Candidates are paying attention to us

If there is one thing we can learn from the Iowa caucus, it is that the outcome of the race for the White House depends on young voters, perhaps more now than in previous elections.

According to the Iowa entrance polls, almost 25 percent of Democratic caucus voters were under the age of 30. That is an increase of 11 percent compared to the 2004 caucus when only 14 percent of Democratic voters were under 30.

Yet media analysts inform us that the number of young voters has significantly decreased within the last decade, either due to apathy or a lack of appealing candidates.

Thus, it is important to understand why the number of young voters increased in the caucuses and how we can use this new attention to our advantage.

The 2004 elections thrived on the ideas of fighting terrorism and which candidate would best bring democracy to a war-torn Middle East. Such issues neither addressed the domestic economic crisis at home nor the needs of future generations in pursuit of better health care and public education for their children.

The Iowa caucus this year was based on another platform. It has already become apparent that the candidates appealed to the younger generation. The speeches made in Iowa centered on health care, the economy, and environmental issues facing the nation.

Candidates are realizing more and more that reaching out to younger voters is a must if they are to lead in the polls. Even Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, whose campaign has revolved around immigration reform, spent considerable time talking about promoting “science and innovation” in public schools and universities.

The topics concerning education and child health care ““ both issues concerning younger voters ““ were once again the Democrats’ main focus during the New Hampshire debates. The least talked-about issue was the war in Iraq.

Staying close to domestic issues, particularly ones that affect the younger generations, is what helped Democratic hopeful Sen. Barack Obama win the Iowa race over his major competitor Sen. Hillary Clinton. While Clinton campaigned about the importance of experience in a political leader, Obama targeted the need for change. Stating that the future of the environment depended on the education of younger generations, Obama made a direct appeal to younger voters by including them as a large influence on the future of the United States.

Unlike Obama, rival Republican candidates such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee decided to battle out foreign policy issues, including the continuing war in Iraq and potential threats such as Iran. Although Huckabee managed to win the Republican side of the Iowa battle, voters in the state demonstrated that their primary concerns lie with domestic problems.

Presidential candidates’ speeches are not the only attempts at gaining young voters’ attention. Facebook, whose fastest-growing user demographic is those 25 years and older, sponsored the New Hampshire debates that aired on ABC.

With an increase in younger people voting in the caucus, newer issues will come to the forefront of this year’s campaigning. Candidates understand that younger voters’ needs must be addressed. Thus, we should use candidates’ dependency on our votes to our advantage.

If college students and those considered as part of the “younger” voting population participated more in political events and debates this election, we would be more likely to be successful at drawing attention to the issues we are concerned with.

While the Iowa caucus may have named “winners” and pointed to candidates that showed a stronger following in that particular state, it does not determine who the ultimate winner will be.

New Hampshire voters, for instance, tend to be less extreme when it comes to taking a position on the political spectrum. They also seem to care less about the role of religion in politics. Thus, their voice will be of importance in determining which issues are addressed later on.

California residents and students, along with young voters in about two dozen other states, will have their chance to voice their preferences on Feb. 5. So if you did not like the outcome of the Iowa caucus, make sure that your vote goes toward obtaining the change you want.

By voting, we young people can no longer be accused of apathy or disinterest in the political arena. Instead, we can say we voted and strived for change. And if we do not get what we hoped for, at least we will have a right to complain.

If you have a reason to vote this election, e-mail Tehrani at [email protected]. Send general comments to [email protected].