How Do We Get The Younger Generation Interested In Voting?

[*_ash_*]

I think things are very cynical nowadays and if politicians tried to appeal to young people, the young people would see through it very quickly, and would probably feel like they were being targeted as some demographic to be captured: like 'hard working families', 'Mondeo Man' or some other lazy and stupid name that spin doctors like to call voters.

 

...and I think older voters/older people would also see through it, and say that they [politicians] are trying to brainwash the young.

 

I think feeling like they have a stake in society is one part of it; and ideas of the parties is another (i.e. differences in vision of political parties, rather than difference in emphasis between parties). A sense that their vote matters would be helpful, so that if they live in a safe seat, then in a way their vote appears to matter less.

 

I'll come back to this.

 

The recent Scottish election had young people engaged because their vote mattered, there wasn't some stupid and patronising name given to certain groups of voters (that I'm aware of); issues were discussed, and there seemed to be a freshness and honesty about the election. Votes seemed to matter, and the debate didn't feel staged or controlled.

 

I was watching Newsnight & there was a discussion between 3 families and their youngsters about the election, & it was one of the most depressing things I've watched in a long time....the participants didn't seem to join up the dots, rather talking in a smug fashion about why should they vote because 'what's in it for them', and then whinging about politicians who are all 'in it for themselves'

 

It's not often that I pretty much agree with you entirely Mr M.

 

Free spliff with every vote.

 

I'm not sure about that. Perhaps a McDonald's voucher too thrown in.

 

 

I think the current system is not fit for purpose.

 

You would

 

It was designed for toffs and still has the most ridiculous myriad of anachronisms and traditions that we could well do without if we want a parliament for the 21st Century. I'm embarrassed when I compare it to other countries. Is it a tourist attraction or a place of work?

 

I like the traditions I think it's in many ways up to date. They have wifi in HofP now you know

 

If the current government announced that they were going to build a state of the art modern building for parliament, you would be the 1st, 2nd or 3rd poster to start a thread entitled something like 'Build themselves luxury, whilst the poor live in a bin' (not even their own bin)

 

... then go on about one rule for them, rich and poor, etc. I know you would, and so would all the rest of your bunch.

 

If Labour won and announced it, you be in line to post 'Hooray, new government brings us into the 21C'

 

 

This is the age of the internet, the Information superhighway, instant communication and a rapidly changing techno age,

 

Someone at work said to me last year (when we were discussing modern tech), and he asked me [meaning about the future for his Daughter], 'Do you think the internet and all this phone business, make people more or less intelligent?'... interesting question if worded slightly different. Worth a thread I think

 

Surely the way to engage young voters is to give it the whole system a radical overhaul it so desperately needs, with new, more efficient ways of doing things, and let them have a say in the design of that. I'd start with a competition to come up with new ways of doing things and a new building to do them in.

 

To answer this and the OP and the bold in Mr M's post above...

 

I just don't think that most/many young people are particularly interested in politics. They might be interested in the headlines type things, like immigration, but I don't think that's particularly healthy basing things purely on single matters.

 

I know all the posters on here that are interested in politics, you and me included, but did you always have that?

 

I don't think I was interested in politics until perhaps mid-20s. I remember though at school, there were virtually no political debates in any lessons (edit, actually I can't remember one!). We had a tutorial time, which I think could be used in schools for interactive debates where children get to argue in groups over differing policies. When we had these rare events on matters, they quickly engaged and interested people. I would push for a move to make politics something that is included in lessons from perhaps the age of 13/14. Some of course would find it boring, but then I found most lessons boring, so it couldn't hurt. Let's face it, politics create the society that all these kids will spend the rest of their lives in.

 

I think the Scottish vote was interesting how many young people voted, because it was a straightforward question, it got a lot of media attention, it was fundamentally in important question. That has probably inadvertently created a lot of young people who will vote in the next elections. Perhaps there is a lesson in that?

so get rid of them, and let the younger ones have a go.

 

They couldn't do any worse.

 

I don't think this is rational thinking Anna. Bold, I think they could, and most likely would.

 

To put this into context Anna, do you as an older woman (I think you are older than me ), think that you are better or worse with money than you were as a young person (perhaps 18-25)?

[Obelix]

There just needs to be a "None of the Above" option on the paper...and the number ticking this box need to be announced in the same way as the votes cast for the aspiring MPs....

 

I prefer RON - Re Open Nominations.

 

If RON wins, all the other candidates lose their deposits for being terminally boring, and they cannot stand again for a year, meanwhile a new set of candidates get to have a go....

[truman]

What would help young people is the price of housing to drop through the floor. See how well that sits with house owning baby boomers.

 

If the price of houses dropped "through the floor" who would build them? If there's no profit to be made then none would get built..

 

---------- Post added 25-02-2015 at 14:49 ----------

 

I prefer RON - Re Open Nominations.

 

If RON wins, all the other candidates lose their deposits for being terminally boring, and they cannot stand again for a year, meanwhile a new set of candidates get to have a go....

 

It'd probably go on forever though...you'd have to assume the first lot are the best lot wouldn't you?

[VIEW2BUY]

I feel we could encourage young people to vote especially students having to pay back TUITION FEES. Should a party put into place that PRISON is also an EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION and FEES for such should also be debited from offenders bank accounts once they regain employment.

Edited February 28, 2015 by VIEW2BUY

[Event Horizo]

The whole political system is rotten to the core. Policies are made for votes. I wouldn't waste my effort even walking to the poll station.

[anywebsite]

A less crooked party to vote for would be a good start.

[apelike]

The majority are opposed to things like green technologies eg wind turbines and building additional housing where people want to live ergo my NIMBY comment. I also regularly hear the 'I worked hard all my life, so I'm entitled to my winter fuel payment and generous final salary pension'.

 

You seem to be part of the Daily Mail generalisation brigade. Only around 2% of people now 65 have an occupational pension and the majority of pensioners (95%) are without one. Mainly because the greater % are women who never paid in and were classed as housewives. The state pension is all they get.

 

How many pensioners would take a cut to their pensions to give more money to the young now that the over 80s have a higher standard of living than those in their 20s.

 

They don't need to cut pensions to give money to the young as its a classic case of plenty of money about but not being distributed correctly. The benefit cuts were supposed to save money but all that is happening is that it gets spent elsewhere. The new home initiative that giving 20% off for new buyers has to be paid for somehow.

 

Too many young are unemployed, if you want to encourage them to vote then give them proper paying jobs and a sense of empowerment.

[websters gue]

.....................

Edited March 1, 2015 by websters gue

[Tommo68]

I agree voting should be made compulsory but there should be the option to vote for 'none of the above' and it should be made clear to voters that making that selection is a protest vote that carries far more weight and much less ambiguity than just not voting.

 

Until we have such option I would advocate not encouraging young people to vote as it appears that in the past a lot of young people rather misguidedly vote labour.

 

Unfortunately is seems to be impossible to educate people properly about voting and the consequences of their choices. Education about voting is certainly not something that should be left to teachers as the two main teaching unions appear to be encouraging their members to note labour, which is surprising given that they are expected to be intelligent people.

.

[biotechpete]

You seem to be part of the Daily Mail generalisation brigade. Only around 2% of people now 65 have an occupational pension and the majority of pensioners (95%) are without one. Mainly because the greater % are women who never paid in and were classed as housewives. The state pension is all they get.

 

 

 

They don't need to cut pensions to give money to the young as its a classic case of plenty of money about but not being distributed correctly. The benefit cuts were supposed to save money but all that is happening is that it gets spent elsewhere. The new home initiative that giving 20% off for new buyers has to be paid for somehow.

 

Too many young are unemployed, if you want to encourage them to vote then give them proper paying jobs and a sense of empowerment.

 

I've never read the Mail. I try to base my opinions on facts. Facts like 79% of pensioners have a personal or occupational pension.

 

http://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/pension-facts/pension-facts-tables/private-pensions-table-14

 

They receive an average of £388/week. In fact pensioners income has risen to record levels. Pensioners on average earn 5% more than working house holds.

 

At the same time house ownership among the under 30s has halved in the last 20 years and the average income in their age bracket has fallen by 13%.

 

Sometimes the truth hurts.