“We’re Young. We Vote!”

In September, along with several of my classmates, I joined in hosting a voter’s drive on-campus to get the local community of Wilkes-Barre and Wilkes University students, faculty, and staff to register to vote. While we were basically focusing on our fellow college students, anyone was welcome to register to vote or to update their information such as address or party. In the second part of our “We’re Young. We Vote!” campaign, we held a statewide televised focus group in which we wanted to find out what was important to young voters. In the last election, 47% of our age group, 18-24, came out the polls, which was a significant increase from the election in 2000. Typically only 25% of the 18-24 age bracket comes out to the polls. However, with the recent debates on global warming, gay marriage, and most importantly the War in Iraq, I believe that the 18-24 year olds will experience another boost at the polls.

The young vote will come out to the polls in 2008 for a bigger reason than the typical politician or American citizen might think. Yes, we want change in our government. We are sick of going to war for the sake of going to war. We are tired of being denied financial aid. We are tired of being judged by the romantic partners we choose to have. We are tired of seeing the signs of global warming being ignored. We will vote in 2008 with the hopes of our government will change for the better.

Some politicians are already noticing this. Politicians are reaching out to college students in a new technological savvy way. The online community website, Facebook, which recently has allowed public access, has become a new medium to target voters. Facebook, before it was public, was a community specifically for college students to have online profiles and groups. Several politicians, taking advantage of this new public domain, have now registered profiles. This allows the web-based college student to learn more about their politicians without looking on their websites. Because, let’s face it not every voter is an educated one. Some politicians who have gone on this virtual bandwagon include Senator Joe Biden, Senator John McCain, and Senator Barack Obama. While searching online to find their profiles, I came across several support groups and some not-so-friendly support groups created by various college students. Facebook has now defined a new era in online campaigning.

Another way politicians are reaching out to the younger voters is through online blogs. Blogs, such as the one we run here ourselves, are becoming a new way to target public interest. It is quite a necessity these days to have a blog on their website that will include statements, such as the ones we post, that summarize their feelings on issues. These blogs allow the public to get to know their candidates a little bit better before heading to the polls, and it also allows them to talk about a lot more issues on hand. Before, we had blogs, we had debates that were only limited to the “hot topics” and no one really wants to read the long never-ending text where every politician stands on these issues. Let’s face it, half of the time we could not even understand what the politician was trying to say! With the politicians starting to post, it makes their campaigns more accessible to a younger audience, who spend a good amount of their day online.

So that leaves me to this – if politicians are now starting to target the younger vote why doesn’t the rest of the country take us seriously? In the next 20 years, we will be the ones running for office, making policies and laws, and deciding if we go to war. Wouldn’t you want that future politician voting and getting their voice heard now? I know, I would.

Cheryl Gressley '08

Wilkes University
Communication Studies Major

Do We Need a 24 Month Presidential Campaign? YES!

Imagine enduring only six weeks of campaigns before voting for the President of the United States. The idea appeals to many Americans as we sit here in February 2007 with over 20 candidates already announced for the 2008 race. But I believe it would be a horrible idea to rush a race for U.S. President.

Let’s say the Presidential campaign begins March 1 and ends April 15. Short campaigns are sufficient for governments such as the British Parliament because on the surface elections are less expensive, less likely to breed negative campaigning, and less likely to lose the public’s interest. But it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right idea for America. It may seem appealing at first glance, but this is not the right direction. Lesser known candidates’ stand little chance when trying to compete and the public has little time to fully evaluate each candidate’s issues. We need sufficient time to pick our leader and to understand their issues extensively. It takes time for leadership to emerge, especially on the national scene.

We know the popular presidential candidates and the persuasive ones, but what about the lesser known candidates? Having shorter campaigns allows those popular and persuasive candidates to hold their voters’ attention a lot easier without as much effort that would be required in a longer campaign, that is a negative effect. A longer campaign gives lesser known candidates a fighting chance, and makes our country more democratic. Herbert G. Klein, writing for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, supports my argument when he provides an important fact that Jimmy Carter was “a little-known governor and peanut-farmer who went on a two-year, nonstop campaign and upset all odds in winning his party’s nomination and eventually the presidency.”

If we compare picking the President based on persuasive ability within a six week time frame with the idea of picking a spouse based on beauty, then you can better understand my argument. The beautiful suitors would be the popular choice, but we all know that for a long term marriage to work, you need to understand what that person is about more than how beautiful they may look. That is what the result would be if we elected our next President within six weeks. We would select a person with the best image on first impression and have a vague idea of their issues. In a traditional race we begin to see flaws in their arguments over a lengthier period of time.

Although American attention spans are getting smaller, maybe it’s because the candidates are not exciting enough. There will be more people focused on who our next President will be for at least two reasons: our current situation with the War in Iraq and because a woman and African-American have legitimate shots at winning. This race could be historic and fun.

We need sufficient time to pick our leader, to understand their issues extensively, regardless of their attention span. Many people continuously swing their vote from one moment to the next which allows better candidates to emerge due to the competitive field. Randolph T. Stevenson and Lynn Vavreck, researcher for the British Journal of Political Science, tested 113 elections in thirteen democracies, and concluded that campaign length does matter for voter learning. They specifically state that “in campaigns of sufficient length voters may have more time to be exposed to competing campaign messages and to learn about the true state of the economy and the true policy positions of candidates”. We cannot sacrifice knowing each candidates issues extensively. It would be too risky for our country, and especially when we put the elction in context our current situation.

Referring back to my idea on marital relationships, when you meet someone for the first time, do you really believe you know them well within six weeks? It takes more than six weeks to be considered credible. Electing our next President within six weeks would direct our decision making towards the candidate who persuades us now. We could find out later that they have flaws that we just can’t stand, and does the current President ring a bell?

You wouldn’t choose your spouse within six weeks (unless it’s a reality television show, and we know how successful they are!). Therefore, why settle for electing the President of the United States in that short period of time? That can have catastrophic effects! Six weeks is too risky. If time lets us know that a certain person might be the one for us in loving terms, then lengthier elections will allow Americans a chance to vote for the candidate they truly feel is the right person.

Jamie Gwynn '09
Wilkes University
Communications Studies Major