The youth aren’t politically disengaged, they’re electorally disenfranchised
The youth are, contrary to many common assertions, not the army of politically disengaged, lazy, self-indulgent TikTokers that many would paint us as. Indeed, in many ways, the youth are MORE politically involved than our older counterparts. 16-24 year-olds were more likely to engage in civic participation (48%) than those in the 50-64, 65 to 74 and 75 and over age groups (26-41%) (Community Life Survey 2020/21) and 18-25s were the most likely to be engaged in some form of political activity (British Election Survey).
The youth have no issues being engaged in political issues. When it comes to petitioning, rallying, contacting MPs, and issue-sharing, the youth are the most engaged age demographic in the country. And, frankly, by a healthy margin. But there is no doubt that the 18-24 age bracket is the most apathetic age group of voters when it comes to using their suffrage. The youngest age bracket consistently turns out less than the other age demographics. In 2019, those between the ages of 18-24 turned out to vote substantially less than those older than them. The starkest comparison was to the 65+, who had a turnout at a rate 27% higher than the youngest age bracket.
This is simultaneously peculiar and disappointing, given the political enthusiasm so many possess. It also seems an act of self-flagellation. The youth have the power to strongly influence the makeup of parliament, but if turnout remains as low as it was in 2019, the younger generations concede control of their destiny. Why is it that youth political engagement is high, but electoral performance lags significantly behind older demographics?
It is harder for young people to vote for a number of reasons.
Young people are more likely to face obstacles to voting. Young people are the ones who are going to be at university, going to jump from one job to the next, from studio to bedsit, from town to town. Young people have fewer constants in their lives. The young are far more likely to be in precarious employment, and therefore to face a situation where they face a trade-off between voting and earning. The young are also more likely to face transportation issues to get to a polling station in the first place; they’re less likely to be able to afford to drive, so more likely to be directly impacted by adverse weather, for instance. Voting isn’t as easy for the youth. It’s easier to abandon plans to vote if you’re called in earlier for your shift at a pub, or you’ve lost your polling card and aren’t sure where the polling station is, or you can’t remember if you’ve signed up for a proxy or postal vote while you’re away at university. Precarious employment, various addresses, and being unsure as to whether or not you’ll be at university or at home on election day; all of these things are more likely to cause a young person to not follow through with voting than an older person.
From personal experience, I was at university during the 2019 general election and was unsure for a while what my best course of action was. I was still in Nottingham at the time of the election, but it was 2 days prior to my return home for Christmas. Many of my friends had already left and had faced similar problems. Many made their decision too late to change their polling place and faced not voting. I decided eventually to use a proxy and voted in my home constituency. But it was a decision that required thought. If I, a man who is politically and electorally engaged, struggled with the logistics of where and how to vote, then what incentive would someone who isn’t as politically active have? What about those who don’t know their plans until the day before? And if someone can now get turned away at polling stations for not having a valid ID, voting is only harder, especially for the youth.
It’s clear that the young people are politically engaged, but this does not translate to mass youth electoral participation. So, what can we do about it?
1- Ditch the mandatory ID proposal:
‘Not having valid ID’, you say? Yes. Following the 2022 Elections Act, voters will be forced to show proof of a valid form of ID in order to vote. This must be scrapped. The provision requiring it in the Elections Act 2022 should be overturned. At the very least, should this not happen, we must drastically expand the types of IDs that are to be accepted at polling stations.
Student ID cards, 18+ Oyster Cards, and national railcards are all deemed unacceptable forms of ID under the bill, yet Oyster 60+, Freedom Passes, and Older Person’s Bus Passes are accepted.
This is ludicrous.
The provision disproportionately targets the youth, disenfranchising a group already disengaged from voting. 18-24 year-olds are already the age group least likely to vote. So why introduce such stringent measures to make voting harder for them? And in a manner that primarily impacts the youth? Voting should be made easier, not harder, especially for the young. Turning people away from a polling station to go and find their passport because their 18-25 railcard isn’t adequate seems scarily like American-style voter suppression.
2 - Automatically register voters:
The concept of registering to vote at all seems an unnecessary barrier to our inalienable right to vote. It’s one that many, particularly the youth, are actually unaware of. Many assume they are already registered to vote.
Automatic voter registration (AVR) therefore seems the obvious solution. Plenty of people, particularly the young, are unaware of the need to register to vote until it is too late, and others don’t understand how to sign up, or if they have already done so. By adding voters to the electoral roll automatically (if upon receiving a National Insurance number, or for instance), thousands are added to the register (‘700,000 with minimal administrative effort’, according to James and Bernal). AVR would ensure that everyone who wishes to vote would not have to worry about whether or not they are registered and wouldn’t have to concern themselves with signing themselves up. 18-year-old Ellis Bennett from Liverpool in 2019, who thought he had registered, would no longer be turned away at a polling station.
Most democratic nations already use AVR. And, along with being the right thing to do, it would save admin work for the Electoral Commission, and end up saving money in the long run too. AVR would eliminate a healthy amount of the confusion and grey areas that alienate many young people. It would mean those who move house would not have to reregister every time they move. It would mean a shift worker can simply focus on whom to vote for and when rather than wasting time on registering. An email pre-election saying ‘You are automatically registered to vote. You can vote here…’ would do a great deal to engage many younger voters who wouldn’t have been engaged otherwise. The Electoral Commission notes that only 72% of 18-34-year-olds are registered to vote, compared to 93% of 55+. AVR would address that imbalance, and while it wouldn’t enfranchise every single one of those 18-34-year-olds, it would boost turnout by a significant margin, as it has done in many American states, and in the Australian state of Victoria.
Much more needs to be done, and greater systemic change must take place, in order to maintain a truly politically conscious youth. The most fundamental systemic change is that more needs to be done on political literacy (as highlighted by Chante's excellent post). More must also be done to consistently turn out the youth vote. But fundamentally, voting should be easier, not harder. By ditching voter ID requirements, we can stop the disenfranchisement of particularly youth voters. And better still, with AVR, we can go better and empower hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of young voters to vote. That should be our goal, that should be our legacy. And it is an absolute no-brainer.
Francis Burgess, Graduate of the University of Nottingham doing work experience at Unlock Democracy.