4 ms·

In 2000, the millenial voting bloc would have been like 1% of the total US voting population. Are you seriously laying the blame on 18 years old and not the 19

In 2000, the millenial voting bloc would have been like 1% of the total US voting population. Are you seriously laying the blame on 18 years old and not the 19 to 120 year old that make up almost all the votes? Also decisive in what way? Between Bush and Clinton? Or Obama and McCain? Trump or Clinton? Republican or Democrat? Why didn't previous generations make the "decisive" vote? Seems like whichever side you vote for, things don't get any better. Wars don't stop. And the rich get richer. But yes, lets blame those pesky 18 years old of 2000. Also, are millenials supposed to vote as a unit? I thought we were all individuals.

blacksqr 8y ago
> In 2000, the millenial voting bloc would have been like 1% of the total US voting population The presidential election that year was decided by less than 600 votes. > Why didn't previous generations make the "decisive" vote? Previous generations did make the decisive vote, in their favor. Millennials turn out to vote at the lowest rate of any age group, and so have missed their chances to be the deciders. > Also, are millenials supposed to vote as a unit? I thought we were all individuals. Millennials might be expected to vote their self-interest, in the aggregate. The linked article suggests the possibility that they could have done a better job at that.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Millennials turn out to vote at the lowest rate of any age group Probably not any more, since the subsequent generation can now vote and is fully within, while leading edge Millenials are out of, the 18-29 age group that has consistently been the lowest turnout age group. People are so used to conflating “Millenial” and “young adult”...
  - blacksqr 8y ago
    "millennials continue to have the lowest voter turnout of any age group. Only about 46 percent voted in the last presidential election; compared to 72 percent of the Silent Generation" [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-rival-boomers-as-a-political-force-but-will-they-actually-vote https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-riv...
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      Yes, from 2016 and using a definition of Millenials that went through 1998, so that “Millenials” was the age group including 18 year olds. (Which, if you click through to the cited source, you'll find out that the source has been revised to change.) This is just restating the long established trend, true across generations, that the youngest-voting age group turns out at the lowest rates (it would be interesting, perhaps, to compare Millenials against other generations voting patterns at the same age to separate out generational from age trends, but this is just misattributing a consistent age trend to the generation that happens to be in an age category at the time of the analysis.)
      - blacksqr 8y ago
        The first presidential election boomers were eligible to vote in was 1968. Turnout among 18-24 year-olds was over 50%. Similar rates in 1964 and 1972. [1] [1] https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The first presidential election boomers were eligible to vote in was 1968. 1964, actually, but only in Georgia. (Georgia lowered voting age to 18 in 1943, well ahead of the 26th Amendment.) > Turnout among 18-24 year-olds was over 50%. There were like four states with a voting age lower than 21, and only one with 18. And it was the height of the Vietnam draft (hence the renewed push for lowering voting age, which had its first big—but nationally unsuccessful—push during WWII.) So, you've got both external conditions motivating elevated youth vote and stats skewed so that the youngest part of the 18-24 range is underepresented in eligible pool, so it's mostly reflecting the 21-24 subset. But even with all that, and it may not be a big distortion: it's still the worst age group for turnout in those elections, and the movement between and immediately after those years follows general turnout the same way it does through the Gen X periods to the (relative) youth voting surge in 2004-2008, which seems to have subsided in 2012.

blacksqr 8y ago

> In 2000, the millenial voting bloc would have been like 1% of the total US voting population The presidential election that year was decided by less than 600 votes. > Why didn't previous generations make the "decisive" vote? Previous generations did make the decisive vote, in their favor. Millennials turn out to vote at the lowest rate of any age group, and so have missed their chances to be the deciders. > Also, are millenials supposed to vote as a unit? I thought we were all individuals. Millennials might be expected to vote their self-interest, in the aggregate. The linked article suggests the possibility that they could have done a better job at that.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Millennials turn out to vote at the lowest rate of any age group Probably not any more, since the subsequent generation can now vote and is fully within, while leading edge Millenials are out of, the 18-29 age group that has consistently been the lowest turnout age group. People are so used to conflating “Millenial” and “young adult”...
- blacksqr 8y ago
  "millennials continue to have the lowest voter turnout of any age group. Only about 46 percent voted in the last presidential election; compared to 72 percent of the Silent Generation" [1] [1] https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-rival-boomers-as-a-political-force-but-will-they-actually-vote https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-riv...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Yes, from 2016 and using a definition of Millenials that went through 1998, so that “Millenials” was the age group including 18 year olds. (Which, if you click through to the cited source, you'll find out that the source has been revised to change.) This is just restating the long established trend, true across generations, that the youngest-voting age group turns out at the lowest rates (it would be interesting, perhaps, to compare Millenials against other generations voting patterns at the same age to separate out generational from age trends, but this is just misattributing a consistent age trend to the generation that happens to be in an age category at the time of the analysis.)
    - blacksqr 8y ago
      The first presidential election boomers were eligible to vote in was 1968. Turnout among 18-24 year-olds was over 50%. Similar rates in 1964 and 1972. [1] [1] https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p20-573.pdf
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > The first presidential election boomers were eligible to vote in was 1968. 1964, actually, but only in Georgia. (Georgia lowered voting age to 18 in 1943, well ahead of the 26th Amendment.) > Turnout among 18-24 year-olds was over 50%. There were like four states with a voting age lower than 21, and only one with 18. And it was the height of the Vietnam draft (hence the renewed push for lowering voting age, which had its first big—but nationally unsuccessful—push during WWII.) So, you've got both external conditions motivating elevated youth vote and stats skewed so that the youngest part of the 18-24 range is underepresented in eligible pool, so it's mostly reflecting the 21-24 subset. But even with all that, and it may not be a big distortion: it's still the worst age group for turnout in those elections, and the movement between and immediately after those years follows general turnout the same way it does through the Gen X periods to the (relative) youth voting surge in 2004-2008, which seems to have subsided in 2012.