Your Voice Blog

Giving a voice to 16-24 year olds

[yourvoteuk]

Protesting is not participating: Don't be lazy, use your vote

Young people don't vote because they simply don't realise how politics affects them. Most just see showbiz personalities like Russell Brand spout rubbish about 'fighting the corrupt system' with no real solutions, so they're led to think that gathering together to shout about their problems is the way to solve them. Housing, welfare, education, employment; these are all issues we talk about as young adults. But we're too lazy to read a manifesto, and instead make our political decisions on ambiguous, 140-character headlines. 

If you're 16-24, like me, and you want to make a more informed decision on the upcoming election, watch or listen to one debate on an issue you care about. Radio 4 and Newsnight are great ways to start. Find a statement from a party you agree with, and look into it. Replace the 10 minutes you might spend on the Daily Mail, looking at photos of the Kardashians in ill-fitting dresses, with a browse through the top stories on the BBC, Al-Jazeera or Guardian. It'll all follow from there. Once you realise that all the issues we moan about - rent prices, owning a home, tuition fees, the benefits system, a 'saturated' job market - are what politics is actually about, you'll be inclined to use your vote. 

Don't get disheartened by claims made by politicians, make an informed decision about the policies instead. If after reading this, you're still apathetic about taking part in the future of your country, you have no right to moan about what happens, or to make excuses for not being 'engaged' in politics. You're just being lazy.

By Karan 24

[yourvoteuk]

Being a Young UKIP Supporter

As a young UKIP supporter I am faced daily with barrages of 'jokes' that I am either racist or fascist or both. 

I wonder where has the political fairness gone? Why is it okay to say these things to me because I am politically minded; if you said that to anyone else there could be a big problem involving the law, but still you wouldn't even think of it. 

I think people of my generation have absolutely no interest in politics anymore. We are not taught it in school and unless you find out for yourself, we don't have any idea what is going on in the world of politics. This is why people, who have no interest in politics, still think it is okay to call someone racist or fascist just for supporting a party, which frankly is doing more and can make a bigger change than any other party at the moment. It is not helped that programs on the BBC and Channel 4 are hugely biased against UKIP and unfortunately allowing young people and the older to believe lies. Of course I believe that every young person should be taught about politics to stop this stereotyping happening and to get the lucky ones who are 18 actually want to vote as people like me are desperate and can't vote. 

By Tessa Bundy 16

[yourvoteuk]

Electoral reform, necessary or not?

Although in this post I shall try to write dispassionately about the current electoral system, my actual attitude is anything but dispassionate: but one thing I can say is, I am writing this post in the genuine hope of making a difference.

If you were not already aware, in the UK, we currently use the First Past the Post majoritarian system for our General Election every five years. For an electoral system to appear; sufficient; advantageous; and beneficial for democracy, it must allow the electorate to express their views on public policy, and the question is, does our current system really represent these views adequately? There are of course clear arguments to suggest that First Past the Post is democratic, based around its ability to provide localrepresentation and produce a clear outcome. On the other hand however, the disproportionate nature of the system means that on balance, it does not accurately reflect the views of the people which the government claim to be of most importance for our country.

So, as I have said, First Past the Post provides a disproportional outcome, and this argument never fails to embarrass the likes of David Cameron. It is a key downfall of the system because there is no clear link between the percentage of votes for a particular party nationally and the number of seats they achieve in parliament. I think the best example of this would be in the most recent election, when the Liberal Democrats vote went up, but the number of votes went down. Overall, they gained 23% of the vote but only 9% of the seats - what happened to that 14%? This can be explained due to the Liberal Democrats lack of geographically concentrated support because of the system being based on constituency elections as opposed to a national vote.

Another disadvantage to the system is also due to the fact that it operates on a simple plurality constituency basis and because of this, it creates a large number of constituencies where the elected MP has not even been fully supported by a majority of constituents - in other words, more people do not support the winner than do - convenient, right? This has been suggested by many, however Cowelly in particular highlighted that approximately 80% of constituencies have non-majority MP’s. Now, I don’t know about you, but that figure certainly sends alarm bells ringing in my mind and clearly demonstrates how undemocratic our electoral system is! So, effectively, when the boxes are crossed and the votes are eventually counted and verified, people are deceived into believing that their views are being accurately portrayed when quite frankly, they’re not.

Open your eyes! I apologise in advance for going off on my political disengagement rant, but surely this just further emphasises yet again another reason why people refuse to participate. We wonder why we’re experiencing a participation crisis - well, here’s your answer! (or, should I say, one of many…)

I should also add that First Past the Post has an inbuilt bias towards the larger political parties. You may say that this is inevitable regardless of the electoral system in use, but I would argue the opposite. With modern politics expanding, those who choose to vote have started to vote for smaller, influential parties. However, due to the system being primarily concerned with the concentration of votes in each constituency, this does not really count for much at all. Therefore, because of this aspect of the system, it alludes to the smaller parties finding it increasingly more difficult to win seats in parliament. For example, The Green Party have only ever been able to win one seat at its vote is not concentrated enough in each constituency. So, once again, this is undemocratic because people cannot gain representation when there are the more traditional parties dominating each constituency.

So, if the electorate chose to look beyond the typically adopted opinion of not voting, and decide to vote for a smaller party instead, they still cannot feel assured that their view is being represented adequately because only the big guys can win - hence why we call it a ‘two horse race’.

I’ve only really become interested in politics in the last year or so, and so when the Alternative Vote Referendum of 2011 took place, at 13-years-old, I didn’t really give anything much thought, let alone electoral reform. Looking back on the referendum results, it does seem that the country were definitely in favour of keeping the current system, maybe because the Alternative Vote system wasn’t suitable in their eyes… Although, in my opinion it does seem clear that the Conservative government at the time definitely played a huge part in campaigning and influencing the public’s vote significantly - nice one, Cameron. It would be interesting to see, 3 years on, if that result would have changed, or perhaps if the alternative to First Past the Post was not stated as part of the referendum. So, if the referendum had been something like: "At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should a different electoral system be used instead?"

I realise that I have largely failed in my aim to adopt a neutral tone. I suppose I haven’t even looked into the advantages of the system. I could discuss the simplicity of First Past the Post, or the clear outcome it always provides, but in actual fact the most recent 2010 election is actually an obvious example of where this was disproved. We could say that the coalition was just a ‘one-off’, but in actual fact, with the next General Election only five months away, the opinion polls suggest otherwise.

To sum this argument up, although First Past the Post is undoubtedly the most important and the most traditional electoral system in the UK, what is really important, is to respect the views of the masses and this can only be done through electoral fairness - where a party’s strength in parliament should reflect its level of support in the country.

By Victoria Asimaki 16

[yourvoteuk]

Politics 2.0

Since its birth around 2,500 years ago, the pillars of democracy have stayed fairly true. There is representation, a fair system of voting and a focus on dividing power amongst many rather than an all powerful leader. Not a huge amount has changed since those days, politicians still bicker. Opponents accuse each other of getting the facts wrong, being dishonest and simply not knowing what they are doing, as they have done for millennia.

However since the end of the 20th century a new tool has been available to politicians and activists the world over, and the influence that it wields has been gradually rising. I am of course talking about the internet and the advent of the digital age.

Most politicians today engage in social media, David Cameron tweeting from Cabinet meetings to Barack Obama regularly announcing policies on social media. It seem apparent that world leaders are now recognising the importance and wide reach of social media. This is the first small (yet important) step towards digital democracy.

By using these tools politicians are opening up their message to the huge numbers of people that won’t receive it through traditional news outlets. They’re also opening channels of communication with the electorate that wasn’t previously there. It is now so simple to send your local MP a message through Facebook to raise an issue or give them your feedback.

However I believe that this doesn’t go far enough. The full potential of a digital democracy is a long way off and at the moment seems limited to just communication. Plans are being made to introduce online voting in elections and I believe that to be an important step in the right direction. By making voting more accessible you not only make it more appealing to younger people to vote, it will also help those who struggle to get to the polling station on election day. Increasing turn out, particularly amongst the 18-30 year olds of this country is essential to ensuring we do not have a neglected generation of voters.

But the digital democracy needn’t stop there, large scale opinion polls and even referendums can be conducted simply and cost effectively. The digital age makes it feasible for mass participation democracy and by increasing that direct involvement you can directly tackle the apathy and disinterest that plagues the young electorate of this nation.

By Matthew Turner 23

[yourvoteuk]

Teenagers in the world of politics

The mention of politics to many teenagers nowadays is an easy way to disengage them and switch off immediately, ask them if they are aware of the fact that our country is being governed under a coalition and they’ll no doubt just try to change the subject. But ask them if they think they should have more rights when it comes to buying alcohol or cigarettes, or perhaps if they agree with being taxed at the age of 16 - then you’d never be able to have the last word. But hold on a second… surely that’s politics, as well?

This is not a way of getting at teenagers, I am one myself, but the question is, have teenagers switched off from the world of politics because they feel as though it does not concern them, or is it just because they are oblivious to it? Is it true that teenagers just don’t know enough about politics, that when the news headlines involve David Cameron or Ed Miliband they look the other way or switch over to the earliest soap? But, in my opinion, this is more due to the fact that teenagers underestimate themselves and turn a blind eye to the world of politics because they believe that it is too complex for them, despite debatable issues concerning each and every one of us.

That’s the thing about politics. You may think that it’s confusing, and that it’s not relative to us at all. But, this has really got me thinking, if teenagers can succeed in writing amazing, gripping and thoughtful pieces of work then shouldn’t we consider involving teenagers in the real political world? I’m not expecting David Cameron to be reading this, but if so, Mr. Prime Minister, do you think that we could give it a go? The bottom line is, as teenagers, we don’t get a say in whether or not the death penalty should be legalised or whether or not the UK should be a part of the European Union, but if we can show the world that we care about these things, then perhaps we might just earn a better reputation.

Many say that 16-year-olds should not have the vote because it doesn’t affect them yet; others say that they shouldn’t because they just don’t really want to. Is this right - are we actually bothered? Not many of us are perhaps. It would seem, then, that not all teenagers really want to vote, but here’s my argument, if we were given the vote, then maybe we would take on the responsibility to find out about what we are actually voting for and take it more seriously than many adults do.

Something that really bugs me, is that instead of being politically aware, many teenagers tend to listen to politics only when forced into conversations with parents or other adults who, naturally enforce their own views onto us ‘children’. In fact, many teenagers’ first and only exposure to the world of politics is through parental perspectives, leaving opinions to not be truly reflective of personal opinions. As a teenager who will be voting in upcoming elections (unfortunately not in 2015, missing the voting age by just one year - one year), I know that my vote will be cast only after long thought, watching many fiery political debates and paying very close attention to the news.

Although democracy is all about political participation, I would also say that when voting it is important that people understand who, and what they are voting for. Allowing teenagers to vote would not mean that it would be compulsory, but giving them a choice as opposed to none at all. We know that the UK is also suffering from a participation crisis because fewer people are getting involved in politics generally. For example, in 1959 there was a turnout of 80% and in 2010; there was a turnout of just 65%. Surely by allowing young people the opportunity to take part in General Elections it would help to increase this, so long as teenagers became more implicated to learn about political affairs.

At some point, teenagers must learn that there is more to life than Kim Kardashian’s fashion sense, or Lady Gaga turning up to the MTV Music Awards in a dress made of raw beef. In a world where technology has advanced to a new, unimaginable level; maybe checking their BBC News app in the morning instead of checking their notifications on Facebook is not too much to ask - I just hope this happens sooner rather than later.

By Victoria Asimaki 16

[yourvoteuk]

Why should we care about British politics?

Switching on your television, tablet or phone will inevitably lead to a barrage of information being forced down your throat. Often, much of this information is irrelevant and easily discarded. Perhaps 0.5% is read and retained. Sound about right?

  After a conversation with some of my closest friends (others in the 20-30-age bracket) I have concluded that articles discussing red carpet blunders and other such celebrity driven trash are wholly more likely to be clicked on than anything truly informative. Let alone something sitting beneath a political headline.

  I needn’t have completed this study however, as it was already painfully obvious. We have, as a society, become quite comfortable with the status quo. Everything we hear, everything we watch in the political arena has been spun so incredibly that it might as well be performing yoyo tricks. Why should we care? Where’s the authenticity?

  This so-called voter apathy is one of the main reasons that previously mocked right-wing parties such as UKIP have began to gain a steady stream of support. Their controversial policies have been misinterpreted for truth, integrity and change, when really they represent age-old prejudices, ignorance and collective hysteria.

  I should say, before the trolling ensues, I do support reasonable caps on immigration and stronger border control. I do not, however, support racism or scapegoating. I had hoped we’d evolved beyond this by now?

  Furthermore, the attacks in Paris and the North Korean Hollywood hacks should act as a reminder of the importance of democracy and freedom of speech in general. We should adopt a ‘use it or lose it’ mentality.

  This year and this election, let’s take a moment to think: what do I want from my country? In other words, what can my country do for me?

  Of course, we could deter to the argument that the main political parties no longer stand for anything and simply represent a blur of backstabbing and bureaucracy. However, even if you do hold this view, it is far easy to change something when you’re a part of it than being on the outside looking in.

  The British political system is the oldest of its kind in the world, the best example of democratic ideals and in a modern age. In a time where many enemies would attempt to take away our fundamental freedoms, it is important now more than ever to stand up and vote for our country. Let’s vote for our freedom. 

By Oliver Trimble 23