Why Young Voters Are Ignoring Mainstream Politics

[Celerity]

Political parties are failing to connect with young voters—can they rethink their strategies before it is too late?

https://www.socialeurope.eu/why-young-voters-are-ignoring-mainstream-politics



In a recent blog for a leading German newspaper, the president of the German Institute for Economic Research delivered a stark assessment of political parties’ demographic focus ahead of February’s snap elections. His conclusion was sobering: “We cannot afford the future right now,” he wrote, describing a campaign centred on massive redistribution from the young to the old. In other words, younger generations are footing the bill for older ones—regardless of the cost.

Unsurprisingly, this approach does not sit well with those under 30. It also highlights a deeper challenge: political parties must rethink how they campaign to meaningfully connect with young people. Understanding their concerns is crucial, but so is recognising that most political social media efforts fail to engage them effectively. In an era where most under-30s consume news primarily via social media, parties need to move beyond surface-level outreach and develop strategies that truly resonate.

Young Voters and Political Outreach

Following the 2024 European Parliament elections, we researched how parties engage young voters, particularly given the increasing reliance on social media and the success of far-right parties in mobilising young people. We sought to answer key questions: Are political parties using social media effectively? What strategies are they employing? Are far-right parties outperforming others in youth outreach? To explore this, we analysed Instagram and Facebook posts from political parties in Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Sweden—countries representing different political landscapes. Our study included far-right, green, conservative, and social democratic parties.

Policy Matters—But It’s Not Enough

Contrary to the belief that policy is too “dry” to mobilise young voters, post-election Eurobarometer data revealed that policy alignment with personal values significantly shapes voting choices. However, the issues driving youth engagement vary by region:



snip

[hlthe2b]

1. Is this what decades of avoiding mandatory military service/drafts does? (not that that is not a good thing)

There are always those who tune out, certainly--but even the '60s hippies generation was politically aware and vocal, given that the draft loomed for Vietnam. After 911, the upcoming generations were as well; even while service was voluntary, the threat was universal. So, is it the absence of mandatory service and ongoing wars requiring a draft that "allows" politics to recede into the background? Is climate change, lack of living wage, and dramatic wealth inequity not enough to motivate/scare this generation into paying attention?

Just asking. I don't know.

[LearnedHand]

2. Not sure i understand how the draft could be related to engagement with political parties

I mean it's fair to ask, but might it be a little like comparing apples and chainsaws? Also, lest we focus through the wrong end of the microscope, to horrible mix metaphors, it's probably better to demand that the parties explain why they're driving young people away than to demand that young people shape up and get with the parties.

[hlthe2b]

6. Conscription with possible deployment does tend to focus the mind. Think about it.

Perhaps you are too young to remember.

But regardless, I am aghast that you think young people bear zero responsibility for informing themselves about that which determines their (and every other person's) future. Have we REALLY come to this? Yes, I am disgusted at the implications of your comment.

Yet, I look at the leadership that came from the horror of Marjorie Stoneman Douglas and other sites of mass school shootings and other major inciting events in this country in recent years and realize that there are MANY of this current two generations who do not think as you suggest. Their leadership is impressive. David Hogg, Maxwell Frost--so many more whose names sadly I can't recall at the time. So, I am hopeful for that alone.

[Celerity]

3. Conscription returns to Europe?

The rise of the far-right, the demographic crisis and the war in Ukraine have brought the topic of compulsory military service back into the spotlight. In recent years, the debate has returned to many countries, from the Baltic states to those in Central Europe and the Balkans. With the major powers involved in regional conflicts that threaten to escalate, a militaristic frenzy appears to have spread around the continent.

https://voxeurop.eu/en/military-service-conscription-returns-europe



In May, Italy's Lega (far-right) led by Matteo Salvini presented a bill to introduce compulsory military or civilian service for all 18-26 year olds, lasting six months. Military service was abolished in Italy in 2005. The participation of nationalist parties in an increasing number of European governments, an ageing population and almost four years of the war in Ukraine have led to a strengthening of militaristic tendencies.

Today, several European governments seem intent on extending military service to meet growing defence needs and geopolitical tensions, for which of course the European Union bears its share of responsibility. Spain abolished compulsory military service in 2001, France in 1996, Germany in 2011, Belgium in 1994 and the UK all the way back in 1963. Iceland has no national army, while Ireland has never had compulsory military service. Now, however, the picture is beginning to change.

Considering conscription

In July, debate engulfed Germany on the reintroduction of military service, as well as the inclusion of women. The initiative was not taken by the Christian Democrats (it was in fact Angela Merkel who abolished military service in 2011), but by the Social Democratic Defence Minister Boris Pistorius, who pledged to reform the army after years of "neglect". Pistorius, a very popular figure in the country, announced a plan to increase the armed forces from 181,000 to 203,000. However, this will not be a traditional form of compulsory military service. According to Pistorius's plan, all men and women with a German passport will receive an official letter at the age of 18 inviting them to consider basic military service lasting six months, with the possibility of extending it to 17 months.

Young German men will be obligated to fill in a questionnaire providing information on their marital status, interests, position with regard to firearms, academic knowledge and personal health. For women, responding to this questionnaire will be optional. The German constitution provides that in special circumstances the government can ask women to serve, but not to take up arms. Germany is trying to replicate the Swedish model, introduced in 2017 and based on a selective process that does not involve automatic conscription based on age but uses special criteria to identify the most capable individuals.

snip

[hlthe2b]

5. WOW

[LearnedHand]

4. I'm very tired of that "indictment" about getting news from social medai

Especially since it's a focus-group-feeling term with no critical examination of what it actually means. *I* get most of my news from social media, but that doesn't mean it's like NextDoor rumors. It's because I subscribe to thoughtful writers and news organization I trust. Even good old DU is a people-powered algorithm that helps curate my news.

Let's take this to the extreme: "Young people get their news mostly through social media when they REALLY ought to be doing ... what?" What are we and researchers implying they OUGHT to be doing? Watching TV news? Subscribing to print newspapers?

[Sympthsical]

7. Curated news has become highly problematic

Because the curating often creates a use of sources that exist as a primary vehicle for confirmation bias, where narrative, perspective, context, and fact selection or omission are all put into service of partisan or ideological ends.

Any space on the Internet, be that Reddit, Facebook, TikTok, or DU is not going to give someone a broad spectrum of objective information from a variety of views. It's going to give either what the algorithm figures you like, or you're already inhabiting a space where only a very narrow and specific band of views are considered.

The end result is being not very informed, even though one has the impression that they're greatly informed by virtue of the amount of content they're consuming. People don't know what they don't know - and they're extremely protective of that not knowing. Ever tried using a Wrong Source here for information, when the facts are simple, objective, and direct? Might as well set the thread on fire and walk away.

One of the problems in younger voters is that their information is curated for them, and most of them don't really take measures - nor are they taught by education systems to take them - to interrogate their sources. Whatever pops up in the spaces they inhabit can become internalized via passive consumption.

And I don't want to knock just young people here. Plenty of older adults who should absolutely know better are just as bad - if not worse in some spaces.

People don't know what they don't know. Which has always been true. However, we're entering an age where people are really happy about what they don't know, and they will fight to continue not knowing it.

That's the disturbing part.

[leftstreet]

8. Information was curated for us long before social media

Ask any boomer about duck-and-covering from tHe ComMuniSts!

You raise interesting points, but I don't know what the answers are. The problem has always been separating the information from the viewpoints.

[Sympthsical]

9. Of course

And I hope it doesn't seem I'm arguing that there was some Golden Age of broadly informed intellectual discourse and dissemination happening. Our news - particularly in early television and the back half of 20th Century periodicals - was very tightly controlled out of political and cultural considerations.

With the Internet, there's just this really interesting paradox. It seems like the more information that becomes available, the narrower people's interests and consumption become. Part of it is tribalism and just plain human nature. I think actual education - engaging in critical thinking, interrogation of sources, and lateral reading - could go a way towards combating some of this.

But the Internet and social media in general just aren't set up for that. It just pushes content for people to consume, consume, consume. Doom scrolling, news notifications, algorithm suggestions.

And one big difference, I think, is that we're constantly being asked to react to what we're consuming. Instantly. In a virtual room full of people. If you were watching the nightly news or reading a newspaper, you weren't pushed to have an instant hot take or make any kind of response at all. You were chillin at home. You might make a comment about a story to a partner. Now there's a social currency to have a take - and to be seen having a take. On everything. Particularly among young people. Social media Presence (with that capital P) is valued. And not only do you have to have a take, you have to have the right take according to your social group. Because if you have the Wrong Opinion, you're about to get a 100 people jumping straight down your throat. Which incentivizes that insular conformity to confirmation bias.

Anyway. It's a fascinating topic I've been obsessed with for the past few years. I could go on all day (clearly).

[leftstreet]

11. All very excellent points

And yes, a fascinating area of study

I wish I knew more

As to your last point, indeed we're expected to have an instant opinion (on things we generally know little about), and yet I think it's the people-generated media of today itself that creates the threat to the ruling class controlled narrative that DEMANDS we have a "proper" opinion.

The instant access to so much countering information now freaks our overlords out. Imagine being a student in the 50s and thinking "I don't trust this whole Communism thing." You'd have to make your way to a library to even learn about it!

[LearnedHand]

10. I get it

But what are the options? Send them to traditional media who no longer have any obligation to ANYTHING or ANYONE except shareholders?

[uponit7771]

12. This and let's say legacy media was not profit driven the people currently reporting it are rich AF and don't relate

... to middle class America like they used to

People in progressive online channels are waaaaay more relatable and not tied to profit driven motives cause their revenue is comes from relatable data driven reporting.

[cadoman]

13. I'm not sure the medium really matters

For a long time people were mocked for getting their news from Comedy Central, but they have proven to be a very intelligent and informed viewership.

Meanwhile you have folks getting their news from TV, and viewers who choose CNN & MSNBC are informed but those who choose Fox are not.

With respect to newspapers, we see a lot of vacillating and an epidemic of both-siderism.

Social media is a mixed bag, as the quality of info received is determined by the users discretion and who controls the alg.

And of course DU itself is somewhat of a social media source, though we link exclusively to trusted, traditional news sources.

[usonian]

14. Both US parties are deeply indebted to the wealthy.

And it shows.