voting

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this scorecard already reveals that young Americans are being left out of the democratic process because of outdated voter registration practices, barriers encountered when trying to cast a ballot, and our country's failure to adequately prepare them for active citizenship.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

CIRCLE has a post today exploring the difference in reasons college youth and non-college youth give for not voting.

Peter Levine notes that data about voting is notoriously suspect given its ambiguity and the potential for people to withhold their actual behavior.

However, we do see that college-attending non-voters attribute their lack of participation to not being home on Election Day, while their non-college-attending, non-voting peers cite a distrust that their vote will carry any impact.

Of course, the question I am left with is how do we get students to believe in the power of their vote, to commit to voting somewhere whether that's at home or at college, and to actually do the deed. In a post on Monday articulating a ten point plan for renewal, Levine puts forth a vision for how we might start this work.

4. Prepare a new generation of active and responsible citizens. People form attitudes and habits related to civil society when they are young and keep them for the rest of their lives. But civic education has been cut in most school systems, and there are too few opportunities for young people to learn through service and extracurricular activities. Congress should revive the small Learn & Serve America program that provides competitive grants for service-learning, eliminated in 2011 after 21 years of work. Congress should also restore funding for civic education in schools (eliminated in 2011), but direct the funds to organizations that test or expand innovative educational methods and rigorously evaluate their impact. Meanwhile, the Office of Civic Education within the U.S. Department of Education should be elevated from its current low status (within the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools) and given a leadership role in coordinating the civic education functions of all federal agencies, including the National Parks Service, the national endowment for the humanities and the arts, the Defense Department, and Homeland Security.

Restoring Learn & Serve America moves us in the right direction, while increasing the power and visibility of the Office of Civic Education sends a message that civic education isn't a joke. We need these steps, combined with many others, to build a foundation for our education system that cultivates civic responsibility among students. The problems in our society are large enough that we need as many people as possible--especially young people-- to be on board and willing to make tough decisions and worthy contributions toward our future.

Last month Karlo and Colin wrote a post following Netroots Nation that called for some reconciliation in the name of progress.

Millennials carry the spirit of the founding fathers, perhaps more closely than generations in recent times. We understand that quality interactions with our counterparts advocating in good faith are more important than building huge e-mail lists based upon tactics of fear and hate. We talk to others, on this blog, on Facebook, on Twitter, and we do it with civility - or at least we try. We interact this way because we know others are watching and that everything we do and say is on-the-record. This does not mean that we don't stick to our principles and our values and voice our opinions. What it does mean is that we know that we are having conversations with people, other than those that just agree with everything we say. We're not about burning bridges; we're about mending them and building them out into the future.

I agree with their vision as expressed here. I think the two predominant political camps in this country do spend too much time trying to find the most vulnerable aspects in the opposition's activities for their own short-term political advantage. While I would point out that not all Millennials carry the spirit Karlo and Colin describe, the prevailing view among youth today is that compromise is important. "Pragmatic idealism" is a descriptor I have seen used for the way we view politics. To engage in this approach, though, I believe we need to take a step back and rethink the way we view politics.

Obama was elected on a platform that had at its core the notion that we could disagree without being disagreeable. And I still believe that's one of the more redeeming qualities our president possesses, to be able to espouse that and enact it day to day. However, to our detriment, he does this while viewing politics as an episodic adventure, as a negative thing. I can't tell you how many times I have heard him accusing someone of "playing politics."

First, politics isn't something to be played. It's a reality. It happens all around us. My writing this blog is political. You reading it is political. You daring to think about it later today and telling someone about it (crossing fingers) is political. What I'm trying to convey is that politics is not a battle that can be joined and not joined.

In addition, politics is not inherently negative. Interestingly, in its original Greek form, the definition of politics is less loaded; with polis meaning "city state," politikos roughly translates to “of the citizen,” signaling a citizen-centered view of politics with a focus on those things concerning city or state affairs. Aristotle argues that politics consists of the interplay between people from different backgrounds and interests, holding different views, while aiming to complete a task. In other words, politics is a constant that citizens cannot ignore; in fact, acknowledging and embracing one's constant participation forms the heart of democracy.

Viewing politics this way, we can see why E.J. Dionne's column is so discerning in today's Post.

Obama's mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to "politicking." In a democracy, separating governing from "politicking" is impossible. "Politicking" is nothing less than the ongoing effort to convince free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions. Voters feel better about politicians who put what they are doing in a compelling context. Citizens can endure setbacks as long as they believe the overall direction of the government's approach is right.

I suppose this is another take on the whole "Obama needs a narrative" meme that has been playing out. But I like this because I think the critique is more accurate. His attacking politics undercuts himself and what he is trying to do. This damage is then made worse by not giving any foundational rationale for what he is trying to do in the first place. Talk about giving special interests and "anything goes" politics a free pass...

Colin and Karlo were right: as long as we're fighting about character issues and other small-minded topics, we have already lost. When we are not talking about a set of ideas, policies, and decisions to be made in an honest way, we let special interests wreck everything (at which point Millennials may as well turn on some John Mayer).

It behooves all of us, including our president, to view politics as a constant, something we cannot ignore. The mixing of various views, backgrounds, and interests is always at work, and, especially now, there will always be a task to pursue. If the 2008 enthusiasm was genuine, if it meant something -- if Obama was serious about his call for citizens to step it up -- our president and all of us need to re-calibrate our views on politics. Pragmatic idealism just might have a shot then.

In what is some bad news for the Democratic candidates in November's midterm elections, young people simply aren't that excited to vote.

According to Gallup daily tracking poll data from March 1 - March 7, 18-29 year olds were the age group with the highest lack of enthusiasm toward voting, with 44 percent of respondents noting that they were "not enthusiastic" about voting in 2010.

One potential problem for Democrats is the lower enthusiasm about voting among young Americans. Twenty percent of registered voters aged 18 to 29 say they are very enthusiastic about voting this November. That compares with 31% to 39% of older age groups who are very enthusiastic.

Younger Americans are decidedly more Democratic than the national average. Thus, their apparent lack of motivation to vote -- if it continues until Election Day -- could deprive Democrats of the full benefit they could in theory derive if all 18- to 29-year-olds were to vote.

Democrats need to knock this number down quickly if they want to have anything resembling success this November. One way of doing that would be to pass comprehensive health care reform legislation. Young people want to see their politics made up of officeholders who are strong, problem-solving leaders, instead of weak, timid politicians.

While David Plouffe and Barack Obama drew praise with his outside-the-box approach in the 2008 election, including the amazing mobilization of thousands of new young voters, 2010 will be a different story for Democrats across the country unless something significantly changes. While it is only March, this is still very disappointing.

UPDATE: From Political Wire:

A new Harvard Institute of Politics poll of 18 to 29 year-olds finds young Republicans are showing more enthusiasm than young Democrats for participating in the upcoming midterm elections with 41% of Republicans planning on voting, compared to 35% of Democrats and 13% of Independents.

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.

In the work that we do as part of the progressive youth movement, vote drives aimed toward young people can easily take on a message like "vote for voting's sake." The result? A media and society that just assume youth are going to vote regardless of what is going on around them. It's a convenient dualism for the establishment: if youth don't vote, call them disengaged; if they do vote, it's due to either a hotshot candidate, issues on the line directly impacting their lives, or because they're supposed to since everyone else is doing it. This is ignorant, though, and just as the world is much more complex than most two-way issues, the same goes with youth voting.

Let's now look at one of the two approaching gubernatorial elections.
New Jersey's race has been topsy-turvy. Incumbent Democratic governor Jon Corzine, hamstrung with a rough economic environment and voters increasingly unhappy with their state's corrupt reputation, trailed Republlican candidate Chris Christie from the start, though he has pulled even as of late given Christie's own problems.

Where do young voters come in? Let's use the New Jersey race as an example.

The New York Times published an article today titled, "Corzine Courts Obama Backers in All-Out Push." And yes, within the "Obama backers," the Times paints young voters as being the heart and soul of the group; it's great if they come through. But what if they don't?

We might be able to see a preview in the article. Check out this academic's view:

“If Corzine can activate the Obama surge vote in New Jersey, that would suggest that last year was more than just a flash, that it has staying power,” said Allan Lichtman, a history professor at American University. “It will show that Obama’s support was about more than just one candidate’s charismatic personality, and give him a chance to transform American politics.”

Did you get that? Only if young voters show up in New Jersey does "Yes We Can" mean anything. As if 2004 and 2006 didn't happen?? Perhaps, just maybe, Lichtman is missing something.

The article goes on:

The first-time voters are described by campaign operatives from both parties as more likely to be African-American, Latino and urban than the overall electorate. But the group also includes younger voters, so in addition to canvassing in places like Newark and Camden, Mr. Corzine’s campaign has obtained some voter data and contact information from Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign Web site, and is trying to reach them through online appeals and social networking.

“In 2005, Jon Corzine didn’t even have a Facebook page,” said Joseph Cryan, the state Democratic chairman. “But now, with the help of the president’s voter lists, we’ve got people following us on Twitter, and we are reaching out to them in ways we hadn’t ever done before.”

With turnout unlikely to exceed 2.5 million on Tuesday, Corzine officials estimate that if they draw only a quarter of first-time Obama voters to the polls, they could gain the edge they need.

But even the governor’s most ardent supporters acknowledge that selling Mr. Corzine to Obama admirers has not been easy. On the surface, it would be hard to imagine two political figures more different. Mr. Obama is charismatic, eloquent and stylish, while Mr. Corzine is self-effacing, and an often meandering public speaker. And more significant, Mr. Corzine bears the burden of the state’s gloomy economy and reputation for corruption.

News flash to the Corzine campaign: for as much as the Millennial generation likes to be online, likes to post pictures wearing scandalous Halloween costumes on Facebook, likes to watch funny videos on YouTube, and likes to organize political events and/or service projects, we need to be talked to in order to get our vote.

Yes, Barack Obama's organization did a great job in the campaign at connecting with us on social networks like Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, and a host of others. But he also talked about our issues, and his team made sure we were seeing friendly faces in addition to friend requests and emails. His style matched ours, and the issues he discussed resonated with us. Yes, he asked us to vote for him, but he also asked us to give something back, to get involved, and reminded us that there's got to be a place at the table for us if this country is to take steps forward in the 21st Century.

But Corzine's campaign is willing to settle for a certain number of youth (not suggesting that Obama's camp didn't have their targets in 2008, but they respected us enough to avoid coming out and saying it). This sends a perception that the youth are just the bloc the governor needs to retain power, nothing more. Why? Because if the governor was actually interested in what the youth of New Jersey had to offer, or what they might want to see in his platform or next term, he wouldn't be clinging to Obama.

Yes, it's important to have a Democratic governor in New Jersey, but it's also important for campaigns to understand that youth don't vote to vote. They do so because they're asked for something beyond the vote. The vote isn't a literal, routine act. It's pregnant with significance. It signifies that we see a piece of ourselves in the candidate, that we believe that person will make decisions with our best interests in mind. Part of that is accomplished when people our age support and defend the candidate to us.

You can't buy that. You can't get that feeling from young voters unless you try. And you don't try by spamming their Facebook accounts a week or so before Election Day.

So let's turn to this: say the youth, because the Corzine folks rarely engaged us, don't turn out and the media lambastes them for only voting for personality (codeword for Obama). What is our plan? How do we respond?

Unfortunately, given the lack of funding for many progressive youth organizations, the communications efforts aren't there. By no means am I an expert in progressive youth infrastructure, but I do want to raise awareness of this. Because I have a feeling that the Corzine campaign's inability to engage youth on a peer-to-peer level is going to have some rough consequences, I believe we're going to be facing the "youth are disengaged" meme that will affect our preparations for 2010 and 2012. What are we going to do?

• Check out the story of the 25 year old running for mayor in Lansing, MI.
• David Plouffe rallies young voters for politics.
• College Republicans sound the 'whambulance' about the current political climate.
• Upcoming conference on citizenship will focus on "civic return on investment."
• Mike Lux on upcoming rallies and discussions by A New Way Forward.

Chris Bowers wrote a post last night at Open Left explaining why the Republicans are facing such a gloom and doom scenario with young voters. In "Getting Older Doesn't Make You Less Black or Less Gay," Bowers argues that whether or not one gets more conservative as he/she ages is irrelevant. As the minority groups making up a significant amount of the Millennial generation continue toward majority-minority status, their affinity for the Democratic Party and simultaneous rejection of the GOP will prove to be firm and fixed.

...Now young voters are breaking toward Democrats at record levels not just because they are young, but because they are non-white, non-Christian, and out of the closet.

This is significant, because while you might trade in your heart for your head when you get older, you don't get more white, more Christian, or less gay with age. As such, Republicans are not going to start winning these voters over until they start performing better among non-Christians, non-whites, and the LGBT community...

While I agree with Bowers' final conclusion, I feel compelled to fuss with one piece of the premise. Bowers gives a bit too much credence to the "with age comes conservatism" bit. In Rock the Vote's "Partisanship: A Lifelong Loyalty that Develops Early," released in February 2007, we learn that the only thing remarkable about aging and political preferences is the stability in partisan identification over time.

In 1964, the seminal work on this issue, The American Voter, echoes this point: the authors note that "…persons who identify with one of the parties typically have held the same partisan tie for all or almost all of their adult lives."

"When we ask people to recall their first presidential vote, for example, we discover that of those who can remember their vote for President two-thirds still identify with the same party they first voted for."

"A majority (56 per cent) of these presidential voters have never crossed party lines."

Additional studies published in the 1990s bolster the finding that partisan identification is a remarkably stable factor over a voters’ life.

Partisan identification is, of course, not immovable; various factors, including candidate quality, major events (i.e. Watergate),and social factors (i.e. job loss, marriage) can move a voter to one party or another.

However, as noted in The American Voter, "[Partisanship is] a picture characterized more by stability than by change—not by a rigid, immutable fixation on one party rather than the other, but by a persistent adherence and a resistance to contrary influence."

The disaffection between youth and the Republican Party is extensively chronicled on this site and elsewhere throughout the blogosphere. The values which today's youth deem critical -- pragmatism, diversity, and cooperation among them -- barely make an appearance in the operations and politics of today's Republican Party. So Bowers' post noting the progressive views of the ever-growing minority populations is just one more layer in the turbulent relationship.

Perhaps the most frightening graphic for the GOP referenced in Bowers' post came from another post by Alan Abramowitz, at Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. Of those 18-29 year olds voting in 2008, over 50 percent identified with the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.

Should the GOP continue to rely on its white, conservative base for electoral success, failing to grow any youth movement within the party, the numbers can only get worse. Of course I'm just a concern troll, so what do I know?

Bowers' post, combined with the lessons learned from the Rock the Vote paper, is just one more sign of a seismic shift in store for American politics.

(as cross posted on http://collegedemsny.com/blog/?p=412)
Today at a hearing on the ballots in the SD 11 case, the judge ordered that the St. Johns students that were subpoenaed could leave because they where not about counting the votes but about intimidating the students. According to the NY Times:

At a hearing that lasted just half an hour, Justice Kevin J. Kerrigan of State Supreme Court stated that the subpoenas were nothing more than a nuisance and ordered that they be dismissed. He told the students that they had no obligation to present any materials, and he asked them to leave the courtroom and return to their studies.

This is a tactic that Republicans often use to scare voters. I remember working on petitioning for Sen. Johnson on Long Island and the Republicans called everyone in to testify that it was them who signed it. It is a shame that the Republicans feel that the only way they can win is to scare voters and get Republican judges to throw out Democratic ballots.