Huh? The poll was about Supreme Court Justices that people don't even vote directly for, not governors.
I also didn't argue at all that young people not voting is an indicator of support. It's an indicator of apathy. Who they vote for is the clearest indicator there could possibly be of what they support. Since most of the electorate is younger than the fairly arbitrary age 60 cut off mentioned, it's simply a fact that if people of that age were bothered by the fact that older people represent them, that trend would stop immediately.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RainMaker
They probably don't vote because there is noone they care to vote for. The system is setup so that it is very hard to get candidates who would appeal to younger voters.
|
Seriously? At the start of the primary cycle when there isn't an incumbent you've got 15-20 presidential candidates. And there's nothing about the system stopping there from being more. You're telling me people are looking at all of them with the wide variety available and saying 'they're all the same, I don't care who wins'? I mean if that's the case it surely can't be true that it's important to them at all to have a younger nominee, because there's a spectrum of ages represented. But it's just absurd on it's face to claim that these people are being disenfranchised in a system where it's actually quite easy to get on the ballot.