fuse date from the project with the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot, creating a customized ballot for the soldier's home location.

This would be a shot in the arm to youth organizing, given the youth's heavy presence in combat forces staged overseas. This is a great example of using technology to extend democracy. Kudos to these developers.

This week's Daily Kos tracking poll provided a sign that we are in for a very rocky midterm election if the once-formidable Obama coalition doesn't assemble.

Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting

Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

Yes, Republicans are naturally going to be more enthusiastic about voting now, just like Democrats were when W was in office. But this should be a huge warning sign, especially to those of us working with young voters, which are becoming the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.