In November’s Merionite-conducted poll of over 400 students, nearly a third of eligible seniors reported not voting. Even among those who did participate, dissatisfaction was apparent, with 10.7 percent of voters reporting third party support, an indication of discontent with the established political order. Why is this happening, and what factors impacted voter turnout this election?
“This is the most important election of our lifetime.” “The stakes couldn’t be higher.” “Democracy is on the ballot.”
The 2024 presidential election was described, in the media and by campaigns, as vitally important. Take a brief scroll through the front pages of The Times, and you’d find a litany of articles proclaiming the dire consequences that hung in the balance. But clearly, these warnings weren’t working.
After peaking in 2020, voter turnout, particularly among Democratic constituencies, declined significantly last November. In Philadelphia, turnout declined in 56 of the city’s 66 wards—a meaningful change, given Pennsylvania’s status as one of the nation’s most important swing states. Among young people in particular—who despite making up nearly a quarter of eligible voters, comprise just 13 percent of actual voters—inaction prevails. Do young people just not care? Passion doesn’t seem to be the issue. Among those aged 16-25, a full seventy percent report feeling “very” or “extremely” worried about the future of climate change. On gun violence, 57 percent fear their school may fall victim to a mass shooting. Theo Schoenfeld ’26 attests to feelings of a “democracy in peril.” Rayoon Kim ’28 exclaims an intense fear of “religion’s involvement in education.” While the issues matter, some barrier, structural or mental or otherwise, separates political thought from political action.
Putting aside ideology, belief, and passion, there is the feasibility question. Is there some impediment preventing students from actually registering? In many parts of the country, alleged voter suppression has become an increasingly bitter point of contention in election law. In Georgia, lawmakers recently made providing food and water to voters standing in line at the polls a crime, a move which the ACLU classifies as racially discriminatory. Voter purges, where states attempt to remove deceased or otherwise eligible voters from registration lists, have been accused of similar bias. Whatever merit these arguments might have, they’re largely irrelevant to discussions of our state. For Pennsylvanians, voting hasn’t gotten any harder—in many ways, it’s easier than it’s ever been, with Governor Josh Shapiro having implemented automatic voter registration just last year. So young people care. And it seems like, at least around here, that care is pretty easy to put into action. So what gives? The jigsaw just doesn’t quite fit. We’ve got two pieces, both the same color, both edge pieces, both of which ought to go together, we think, both of which should go together, we think, but which never quite make that soft click of connected cardboard.
But shouldn’t high schoolers be able to forget about politics and enjoy their time? AP Lang teacher Aimee Ferguson doesn’t think so. “The good people of Montgomery County are paying solid tax money to educate citizens. We owe them a lot—we owe them an engaged competent citizenry. We teach you logic, reason, to make you capable—to make you have thoughts.” Engaged citizenry, educated students, logic, reason. All admirable concepts, but perhaps adjacent to the more transactional aspects of politics. At the end of the day, self-interest is one of the primary motivations for voting. What you get—or what you lose—is at the heart of the decision. And when it comes to personal gain and personal loss, perhaps the reality is that most LM students have no reason to engage. With a household income of more than double the national average, the evidence suggests that for many students, LM is insulated from the sort of impacts a president might have. Cuts to welfare are less alarming when disproportionately few families benefit from it. Changes to healthcare seem less threatening when most students have reliable insurance via their parent’s jobs.
The founding basis of a successful society of any sort is the ability to empathize with others even in plights which you yourself may not experience. In order to raise a student body that’s politically and emotionally engaged with the broader world, the apathy of self-interest must end.
Historically, youth engagement has been at the heart of political progress. During the civil rights movement, the protests, marches, sit-ins, and other levers of advocacy that brought change were built on a backbone of youth support. A few years later, it was organizations like Students for a Democratic Society that made up the bulwark of anti-Vietnam War activism. So what happens when the youth cease their activism? What happens to the youngest generation, the group most affected by the policies of today, when they meekly consign themselves to the roles of rubber stamps and doormats? Will the marches and rallies and bra burnings of tomorrow be resigned to our nursing homes?
