Youth Vote 2008: Hope Against History

By Matthew Frank, 11-02-08

Every hand went up when I recently asked my students at the University of Montana if they plan to vote. And if student activism in this liberal college town is any indication, Barack Obama has considerable support among 18- to 24-year-olds. The only problem is that when it comes to actually casting ballots on election day, the kids aren’t alright. They’re consistently the most apathetic demographic among a less than inspiring voting public.

Will it be different for Obama? History says no, but he does have some unique advantages that previous candidates lacked. If young Americans turn out en masse for Obama on November 4, historians will have to look anew at the question of age and voter participation.

The Twenty-sixth Amendment was adopted in 1971 and extended voting privileges to 18-year-olds based on the argument that people eligible to be drafted should also be eligible to vote. Many expected this newly enfranchised demographic to change the face of American politics by giving Democrats an influx of new voters. They’ve been disappointed ever since.

You can set your watch by it. Every four years Democrats excitedly anticipate throngs of young people heading to the polls to boost their party above its predicted performance in pre-election polls. With images of their ‘60s-era protests dancing in their heads, liberal baby boomers routinely point to intense activity on college campuses as evidence of the Democratic groundswell.

In 2004 a new wrinkle was added to this traditional Democratic pre-election fable: cell phones. Because most pollsters only survey households with a landline, the many young, hip, urbane, and heavily Democratic types of people who rely solely on cells weren’t being sampled. This oversight allegedly was yielding inaccurate polls that obscured John Kerrey’s true strength. But when the votes were actually counted, it turned out that the pre-election polls had been close to the mark.

This year Democratic expectations—complete with a reprise of the cell phone nuance—are true to form. And the youth vote could be critical on Tuesday. The extent to which pollsters anticipate a big turnout in the 18- to 24-year-old demographic was certainly a factor in this week’s widely divergent polls. The key to election polling is obtaining a random sample of “likely voters.” But assessing who is likely to vote is as much an art as a science. This inherent difficulty explains why recent polls show Obama ahead by as much as 15% and as little as 1%. If young people show up in large numbers, Obama will almost certainly benefit. The polls showing him ahead by double digits are generally placing more 18- to 24-year-olds in the “likely voter” category than those showing a tighter race.

But if history is any guide, disappointment awaits. In the nine presidential elections since 1971, 18- to 24-year-olds’ average turnout rate has been a deplorable 39.8%, as compared to 61.9% of the remaining electorate (in 2004 the figures were 41.9% and 60.7%, respectively).

Yet other signs suggest that Obama has a chance to upend this trend. First, the youth vote has already turned out for Obama. In state after state during the primaries, the proportion of young people in the electorate was greater than in previous years. But even given this year’s epic Democratic nomination battle, overall turnout was still low compared to the crowds that will cast ballots on November 4. Many more young people will have to show up on Tuesday to maintain the demographic’s percentage of the electorate.

Second, Obama has mastered the Twenty-First Century campaign. Taking the lessons (positive and negative) of Howard Dean’s 2004 insurgency, Obama has used the internet-including MySpace and Facebook-to reach out to Americans in new ways. He’s also used the internet to raise record amounts of money, with much of it coming in small donations (the average contribution is under $100). This fundraising strategy targets a much wider base of donors. Anyone and everyone is a potential contributor. And here’s the key: it’s not just about the dollars. It’s also about giving people a stake in the campaign and creating a heightened level of attachment and dedication to it. People with a financial stake are more likely to vote.

History often repeats itself and it’s become a perverse tradition for Democrats to set themselves up for disappointment by pinning their hopes on the youth vote. And they could be thwarted again if the more traditional “likely voter” models are accurate. But if the polls anticipating a significant increase in 18- to 24-year-old turnout are closer to the mark, the long awaited youth-fueled bump for Democrats could materialize this week.

Robert Saldin is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Montana.