I've spent a lot of time here in the past two months busting myths about young voters. I've talked about rising youth turnout and the boom in youth infrastructure. I've talked about the proper use of celebrities in GOTV campaigns, and the roles of Obama and online tools in mobilizing youth. In all instances, my purpose was to highlight the incredible gains we've made since 2003 in engaging young voters. This election stands to be the first time since 18 year olds were granted the right to vote that youth turnout at the polls will increase for the third straight campaign cycle. We are now at the point in which the youth vote is increasingly competitive with, and at times surpasses, the over 65 vote. That's a good thing.

In response to my posts, I've seen comments expounding on the problem of "youth apathy" and claims that youth won't vote unless we reinstate the draft. Others threw their hands up in helplessness, stating that the youth vote will only turn out for charismatic candidates and so there's not much we can do to boost turnout. The implication is that current trends are nothing more than a statistical blip.

So here's the bad. I concede to these commenters that young voters still turn out (generally speaking) in fewer numbers than other segments of the electorate. However, this has nothing to do with voter apathy, the draft, candidate charisma, or any other reason that is part of the conventional wisdom about youth participation. Young voters participate at lower rates because the system is rigged to make it is hard as possible to participate.

Young voters face more barriers to participating in the political process than any other demographic in the electorate except perhaps ex-felons. Some of these factors are structural and can be attributed to lifestyle issues. Others are deliberate attempts to keep young voters from the polls. Here's a look at how our voting system disenfranchises our youngest citizens:

--Photo ID: Increasingly states are adopting stringent voter ID laws that require voters to show government issued photo ID. Often young people - particularly students who attend school out of state - do not have such drivers licenses or other valid ID from the state in which they attend school. Many other young voters in urban areas have no need of a car and don't bother to get a drivers license, the most common form of ID. A poll by Rock the Vote found that 19% of students lacked such proper ID. Absentee ballots are not solution to this problem either. Many states require valid photo ID for first-time absentee voters. Again, students who want to vote absentee in their home state are often already at school and unable to provide ID at a polling place or at a board of elections office located hundreds of miles away. --"Residency" Requirements: As noted by the Brennan Center, many local boards of elections attempt to disenfranchise the students residing in their jurisdiction by claiming that a dorm is not a legal residence. This has led to a common misconception among youth and other administrators that young voters cannot vote in the places where they go to school, despite Court rulings stating otherwise. Most recently this became an issue in the Iowa Caucus, where columnist David Yepsen and some Democratic campaigns disputed the rights of students to participate. --Deadlines/Timing: Voter registration deadlines often fall in September or early October, right at the beginning of the school year. This is the busiest time of the year for many young people, who are acclimating to a new environment, and colleges and universities do very little to encourage student voter registration. --Poll Access: Students often lack convenient access to polling locations. In Ohio in 2004, students faced lines of up to 12 hours due to a lack of voting machines on or near campus. Some of those voters waited in line only to discover that their registration had been purged from the voter rolls. In 2006 at Prairie View A&M in Texas, students had to walk 7 miles to the nearest polling place to cast their ballot. --Transience: Students and young people are far more mobile than older voters. Many move to new residences from year to year, requiring that they register anew after each move. --Lack of Attention: On the whole, young people have received far less attention from political campaigns and parties. For decades it was literally the policy of most campaigns to cut anyone under 30 off of their "walk lists." We know that in person, peer to peer contact is the most effective way to drive someone to the polls. Absent that attention from candidates and campaigns - attention which is showered on voters the older they get - it's no wonder that fewer and fewer young people make it to the polls. --Fewer opportunities overall: This is sort of the no-brainer of the group, but young people have had fewer chances to register to vote than have older voters. This is a situation not likely to change unless some form of compulsory, or automated, voter registration is enacted at the national level.

Contrast all this to the situation of an older voter. Older voters have had many more opportunities to register. They are generally stationary, having put down roots in a community and thus do not need to change their registration. They have conveniently located polling places with short wait times. Their residency or eligibility is rarely challenged, and campaigns spend tens to hundreds of millions of dollars each cycle to reach out and encourage older voters to go to the polls. Is it any wonder that youth turnout lags behind?

Look at this problem from a marketing perspective. If you were Nike and you were selling a sneaker, you would do whatever it took to get your product in front of your target audience, get them into the store, and buy your product. You wouldn't ignore your target market and then whine about the fact that no one was buying your shoes. The same is true for young people and voting. If we want them to get to the polls, we have to put our resources behind efforts to register them, and we have to make our product (voting/democracy) readily and easily available to them.

Luckily, there are a number of groups working on this, as well as some proven fixes to this broken system. Matthew Segal was one of those Ohio students waiting in line in November of 2004. Out of that experience came the voter protection organization S.A.V.E. (Student Association for Voter Empowerment). The group works to protect student voting rights on campuses, and recently had a huge success. Last night, in partnership with SAVE, Sen. Durbin and Reps. Shakowsky and LaTourette introduced the Student Voter Bill of 2008. Expanding on the Motor Voter Bill, which required the DMV and public assistance agencies to offer voter registration along with their services, the bill will require state colleges and universities to offer voter registration to their students.

Longterm, the most obvious structural solution is Election Day Registration, or EDR. EDR allows anyone to show up and register to vote on the day of an election. States with EDR consistently show higher rates of participation among all demographics of the electorate, but the increase in turnout is most significant among young voters. Studies show that EDR can boost youth turnout up to 14% (pdf), in many cases bringing youth turnout closely in line with the average turnout.

Youth voting - or the lack of it - is not about apathy, it's about access. Young voters lack it, older voters have it. If we want to bring more young people into the democratic process, it's time we stop yelling at them and start creating structures to engage them.

Comments (52)

1. Mr Connery, again...

   you get your "powerful youth vote" electing Barack Obama President...

   then we'll see for certain, won't we?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 08/01/2008 @ 2:32pm

2. "Passing Through" just doesn't seem like a fitting name for this column anymore. How come we didn't get to have Ms. Goodrich guest blog for 3 months?

   Posted by joyfulspark at 08/01/2008 @ 2:58pm

3. I think it is not only apathy and access issues, but personal responsibility in ensuring absentee ballots are secured from home, especially for college students.

   If one's normal voting place is at home, but one is away at college, then there is a tendency to just not vote rather than fill out new voter registration forms changing address, or getting absentee ballots.

   Posted by Metteyya at 08/01/2008 @ 3:01pm

4. Thank you, Mr. Connery. I'm 24 and I'm very excited to vote, and most people I know my age are into politics. When I was in college, most of my classmates were confused about residency requirements--and to be honest, I couldn't tell you where they were supposed to vote either! Many of them were under the impression that they'd have to go back to their parents' town to vote.

   One more factor that sounds a little silly, but which I think actually does make a difference, is that the semester is winding down in early November. The first week of November for me was always filled with term papers due and the last tests before final exams. I'm not saying that's a valid excuse to not vote, but the exhaustion of that portion of the semester does put a certain damper on getting out to deal with lines. It's a shame we can't extend election day to cover a three-day period of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday so that there's plenty of chances for people like stressed college students and low-wage workers with no time off (who also tend to be young) to get out there and vote.

   Posted by schala at 08/01/2008 @ 4:00pm

5. Hold on. This is taking far too much responsibility away from the youth. Some if our lack of political action is our own fault--we need to be aware of the issues, educate ourselves on the issues, form opinions, and carry them out through voting or advocacy. But this isn't happening.

   I think the issue is more systemic in our generation than you might think. And I blame it on the internet.

   Consider how hard it is to hold an opinion these days. Every position you hold has a thousand websites in favor, and a thousand websites against. It's hard to be anything but ambivalent. Surely this has led at least in part to the political apathy (or lack of access) of our time.

   Posted by bsto at 08/01/2008 @ 4:31pm

6. Those are some pathetic excuses that don't apply to most young people.I've seen old people using walkers who manged to find a way to vote and I think the young can,too.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 08/01/2008 @ 4:38pm

7. As a 27-year-old politically involved person, here are some more perfectly possible answers to why younger people don't vote more often: * People in the 65+ demographic are far more likely to have the time to vote. Young folks have the same sorts of demands on their time as middle-aged voters, but don't have access to the same resources to help navigate the challenges.

   * Politicians rarely make the pitch to younger voters on issues that directly affect them. Compare the amount of political discussion of Social Security versus student debt and grant programs, or in local elections the amount of discussion around property tax rates versus renters rights.

   * Younger people are poorer than older people on average. There's a very simple reason for this: They haven't had time to build up much wealth. That makes them less important in money-driven politics.

   * Young voters can't form interest groups on their own with anywhere near the power of, say, AARP. They don't have the money, and anyone in a position to start a serious grassroots effort stops being a young voter by the time they have achieved something. So they end up working in groups run by middle-aged and older adults, which love to harness the time and energy of younger people but all to often shut them out of the decisionmaking process.

   Posted by Ohioan at 08/01/2008 @ 5:30pm

8. Yeah. I am going to go ahead and say it's mostly apathy. I am 21. I am at times amazed and at times appalled with the lack of caring from people my age and younger.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/01/2008 @ 6:30pm

9. about the only legitimate obstacle young people have is the transience thing. otherwise it has been apathy and the silly ninny pop culture party time extended adolescence phenomenon we as a society have simultaneously enabled and bemoaned.

   i do think i see a change in the wind. politics is becoming cool it seems. i think that if obama is elected we will see more youth involvement. if not i fear a return to cynicism and apathy.

   but who knows? for thousands of years the youth have been more concerned with establishing themselves, breeding, and trying to squeeze a little more fun out of life...before becoming the grumpy old greyhairs who ran things. nothing teribly new here, folks...no real good old days. just plenty of wistful, imaginative, grumpy nostalgia of some kind of lost camelot which never really existed.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/01/2008 @ 7:21pm

10. Mr. Connery, please pardon my cynical (and occasionally off-topic) postings beneath your previous blog. You should not believe that you have no allies here among the readers of "The Nation's" website. I would like to consider myself in critical solidarity with you, despite our differences.

    Indeed, I appreciate your helpful links to useful facts about the weaknesses - and biases - of our electoral process, and I can endorse EVERY ONE of the reforms that you have proposed in this, your most recent blog. (God forbid that I should propose a restoration of the draft without giving potential draftees a fair opportunity to object!) All I have to add is one friendly amendment:

    Since young people in this country are in fact disproportionately of lower income and nonwhite, anything we do to fight poverty and racism, both at our polling places and elsewhere, will have a positive effect upon the engagement of young people in the political process. I am sure that you will find, if you have not already, that you have a great many allies among those who are fighting to roll back disenfranchisement and to make it easier for ALL US-Americans to exercise the most important of all civil rights: the right to vote.

    Above all, don't let an old curmudgeon like ME discourage you.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/01/2008 @ 9:25pm

11. Some unity here with CCC and IM on this one.---that has to be a first of some kind.

    Why is it military personnel can find a way to vote even when overseas, but college kids cannot?

    I don't buy it.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/01/2008 @ 10:31pm

12. I don't buy it.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/01/2008 @ 10:31pm

    perhaps the educational system is too geared towards a person's personal goals and not society's needs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2008 @ 01:53am

13. I am at times amazed and at times appalled with the lack of caring from people my age and younger.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/01/2008 @ 6:30pm

    live and learn.

    <i>el flojo trabaja lo doble</i>

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2008 @ 01:54am

14. perhaps the educational system is too geared towards a person's personal goals and not society's needs.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2008 @ 01:53am

    No, they're just lazy

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/02/2008 @ 02:31am

15. I am a new comer to this site. I gathered lot of information. I am very happy to post my comment in this blog.

    <a href="http://www.treatmentcenters.org/iowa">Iowa Treatment Centers</a>

    Posted by symonds at 08/02/2008 @ 07:47am

16. I am a new comer to this site. I gathered lot of information. I am very happy to post my comment in this blog.

    [url=http://www.treatmentcenters.org/iowa]Iowa Treatment Centers[/url]

    Posted by symonds at 08/02/2008 @ 07:48am

17. I am a new comer to this site. I gathered lot of information. I am very happy to post my comment in this blog.

    [link=http://www.treatmentcenters.org/iowa]Iowa Treatment Centers[/link]

    Posted by symonds at 08/02/2008 @ 07:49am

18. No, they're just lazy

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/02/2008 @ 02:31am

    maybe.

    but how do they become engineers and lawyers and such?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2008 @ 08:58am

19. "Voting is SOOOOOOOOOOO difficult! How can they expect me to take time away from my 3 hour drinking fests, or finding just the right outfit that matches my pink shoes?" "And like why don't they let us vote by raising our hands?"

    Registering to vote and voting is so easy in this country you just have to take time out of your so called "busy" life. It comes down to people just not caring to vote. The youth of today are just lazy and pathetic!

    Posted by westleyanson at 08/02/2008 @ 10:28am

20. obama's "flipflop" on offshore drilling is no big deal. its called compromise.

    if we can get assurances that the proposed offshore drilling will be done responsibly AND that such is understood to be only a measure to get us through until we have switched over to clean renewable "t. boone pickens" style stuff...

    its not such a bad idea.

    HAPPY - i have no real problem with school vouchers except that they don't really help "solve the problem" of our educational system. some private schools are better, but not all. funny things happen when education is a for profit business that don't neccesarily translate into better education.

    between idiotic politicians, parents, educators and pop culture our educational system will continue to be as it is - a kicking dog of politicians, a pen of sacred cow pet projects of over certified educational professionals, a baby sitting pen/alternative holding pen for disruptive future criminals and losers who drag down the rest of the students and drive classroom teachers into an early grave.

    ultimately this idea that someone other than the family of the student or in later years the student him/herself is the primary factor in the education of our children inherently cheapens the process and undermines the effectiveness of any educational institution.

    when folks see someone or something else as responsible for their or their children's education...they have a ready made excuse for failure and underachievement.

    bullshit.

    sure there are, always have been, and always will be poor schools and educators. but education cannot "solve all the problems" and when it comes to people no institution short of a concentration camp can guarantee OUTCOMES. INPUTS, yeah, but outcomes? lead that horse to water. whether he drinks is really out of anyone's control.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2008 @ 12:41pm

21. Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/01/2008 @ 4:27pm

    Well hell Happy, you're not so much specifically describing the youth vote as you are describing the electorate as a whole.

    Lots of things drive youth voting, and I say that as someone who started voting practically the day I turned 18 (I voted for Carter in 1980 only days after my birthday) and haven't missed an election wherever I've lived since (and it's been a lot of places by now.) I do it because I believe in our system (though perhaps not in individual manifestations of its workings) and you'll find that most reliable voters (youth or not) are likewise. The one thing that really will boost youth voting is belief that the system will work and (especially in the current climate) that problems have the potential to change. It's common ed psych, as you ought to know, that investment in an idea or action is the best guarantee or successful outcomes.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/02/2008 @ 6:29pm

22. Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/02/2008 @ 12:11pm

    Apparently you haven't realized (as too many here haven't realized either) that what Obama said in Florida isn't exactly a capitulation even on the face of it. Let's take a look at the statement:

    "My attitude is that we can find some sort of compromise," Obama told the Times shortly after talking with voters at Gibbs High School. "If it is part of an overarching package, then I am not going to be rigid in preventing an energy package that goes forward that is really thoughtful and is going to really solve the problem."

    This he said in response to questions on the "New Energy Reform Act of 2008" that the so-called "Gang of Ten" is crafting. It has a lot of stuff Obama's been pushing ($84 billion over 10 years for R&D for batteries, conservation technologies, and tax incentives for purchase of hybrid and alt-fuel vehicles) and is paid for by some new lease royalties (all in the SE Florida area) and closing tax loopholes and repealing tax breaks for the oil companies. Obama even refused to directly endorse the bill in the same interview. So what's this mean? That he's willing to pay off the oil companies to take away a chunk of their business. And the thing is, it may not be a bad deal after all.

    I'm not proposing any raping of the environment here, so bear with. The leases that are in this bill will likely never be drilled, and certainly won't be anytime soon. Why? Because they can't be. The oil companies have no need of them for actual use, they have better leases already in hand and undrilled. There's simply not enough equipment to drill them now, nor is there going to be anytime soon at the rate the stuff is being built. That's not really going to change, not because we don't want it to (indeed, the system is actually running at a pretty high pitch right now, what with these lovely high prices) but because the capacity isn't there and can't be economically built. So the good Senators can flap all they want about how this is "going to get gas to the market quickest" but there's no real danger of flooding the Gulf Coast with oil from this anytime soon. And, of course, as has already been noted, things change in new administrations and Congresses.

    So what do they want the leases for? Their paper. These things are paper assets to be used to prop up the companies' bottom lines and will be incredibly tradeable assets on the speculative market. That's the real goal and Obama's perfectly willing to let them make some profit in the short term both to buy a set of long term goals and to have gas prices actually fall. And they will too (a bit), in the fall just in time for the election, as though it was these leases that did it, and the Republicans will try to crow that out as loud as they dare, but it will be no more true than that their move will have produced a single drop more oil: both will be lies. But again, all things change and the strategic player is the one who wins. I think this will prove to be a good strategic move for Obama; it actually disarms McCain's last popular talking point and leaves him once again foundering without direction (except into the sewer again, but that hasn't really worked so well...)

    By the way, I left you an answer over on the Steven's thread to your post about efficiency (and other matters.) I talk about a lot of the related issues to the whole drilling nonsense there, and let's just say that my view of this rather differs from yours, but let's see how you do with my numbers.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/02/2008 @ 7:22pm

23. Posted by Zero at 08/02/2008 @ 9:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i would not want any more offshore oil drilling under someone like bush, who would set detatched duty corporate types in charge of "regulating" and overseeing such projects in terms of environmental impact.

    under a democratic administration/congress, i would be a lot more confident that any drilling would be done with as much care for the environment as possible.

    like i said...if the new drilling is seen as a sort of long term stopgap measure to help hold us over until the clean renewable energy paradigm is implemented...

    i find it barely acceptable and don't consider it a rank sellout.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/02/2008 @ 9:37pm

24. leftist barnacle lover!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2008 @ 9:48pm

25. Does nobody else see the irony of the left fretting over the (lack of) youth vote...while in the same breath calling them lazy, pathetic, irresponsible, ignorant, etc.? Ehhh, those ain't exactly the kind of people you should want populating the voting booths.

    Posted by usc1 at 08/03/2008 @ 12:44am

26. Posted by Zero at 08/02/2008 @ 9:17pm

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/03/2008 @ 12:03am

    No, you're both barking up the wrong tree here. Triangulation, al la Clinton, would be to actually give them something that might lead to real damage: this won't. As I pointed out, these literally can't be drilled anytime in the foreseeable future and that is not the oil companies' purpose in seeking them. So all your ranting about threats to the environment is moot, Zero.

    What's Obama is doing is supporting the idea of the government throwing the Oil companies a paper bone to prop up their bottom line while taking tens of billions away from them elsewhere (to the tune of $8 billion a year, all told) to invest directly in post-oil technology and car fleet conversion, all of which will actually cut oil demand and make it even less likely that those off-shore leases will ever be drilled even in the long term. That's reality. It's called strategic thinking, something that has been sadly lacking in a lot of Democrats in the past, including the Clintons.

    And that, more than anything, deftly answers this flip-flop nonsense out of you Happy. Obama hasn't changed his position on off-shore drilling at all. We have had and will have such drilling for the foreseeable future (sorry Zero, but that's reality too, whether we like it or not, and I don't.) But his basic argument remains the same; it won't help us with oil supply anytime soon and on prices it will never help us in any noticeable way. Again, even BushCo's DoE admits this. He's simply expressed a willingness to trade off some paper profits in return for real action to do what we need, an action made necessary because the Republicans in Congress are in the oil companies' pockets and feel they can make political hay (as they have been) by deceiving the American people into thinking that this will be an actual solution when it isn't and can never be (see my posts over on the Stevens thread for the full run-down on why that is so, I covered it there and don't want to take up space reposting that too.)

    This isn't so much about which way the winds are blowing either, but about diverting the winds to where they need to blow. The whole drilling debate has been a grand political diversion by McCain and the Republicans, in classic Rovian style. A passionate debate over something that is, in fact, currently quite meaningless but hits vital hot-buttons in the opposition ranks as well as plays on popular misconceptions and concerns. Obama neatly shoves that whole issue aside for the manufactured controversy it is with this and can simply refer to the work going on in Congress while he gets back to real matters in energy policy. The "Gang of Ten" hasn't even produced a final bill yet, so what do you think the likelihood of it actually coming to a vote in both House and Senate is before the end of September (and remember, Congress in only in session another three weeks before the election)?

    It takes a strategic thinker to spot another one, and I'm trained to think that way. Obama seems to be too, or he's a natural (many of the best and most famous generals and presidents we've had have been natural strategists; both Washington and Lincoln come to mind.) Either way, we are in desperate need of someone who can actually think strategically and get us on a course that's not going to lead to our economic collapse or undermine our real security.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/03/2008 @ 09:07am

27. A passionate debate over something that is, in fact, currently quite meaningless but hits vital hot-buttons in the opposition ranks as well as plays on popular misconceptions and concerns.

    ta da!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2008 @ 10:39am

28. something occurred to me:

    people say we our beholden to mid-east oil.

    (actually, it's those nasty canadians)

    beholden?

    we should be glad they're nice enough to sell it to us.

    imagine if they decided to keep it.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2008 @ 10:44am

29. this is a consequence of drilling:

    "The North Pacific sub-tropical gyre covers a large area of the Pacific in which the water circulates clockwise in a slow spiral. Winds are light. The currents tend to force any floating material into the low energy central area of the gyre. There are few islands on which the floating material can beach. So it stays there in the gyre, in astounding quantities estimated at six kilos of plastic for every kilo of naturally occurring plankton. The equivalent of an area the size of Texas swirling slowly around like a clock. This gyre has also been dubbed "the Asian Trash Trail" the "Trash Vortex" or the "Eastern Garbage Patch"."

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/03/2008 @ 11:09am

30. leftist barnacle lover!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/02/2008 @ 9:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    who me? lol

    ----------------------

    Posted by RedRiver_. at 08/02/2008 @ 11:03pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    oh yeah - the left hates the military. gothca. thats a great tactic - when caught cheating, committing criminal or morally sketchy acts, immediately tie together a tenuous accusation that your opponants are just as bad as you, thereby excusing your perfidy. facts and truth matter little - its the guilt by accusation that plants little seeds of misinformation in the minds of those who are too busy living their lives to investigate the allegations exhaustatively and a certain percentage will go along with it, especially if they have partisan tendencies.

    quack quack quack!

    ----------------------

    TRIANGULATION?

    oh - thats the pejorative term for "compromise" used by ideological hacks to denigrate the individual attempting to pass legislation that pleases nobody but does half of what its proponants desire...ie - COMPROMISE!!!!

    LOOK CONTROLLS...accusations of perfidy on the part of democratic pols by you guys, in the context of what your pol heroes have been caught doing recently...

    just rings hollow. but what option does a rightwing ideological hack have these days? admit culpability and wrong?

    har har har!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 08/03/2008 @ 11:12am

31. Posted by Zero at 08/03/2008 @ 10:49am

    Actually, I answered the question in the first place, but you insist on ignoring this in order to rank about the dangers of ocean drilling, a subject that many of us here actually agree on (that it's polluting and should be done away with as soon as possible.) I said up front that they want these leases as paper assets, not as production sites, but you keep ignoring this. I also pointed out that not only is that their purpose in seeking them, but that they also have no actual capacity to drill them in any case, thus reinforcing the idea that these are in fact maneuvers for the companies' bottom lines (which they expect to be pared back by reduced demand, since they're really not going to be able or willing to reduce prices.) Just look at what happened after the announcements of these record profits (for ExxonMobil, the highest of any company in history); most of the majors, including ExxonMobil, saw their stock price fall because they "hadn't performed up to expectations." And remember, they've all been buying back their stock in vast quantities recently too, to try and head off some of this. They're after what props up their own (and by extension their major shareholders) positions in the market, not their positions on the ground.

    Yes, ocean pollution of any kind is a serious problem, but when there's actually no new drilling taking place now (that otherwise wouldn't be) and highly unlikely to take place ever (due to the very likely decrease in oil use as we transition to a post-oil economy) then why waste you ammunition fighting the fight? Save it for other fights that need to be fought now, especially the ones that actually do get us off of oil for good.

    Posted by Stwriley at 08/03/2008 @ 12:41pm

32. Does nobody else see the irony of the left fretting over the (lack of) youth vote...while in the same breath calling them lazy, pathetic, irresponsible, ignorant, etc.? Ehhh, those ain't exactly the kind of people you should want populating the voting booths. Posted by usc1 at 08/03/2008 @ 12:44am

    Actually the author's point was that they AREN'T lazy. Those of us including me calling them lazy are saying that the author is wrong and not fretting over the youth vote.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 08/03/2008 @ 4:08pm

33. Every point you make is exactly on point. After 36 years i,n the class room, actually in the class room I can attest that kids would vote given a level of comfort and access. i strongly feel that voting is made especially uncomfortable for kids to purposefully keep them away from the voting booth on election day. I'm truly hoping for a generational shift this cycle,we sure need one.

    Posted by julien38 at 08/03/2008 @ 7:28pm

34. This post is idiotic. There is basically nothing easier than voting in this country. I first voted in November of 1988, approximately two months after I turned 18. I grabbed a voter registration form at my community college's library, about a week after my 18th birthday, filled it out, sent it in (no postal charge), and that was it. I even worked in the polls that year, as a paid "volunteer."

    Now we're supposed to believe that its too difficult for the young/minorities/the elderly (depending on which article one is reading that day) to vote, because in some jurisdictions, they might have to show ID. Big deal; everyone has ID, except maybe illegal aliens. The argument seems to be be that the youth/minorities/the elderly are basically moronic incompetents who can't get by in our society, so we have to make things even easier for their pathetic selves. I'm not sure why this isn't considered patronizing bigotry. I'm also not sure why we want people we apparently regard as moronic incompetents voting in the first place.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 08/04/2008 @ 05:09am

35. Everyone has the time to vote, as it only takes five minutes or less to fill out the ballot, and there's never any line. You're supposed to figure out for whom you're voting before you get to the polls. If you can't do that, then please don't vote. We don't need more irresponsible morons voting.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 08/04/2008 @ 05:12am

36. When I went away to university, I chose to register in the community where the university was located, and voted in those elections. I had that option, as well as the option of not re-registering, and simply requesting an absentee ballot from my home county. As a 19-year old, no one needed to tell me this; it was obvious, because I had grown up in the USA, and knew something about my civic culture. I don't frankly want people who claim to be adults, but are unaware of such basic civic institutions and mores, casting ballots. If you're an ignoramus, stay home on Election Day.

    Posted by Kevin_OKeeffe at 08/04/2008 @ 05:15am

37. I just love it when people ignore evidence presented by an author because it doesn't match their individual experience. "Long lines, 12-hour waits and 7-mile walks never happened to me, so it must not be a problem!" "I have a photo ID and I think everyone I know has a photo ID, so anyone who doesn't must be an illegal!" Or they may not drive, like the millions of people who grew up and have always lived in cities with mass transit, or never worked for the government, or never went to college, or have lived for decades in a rural area in a state that neither provided them with or required a photo ID. Or, maybe the person is an old-fashioned small government conservative who has stuck to the old conservative position of opposing government-issued ID's, using the Nazis, Communists and aparthied South Africa as his or her points of reference. Of course, none of the conservatives who post on this site represent this point of view. Apparently, when it comes to immigration and voting, they like big, intrusive government.

    Plus, the reek of self-righteousness is just overpowering, both from their young peers and their middle-aged and elderly critics, and I say this as someone who has no time for groups that patronize young activists by acting like they know as much as veteran activists and that it is an equal knowledge exchange between them.

    Take the blinders off, people, and you'll see that what Mr. Connery is generally calling for is an end to barriers to youth voting by agents of the government, and the smart mobilization of young voters by political campaigns, parties and organizations. Why you all find this so controversial, I do not know.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/04/2008 @ 11:46am

38. Your points are well-stated and timely, "Cka2nd," and I thank you for them. Now please allow me to have a word with "Kevin O'Keefe" (henceforth "KOK"), who opined:

    'The argument seems to be that the youth/minorities/the elderly are basically moronic incompetents who can't get by in our society, so we have to make things even easier for their pathetic selves. I'm not sure why this isn't considered patronizing bigotry. I'm also not sure why we want people we apparently regard as moronic incompetents voting in the first place.'

    "Seems to be," says "KOK," because of course this isn't the argument that Connery is making; it is only the skewed, mean-spirited interpretation that "KOK" has been well-trained to make of it.

    "I'm not sure why this isn't considered patronizing bigotry." Maybe because actually making voting easier and fairer, rather than loudly clucking our tongues at those for whom voting has unfairly been made more difficult that is is for the rest of us, actually helps rather than harms these people. Note that "KOK's" rhetoric at this point appeals directly to PRIDE. This tactic suggests that the injury of systematic disenfranchisement is not as serious as the insult of being called names - names which come not from Connory or from the Left, but from "KOK" and the Right.

    Then "KOK" proceeds to his "moronic incompetents" remark, with which he further undermines his previous point in order to appeal to his presumably non-moronic, competent readers. But we ought to know that voting is and has always been easy enough for the REAL morons: those who are white, male, middle-aged, rich, and who have faithfully (I cannot say "thoughtfully") voted for the most moronic US President of all time, George W. Bush.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/04/2008 @ 12:32pm

39. "[M]ore difficult that is is," I wrote. Pfui!

    Please correct that! I meant "more difficult THAN IT is." Thank you!

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/04/2008 @ 12:35pm

40. sorry, pal, it's definitely apathy.

    Posted by darladoon at 08/04/2008 @ 2:27pm

41. Well, Jack, some of the insults may come from the right, but they also come from at least some of centrists (Mask) and liberals on this board (e.g., ccc, darla and Mett), too.

    Posted by cka2nd at 08/04/2008 @ 3:01pm

42. As a recent student, I have to agree with Mr. Connery and the other youth posters on this board. Requirements are confusing, and young people are not encouraged to participate in our democracy. Those who argue that "youth need to take responsibility" are those first to argue with youth on the issues, denouncing us as "inexperienced" and somehow unfit to have our voices count.

    In addition to societal discouragement (we have been written off for decades and are expected to conform), our education system, which should be our basis for understand pertinent issues and their context, fails miserably. We learn the American revolution for 12 years in a row, but we're lucky if one high school history class covers events as recent as World War 2. Youth are kept ignorant, and the consequence is that we either become knowledgeable as older voters, or we don't, but because we're older, our ignorance goes unchallenged.

    How much does the average 72-year-old voter know of all the issues?

    This is not a failure of a younger generation---it is the failure of our society to educate and include young Americans, stemming from the fostering of anti-intellectualism (it's cool not to know anything about anything) and from the white-knuckled grip you geezers want to keep on the established order.

    Voting for a 46-year-old isn't necessarily voting for "youth," but it's a start.

    Posted by paperbackwriterbg at 08/04/2008 @ 4:08pm

43. Posted by paperbackwriterbg at 08/04/2008 @ 4:08pm

    You should consider a lawsuit against 1)your parents, 2)your schools, 3)society in general. Obviously all three have failed you and you are merely a victim of an uncaring system (not)

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/05/2008 @ 12:04am

44. Posted by lvliberty1 at 08/05/2008 @ 12:04am

    i heard god's gonna sue you for copyright infringement.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 12:20am

45. Here's to you, "PaperBackWriterBG" (with my thanks):

    Back in my early grad-school days (1989 to 1992), I belonged to a progressive organization known as the Campus Greens (of a prominent upper-Midwestern public university). The motto of this organization, penned by one of its spokespersons, the ever-radical Charlie Betz, was "TAKE BACK THE FUTURE."

    This was the most concise appeal to contemporary youth that I had ever heard and have ever heard since. It points to a little-appreciated truth: That today's young people will have to inherit the ecological burdens placed upon it by the older generations who could not be bothered to take responsibility for the Earth.

    In my 41 years, I have been privileged to live on a relatively uncrowded, relatively unspoiled planet with a large amount of petroleum and, more importantly, abundant clean water and numerous species of plants and animals. Every one of these riches has been either defiled or depleted by MY generation, leaving you with LESS. What will the next 40 years be like for somebody who is born today?

    So there IS such a thing as youth oppression. My only concern is that today's young people may assume that they have no allies among us older folks, and that they cannot trust anybody over 30. (Admittedly, my views on reinstating the draft may not have ameliorated this image.)

    You DO have allies among us older folks. Feminists are fighting for better childcare, media reformers are fighting to improve the quality of information you receive, teachers are fighting to improve your education, and civil-rights workers are fighting for EVERYBODY's right to vote, including yours. I hope I do not sound condescending when I say that you need us, or that I sound excessively needy when I say that, my God, do we ever need you.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/05/2008 @ 12:39am

46. In my 41 years,

    •••••• go on,

    I have been privileged to live on a relatively uncrowded, relatively unspoiled planet

    •••••• it's so nice. i bought some raspberries today.

    with a large amount of petroleum

    •••••• and i got to the farm in my car.

    and, more importantly,

    •••••• go on,

    abundant clean water

    •••••• ah.....

    and numerous species of plants and animals.

    •••••• aren't they great. mmmmm, raspberries.

    Every one of these riches has been either defiled or depleted by MY generation,

    •••••• now, hold on. when i was born, the forest cover of my county was probably 6%. now it's 3%. so, people've been hacking away for some time now and my existence has had little bearing on this particular hackage (although i must admit where i live was once a forest, and the raspberry farm was a marsh 100 years ago).

    •••••• i guess we're just getting "better" at hacking. fiat money doesn't help. when money was tied to commodities, wealth really had to be generated from the earth and technology advanced at a rate more or less sustainable to the earth's health. however, since debt has replaced earthmoney, technology has been allowed to grow at a pace that the planet just can't sustain. compare graphs of u.s. (for example) debt, u.s. gdp, and global temperature rise, for example.

    •••••• that last thought is just a thought i've been having. if it makes any sense to you, please explain it to me.

    leaving you with LESS.

    •••••• now, this is true. that's why we're enjoying living with less today. we like to share.

    What will the next 40 years be like for somebody who is born today?

    •••••• good question.

    •••••• what will the next 40 years be like for you and me?

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 12:56am

47. "Frosty," I believe Wendell Berry has a poetic rendering of your ruminations on nature and technology. (From "Damage," 1977.)

    'Blake give the just proportion or control in another proverb: "No bird soars too high, if he soars with his own wings." Only when our acts are empowered with more than bodily strength do we need think of limits.

    It was no thought or word that called culture into being, but a tool or a weapon. After the stone axe we needed song and story to remember innocence, to record effect - and so to describe the limits, to say what can be done without damage.

    The use only of our bodies for work or love or pleasure, or even for combat, sets us free again in the wilderness, and we exult.

    But a man with a machine and inadequate culture [...] is a pestilence. He shakes more than he can hold.'

    Take care of yourself, "Frosty." The last 40 years have been a strange trip, and I believe it's only going to get stranger during the next 40.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 08/05/2008 @ 09:11am

48. that cleaned up the Great Lakes, identified the SuperFund sites, cleaned up Love Canal.....that's the ticket!

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 12:17pm

    the great lakes:

    New threats, old wounds cripple precious waters

    Relentless growth transforms Lakes

    Mega-farms threaten nearby waters

    Creeping development in region plows under farmland

    Massive sewage releases turn lakes into cesspools

    Estrogen found in waters alters sex organs of fish

    Worries grow over toxins raining down

    Pollutants leave scarred landscape

    Foreign species crowd out local fish

    Plant invaders stir up lake problems -- and residents

    Invasive species hitch ride on big ships

    Battle of habitat vs. highway plays out on seaway

    Fishing industry suffers as Lakes shift

    Sewage spills make millions sick each year

    Health warnings persist about PCBs, mercury found in fish

    Warmer climate will change Lakes

    New toxins appear in lakes

    Studying the Lakes

    Thirsty states may covet Lakes' water

    Bottled-water dispute could weaken control over Lakes

    Hope builds for federal bailout bill

    Report outlines rescue strategy

    Money for cleanup of toxic sites evaporates

    Canada doesn't follow as U.S. bans drilling

    U.P. mine proposal triggers controversy

    http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/greatlakes/

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 2:57pm

49. "JakobFabian," thanks for the support. some of your contemporaries, however, seem bent on generational warfare.

    America has been run into the ground over the last four decades, and that has not done by the young.

    Posted by paperbackwriterbg at 08/05/2008 @ 3:03pm

50. America has been run into the ground over the last four decades, and that has not done by the young.

    Posted by paperbackwriterbg at 08/05/2008

    oh, they do their share.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 3:16pm

51. The average youth today, consumes an enormous amount of resources, compared to my youth in the `60s to `70s.

    •••••• which in turn consumed far more resources than compared to the youth of the `50s to `60s.

    •••••• which in turn consumed far more resources than compared to the youth of the `40s to 50s.

    •••••• which in turn consumed far more resources than compared to the youth of the `1710 to 1720s.

    They go through sneakers (expensive, flashy, Celeb-endorsed) like popcorn and have half-dozen pairs at a time......for different activities like b-ball, running, jogging, tennis, chilling......

    •••••• yeah adults just go through things like cars, houses and countries.

    They go through Walkman, CD Players, MP3s', iPods at 10 to 30 times the rate us Boomers did. I had one simple turntable based stereo system from HS through most of college.

    •••••• technological growth is quasi-exponential. if it's new and better and yes! incompatible, stockholders like you get to get on a jet and consume part of a small island nation for a week!

    They have a T-shirt for every frigging thing they ever attended or fancied.....fancy designer apparels from big mall-based chains.......while us Boomers hung out with a couple of well-worn Levis' and maybe 10 shirts in all.

    •••••• how many pairs of shoes do you and your wife own?

    The young drives mass consumption pushed by Madison Ave.

    •••••• but who drives them to the mall?

    Posted by 2HAPPY at 08/05/2008 @ 4:25pm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 5:30pm

52. How about that......I got you to semi-endorse consumptions which drives economic growth and stock values!

    i was being sarcastic.

    i hope that my son will grow up using less than i did.

    and be healthier and happier.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 08/05/2008 @ 10:27pm