There is overwhelming evidence from the country that electoral turnout among young

voters is significantly and substantially lower than in the overall electorate (2012; Bhatti &

Hansen, 2012; Blais & Rubenson, 2013; Electoral Commission). Recently, several studies

have also tried to clarify the peculiar pattern of a so-called “first-time or new voter boost.”

New voters, usually 18 year old (Bhatti & Hansen, 2012a; Bhatti et al., 2012; Konzelmann et

al., 2012).

In this article we add empirical evidence to extend these findings for 18-year-old new

voters. Moreover, several authors argued that social embeddedness is a driving factor in this

context. While some young adults are still living at home, others have left their parents'

household to start their “own life.” For instance, it has been shown that moving out of one's

parents' home decreases turnout in the short run (Highton & Wolfinger, 2010), as the

influence of parents decreases, while at the same time the influence of peers with weak voting

habits increases (Bhatti & Hansen, 2012a).

The scientific controversy revolving around lowering the voting age has accumulated

various arguments in favour or against such a reform. The arguments against foremost cover

such concerns as the lack of political maturity, political interest and political knowledge of

young voters which might lead to an uninformed vote choice (Bergh, 2013).

High voter turnout is often considered to be desirable, though among political

scientists and economists specializing in public choice, the issue is still debated. A high

turnout is generally seen as evidence of the legitimacy of the current system. Dictators have

often fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections for this purpose.

Assuming that low turnout is a reflection of disenchantment or indifference, a poll

with very low turnout may not be an accurate reflection of the will of the people. On the other

hand, if low turnout is a reflection of contentment of voters about likely winners or parties,

then low turnout is as legitimate as high turnout, as long as the right to vote exists. Still, low

turnouts can lead to unequal representation among various parts of the population. In

developed countries, non-voters tend to be concentrated in particular demographic and

socioeconomic groups, especially the young and the poor. However, in India, which boasts an

electorate of more than 814 million people, the opposite is true. The poor, who comprise the

majority of the demographic, are more likely to vote than the rich and the middle classes,

[citation needed] and turnout is higher in rural areas than urban areas. In low-turnout

countries, these groups are often significantly under-represented in elections. This has the

potential to skew policy. For instance, a high voter turnout among the elderly coupled with a

low turnout among the young may lead to more money for retirees' health care, and less for

youth employment schemes. Some nations thus have rules that render an election invalid if

too few people vote, such as Serbia, where three successive presidential elections were

rendered invalid in 2003.

Habit

Turnout differences appear to persist over time; in fact, the strongest predictor of individual

turnout is whether or not one voted in the previous election.[25] As a result, many scholars

think of turnout as habitual behavior that can be learned or unlearned, especially among

young adults.

Childhood influences

Studies have found that improving children's social skills and enrolling them in high-

quality early-childhood educational programs increases their turnout as adults.

Demographics

Socioeconomic factors are significantly associated with whether individuals develop

the habit of voting. The most important socioeconomic factor affecting voter turnout is

education. The more educated a person is, the more likely they are to vote, even controlling

for other factors that are closely associated with education level, such as income and class.

Income has some effect independently: wealthier people are more likely to vote, regardless

of their educational background. There is some debate over the effects of ethnicity, race, and

gender. In the past, these factors unquestionably influenced turnout in many nations, but

nowadays the consensus among political scientists is that these factors have little effect in

Western democracies when education and income differences are taken into account. A 2018
study found that while education did not increase turnout on average, it did raise turnout

among individuals from low socioeconomic status households. Public-sector employees

have higher voter turnout than private-sector employees.

However, since different ethnic groups typically have different levels of education and

income, there are important differences in turnout between such groups in many societies.

Other demographic factors have an important influence: young people are far less likely to

vote than the elderly. Occupation has little effect on turnout, with the notable exception of

higher voting rates among government employees in many countries.

There is in fact a rift between politicians and young adults, although not one of mutual

contempt but rather of mutual neglect. Many young people don’t vote simply because they

don’t follow politics. Moreover, because so many young people don’t follow politics and

don’t vote, parties and politicians frequently don’t bother with young people, thereby further

widening the age bias in electoral participation (Wattenberg, 2012).

There are many reasons why voter turnout for younger people is significantly lower

than the rest of the voting population. In general, when politicians are campaigning, they put

little, if no, effort into the young voters (Eisner). The biggest problem with this relationship

is that as long as neither the young voters nor the campaigners put any effort into fixing the

low turnout, nothing will change. This relatively ignored population needs to feel wanted,

important and valued. They need to feel like their vote matters and that politicians are

reaching out to them not out of obligation or desperation, but because they care and think a

change can be made. Low youth voter turnout is a fact that everyone seems to accept but

continues to not do anything to improve it. When the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1972,

52% of the 18-24yr population exercised their right to vote, but in 2000 that number was

down to 37% (Levine). This 15% decrease shows how instead of trying to work to get the

youth more involved, their votes continue to go unused, and the turnout continues to go
 down. Another problem is that the some of the issues being voted on don’t pertain to the

younger population (Eisner).

While there’s nothing that can be done to change the past elections, it is critical that

politicians make a greater effort to get young voters involved. One way this could be done is

by increasing the politicians and candidates that visit and speak at college campuses. While

some candidates have come to universities in the past, they should work to expand their tours

and also work to tailor their speeches to the students. College students don’t want to hear

about Social Security and Public K-12 education, but if politicians express their stance on

legal marijuana, gun rights, and the cost of state universities, their audiences’ interest level

might increase. I also think that same day registration should be adopted by more states to

make it easier to vote and to encourage people that it is never too late to cast your ballot.

Eventually it would be ideal to convert to electronic voting, but until that can become

a secured process, all efforts to simplify and update voting would be a stride forward and

would increase youth voting. People have to feel a need to vote, and I think that after the last

election that need is very much there. Lots of people, including the young population, are

upset with how our nation is currently being run and represented. I think things like the bad

press, government shutdown, and shocking tweets from the President have inspired people to

get involved and make a change. There is no simple answer to fixing low voter turnout from

the youth, but the easiest way to encourage them to vote is by everyone voting. The example

needs to be set that voting is a privilege and a right that many have fought for. In the 2016

election so many people didn’t like either candidate, so they simply chose not to vote at all.

A lot of young voters follow the example and political affiliations of their parents and if

parents weren’t voting neither were their kids. Youth voting numbers are a problem but it’s

certainly not the only problem. Everyone has a vote, and everyone should use it.