Ross Brannigan on the importance of young people exercising their DUTY to vote

As I am sure you are aware – if you visit YouTube every now and then – Jeremy Paxman recently interviewed “comedian” Russell Brand on his views on politics and voter disengagement.

Brand stated that he refuses to vote “not out of apathy”, rather “out of absolute indifference, and weariness, and exhaustion of the lies, treachery and deceit of the political class that has been going on for generations now”.

Mr Brand raised several interesting points of debate. He highlights the issue of disenfranchisement that is currently sweeping across the Western world.

Brand is correct: people are less likely to vote now than nearly any other point in history, in both the UK and USA.

As you can see from the above graph, turnout has done an oscillating downward dive for the past 50-odd years. This is bad news for several reasons.

So is it your duty to vote?

Answer: yes, of course it is.

In my opinion, if you do not exercise your right to vote, you are essentially destroying your ability to participate in the political process. The thing about democracy – that is both a good and bad thing – is that it is unbelievably “adaptable”, as David Runciman says. How is it adaptable? Because the democratic nature of it demands it to be pragmatic. Unfortunately, we are all up for grabs; politicians only have a job if we elect them. This means that they will fight tooth and nail for our hearts and minds and, therefore, vote. That is how it works.

Now the fact that they fight this battle is sort of a medieval way of society operating. Nevertheless. it gives us the opportunity to make our opinion heard. If you vote, you are becoming politically involved and, therefore, have a right to say how the country is being run. If you don’t vote, nobody is going to care what you have to say because you won’t be a loss if the politicians do not do what you like.

So, if you want to be counted: vote! This means you become one of those people who politicians will want to please so they stay in a job.

Who do politicians care about? VOTERS! If you do not vote, you’re not valued by them.

Now, speaking as a young person (and Russell Brand is always seen as a representative of the younger generation for some reason) it is easy to see politics as an old persons occupation and interest. However, with only 44% of young people voting, the situation is only going to snowball and get worse.

Traditionally, politics has been an upper-class, older man’s job. It has been in Britain since politics was born. In fact, the average age of MPs in parliament in 1992 was 50. In 2010 it was 49.8.

49.8! A 0.2 year’s difference! Appalling!

Because of this, I am unsurprised young people look at politics with a dismissive glance. But this is not going to change unless younger people get more involved in politics. If more people vote, more people who represent young people’s interests will, naturally, have a bigger chance in politics to make an impact and, therefore, will make politics a less gated community.

This is where Russell Brand is being ridiculous. He says he doesn’t vote in protest at the fact that politics is filled with lying, upper-class, old yobs. But that is not going to change unless people get out there and start voting for people who stand for their interests.

If more young people voted, more young people who have the caliber to stand as potential MPs will gain confidence and emerge to represent younger voters. It is a gradual process. Rome wasn’t built in a day, as they say.

Thus, more young people voting equals more young people standing for election, which in turn means a younger generation of politicians will emerge. From there it will only snowball, but in the opposite direction to the current situation. Politics will become an open platform, a democratic platform.

Democracy is not 44% of 18-24 year olds making the decisions for the 100% of their demographic. How can any person be content with having decisions made by a minority?

The video produced by Bite the Ballot this year emphasises how this small number of 18-24 year olds voted, and contrasts it with the 76% of over 65s who cast a vote.

Remembering about who politicians value; who are they going to care about? Yep, the 65+ bunch who voted. This means that the government will be passing legislation directed at keeping that 76% of older people in their pocket and not the 56% of young people who didn’t.

In terms of the whole electorate, just over 60% of people voted in 2010. That means the other 40% are getting no representation at parliamentary level. None.

Brand does raise another relevant topic: the idea of revolution. True, a revolution requires a large number of people who share an idea to take up arms and take action. This is something human; things don’t get done if you do not have help.

Cave men found this when they tried to kill a bear. One guy versus a bear equals one dead guy. Compare that with twenty cave men versus one bear; that equals one dead bear and dinner for all.

The same applies here: a minority of young people voting equals no change; a majority of young people voting means more representation and equality.

Of course, you might say “nobody stands for what I believe”. I would suggest voting for the party or candidate who you feel would best represent you. From there, you can become involved in pressure groups, petitions, referendums, etc. in order to influence the decisions that the government is making.

As I said, they value you if you vote and will see an angry group of thousands of people, or a list of a million signatures and think: “Shit. Going to have to change something here or I’ll lose the next election”.

Now we have established becoming a voter is massively beneficial, how do we start the process of actually getting the message to younger people.

The answer I propose: social media. Or, should I say, a more savvy use of social media.

The last General Election was dubbed the “first social media election” by the papers. This is true, but not in the way you initially believe. It was called this because it was literally the the first time social media had had a chance to be used in an election in the United Kingdom. In the USA, that first social media election was in 2008. This means that come the 2012 Presidential Election, America was already experienced in using the internet to encourage voting.

2012 is a good example of how social media can be used to target voters. Indeed, 30% of voters in 2012 were encouraged to vote in a particular way by what they were told by family and friends via social media. Small percentage, yet very significant.

Barack Obama has been hailed as the king of social media: he has a Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, and gets actively involved with his followers. In fact, over a two week study, Obama tweeted twenty-nine times a day, whereas Romney tweeted once.

If we then observe how young people voted in that election, we find that 60% of 18-29 year olds voted for Obama, compared with 37% for Romney. Could this be down to the enormously superior online campaign by Obama? It is very likely.

On top of that, Obama is younger than most politicians, and seems to understand the concerns of younger voters. Because of this, young people vote for him and they are represented at a national level.

You may argue that turnout in the USA is lower than that of the UK. That is a fair enough argument. However, bear in mind that the Americans are constantly being bombarded with politics in their daily lives. The federal system in America means they have local, state and national elections. At national level, they have to vote for 1/3 of the Senate every two years; elect members of the House of Representatives every two years, and vote for a President every four years. Therefore, I am surprised that turnout at national elections is not much much lower than 57.5%.

To conclude, I think it is pretty clear that it is your duty, first and foremost, for you to cast your vote. Cast a true vote, not a spoilt ballot. The act of voting is a democratic right you have been given, and with every right comes a responsibility. The responsibility you have it to exercise your right to vote.

We take our right to vote for granted in the west. People in the middle-east and Asia are protesting, fighting and being killed in the streets in their battle to gain the right that you are maybe not even exercising. They would die for what you have. You have a say, a say in who governs you.

It was not so long ago that we had a similar situation with the suffragettes prior to the First World War, just one hundred years ago. Women went on hunger strike, many died just for that right. Since then, representation for women at parliament level has increased. From there being just 9% of MPs being female in 1992, to 22% in 2010 is evidence that the right to vote provides us with the tool to make change. Yes, that change may be small, but it is in the correct direction.

Upper-class, old men have had hundreds of years to book their place on the chairs of the House of Commons so it is unsurprising that change is slow, but it is possible.

In 2014, people aged 16 and over will be given a chance to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum. This should be seen, not as a chore, but a chance. It is an opportunity for young people to have their voices heard on a national stage. When else will you be given that chance? Most likely never.

So, on the morning of the 18th September 2014, young people should seize the day and get to their local polling station and cast a vote. One that will directly affect their future and determine their lives.